- Email: [email protected]
Process innovation and the structure of the construction industry
Vol. 14. No. Printed ,n Great Britain
HABITATINTL.
0197-3975m53.00
23, pp. 63-65.1990.
+ 0.00
Per~amon Press plc
Process Innovation and the Structure of the Construction Industry MICHAEL A. BROWN Polytechnic of Central London, UK
Massive investment by the Japanese ~onst~ction industry in research and development demonstrates an unparalleled long-term commitment to technological advancement in construction. Both product and process innovation are being addressed by the technical research institutes of the major Japanese contractors, bringing new and novel solutions to bear on traditional construction problems. In contrast, the UK, with inferior levels investment by the major industrial participants,’ does not have a well-developed construction research and development industry. Nevertheless, product innovation is si~i~~ant, especially if the context is broadened to include Western Europe. Product development is led by materials, component and plant manufacturers, some of whom also operate as subcontractors in the industry. Product innovation can lead to process innovation, and, as a result, construction techniques have changed significantly over the past decade. A prime example would be the development of the technology of the steel framed building when used in conjunction with, say, composite floor construction, lightweight curtain walling, suspended floor and ceiling finishes, and demountable partitions and panelling. The faster-to-build, more flexible product has had a profound effect on site processes. However, process innovation through mechanisation has seen only limited development since the wholesale introduction of heavy construction plant -the tower crane, concrete pump, mechanical excavator, and other site transportation equipment - in the 1950s and 1960s. Few attempts have been made to introduce site automation, or to add computerised control devices to raise the efficiency of existing construction equipment. On the other hand, Japanese companies are fast developing robotics and advanced automation for application on site. As yet, most are prototypes rather than commercially available machines, however, intentions are well in advance of practice and the notion of fully automated construction is firmly on the R&D agenda. It has to be said that the robotic technology used in Japan is well within the grasp of British engineers. Why then has the development of automated site processes not proceeded at the same pace in the United Kingdom? Too often, British contractors are reproached for their failure to invest in R&D, with no recognition that there is little incentive* for them to do so. Within traditional forms of contracting the builder is a reactive party, working from given drawings and specifications, responding to instructions, and is not ’ Building and Civil Engineering EDCs, Sfrczregyfor CunstructtonR&D, NEDO, 1985. * Bowley, M., The British Building Industry, Four Studies in Response to Resistanceand Change, Cambridge University Press, 1966.
63
64
Mlc~ael
A. Brown
encouraged to participate in decision making, nor to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the construction process. This structure provides no incentive for the contractor to invest in innovative methods which in any way bear on the design of the product. Most significant R&D work into construction processes leads to some degree of design dedication. However, within traditional forms of contracting in the UK, the main contractor has no influence over the building design or the specification. There is simply no incentive to develop new techniques which cannot be applied because the design is not compatible with the production process. Any new technological development needs to be rapidly incorporated within a design so that competitive advantage can be gained. This argument moves the emphasis away from admonishing the contractor for failure to invest in R&D, to consideration of the very structure of our industry. It . is the organisational structure of the industry which fixes, for particular historical moments, the nature of the product and how it is produced.” However, the world has moved on, and new forms of building procurement abound. Is the incentive any greater in the new world for the contractor to invest in R&D? I fear not. Management contracting is intended to allow the management contractor to participate more fully in the design process. The contractor should be appointed early, certainly in time to influence the design in order to accommodate more efficient site organisation. However, the management contractor is appointed to manage, not to build. Those who build, the workpackage contractors, do not have any contractual right to participate in the design process. Given the future commercial availability of robotic equipment, the management contractor would not be a prime purchaser. Given the future commercial possibility of “design dedicated” robotic equipment, the management contract would not readily lend itself to its application. The Japanese construction industry is rooted in a design and build culture, and employs large numbers of in-house designers. With control over design, the Japanese industry is able to benefit directly from its R&D effort. It is through investment in R&D that companies are able to gain a competitive edge over their competitors. in their struggle to increase market share. The use of design-and-build contracts in the UK has been increasing rapidly. It has been suggested that this form of building procurement is now in excess of 20% of the total market. But with the growth of this sector, is there a greater opportunity to exploit the benefits of technological development? In a recent survey of 18 companies engaged in design and build work.4 only three contractors were committed to what has been called “pure” design and build,5 i.e. using only in-house designers. The remainder, either in total or in part, use external design consultants. In many cases the design is treated as another “package”, rather like packages of work that are subcontracted in management type contracts. In one notable case, the “design-and-build” contractor was appointed just before the work commenced on site. “Design-and-build” has become an expedient contractual arrangement in order to provide the client with a single source of responsibility during the construction phase of the project. In the short term, “pure” design-and-build provides the opportunity to design out potential production problems. (Japanese contractors will only build from drawings prepared by their own designers.) Continuous feedback from site enables designers to produce buildings achieving high standards of buildability. ‘Ball, M., Rebuifding Construction, Routledge, London, 1988. ‘Obika, B., Survey of Design and Build Controcrors, PCL, unpublished, 1989. 5Rowl~nson. S.. Deszgn and Build - tts Devefopment and Present Status, OccasIonal
Paper
36, CIOB.
Process Innovation and the Structure of the Construction Industry
65
In the longer term, future developments in robotics will demand control of the design by the producers. This is principally for two reasons. First, buildings are currently designed for labour intensive production. The introduction of robotics and machine assembly will require reconsideration of component size, handling capacity, jointing techniques, etc. Secondly, the future generations of robots will be driven directly by information provided by CADCAM systems, i.e. the building design information entered into the drafting machine will be processed by computer to directly control the process or assembly robots. Of course, clients can still benefit from a single source responsibility method of procurement. The modest goal of enhanced buildability can only be addressed through proper feedback, even when the contractor is appointed early in the preconstruction phase. The commercial incentive to invest in R&D can only be seriously addressed when the designers are regularly employed by the contractor, preferably as permanent members of staff. Contractors will argue that uncertainty and lack of continuity dissuade them from employing in-house design teams, and the “Big 6” Japanese contractors engaged in design and build are, indeed, much larger than UK construction companies. However, there are examples in the UK of smaller contractors engaged in “pure” design and build. It is often the larger design-and-build contractors that tend to use outside external design consultants or, in some cases, subsidiary design companies, citing uncertainty and lack of continuity for their chosen method of working. Until product competition and product differentiation become a feature of contractors’ marketing strategies, it is difficult to imagine British contractors moving towards major research and development programs related to product enhancement. Similarly process development, such as robotics and high level automation, will be retarded until contractors have much better control over the design and specification of buildings - design having influence over the process as well as the aesthetics and effectiveness of the product. BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, M., The Application of Robotics and Advanced Automation to the Construction Industry, OccasIonal Paper, Chartered Institute of Building, 1989. Brown. M., “Barriers to the Apphcation of Robotics and High Level Automation within the United Kingdom Construction Industry”, Proc. 6th Int. Symp. Robotics and Automation in Construction, San Francisco, 1989. CIRIA. Feastbiiity Study - the Applicatton of Advanced Robottcs to Civil Engineering and Construction. DTI, London, 1987. Wing, R., “Robotics in Construction - a State of the Art Review”, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part 1, 937-952, 1989.
HABITATINTL.
0197-3975m53.00
23, pp. 63-65.1990.
+ 0.00
Per~amon Press plc
Process Innovation and the Structure of the Construction Industry MICHAEL A. BROWN Polytechnic of Central London, UK
Massive investment by the Japanese ~onst~ction industry in research and development demonstrates an unparalleled long-term commitment to technological advancement in construction. Both product and process innovation are being addressed by the technical research institutes of the major Japanese contractors, bringing new and novel solutions to bear on traditional construction problems. In contrast, the UK, with inferior levels investment by the major industrial participants,’ does not have a well-developed construction research and development industry. Nevertheless, product innovation is si~i~~ant, especially if the context is broadened to include Western Europe. Product development is led by materials, component and plant manufacturers, some of whom also operate as subcontractors in the industry. Product innovation can lead to process innovation, and, as a result, construction techniques have changed significantly over the past decade. A prime example would be the development of the technology of the steel framed building when used in conjunction with, say, composite floor construction, lightweight curtain walling, suspended floor and ceiling finishes, and demountable partitions and panelling. The faster-to-build, more flexible product has had a profound effect on site processes. However, process innovation through mechanisation has seen only limited development since the wholesale introduction of heavy construction plant -the tower crane, concrete pump, mechanical excavator, and other site transportation equipment - in the 1950s and 1960s. Few attempts have been made to introduce site automation, or to add computerised control devices to raise the efficiency of existing construction equipment. On the other hand, Japanese companies are fast developing robotics and advanced automation for application on site. As yet, most are prototypes rather than commercially available machines, however, intentions are well in advance of practice and the notion of fully automated construction is firmly on the R&D agenda. It has to be said that the robotic technology used in Japan is well within the grasp of British engineers. Why then has the development of automated site processes not proceeded at the same pace in the United Kingdom? Too often, British contractors are reproached for their failure to invest in R&D, with no recognition that there is little incentive* for them to do so. Within traditional forms of contracting the builder is a reactive party, working from given drawings and specifications, responding to instructions, and is not ’ Building and Civil Engineering EDCs, Sfrczregyfor CunstructtonR&D, NEDO, 1985. * Bowley, M., The British Building Industry, Four Studies in Response to Resistanceand Change, Cambridge University Press, 1966.
63
64
Mlc~ael
A. Brown
encouraged to participate in decision making, nor to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the construction process. This structure provides no incentive for the contractor to invest in innovative methods which in any way bear on the design of the product. Most significant R&D work into construction processes leads to some degree of design dedication. However, within traditional forms of contracting in the UK, the main contractor has no influence over the building design or the specification. There is simply no incentive to develop new techniques which cannot be applied because the design is not compatible with the production process. Any new technological development needs to be rapidly incorporated within a design so that competitive advantage can be gained. This argument moves the emphasis away from admonishing the contractor for failure to invest in R&D, to consideration of the very structure of our industry. It . is the organisational structure of the industry which fixes, for particular historical moments, the nature of the product and how it is produced.” However, the world has moved on, and new forms of building procurement abound. Is the incentive any greater in the new world for the contractor to invest in R&D? I fear not. Management contracting is intended to allow the management contractor to participate more fully in the design process. The contractor should be appointed early, certainly in time to influence the design in order to accommodate more efficient site organisation. However, the management contractor is appointed to manage, not to build. Those who build, the workpackage contractors, do not have any contractual right to participate in the design process. Given the future commercial availability of robotic equipment, the management contractor would not be a prime purchaser. Given the future commercial possibility of “design dedicated” robotic equipment, the management contract would not readily lend itself to its application. The Japanese construction industry is rooted in a design and build culture, and employs large numbers of in-house designers. With control over design, the Japanese industry is able to benefit directly from its R&D effort. It is through investment in R&D that companies are able to gain a competitive edge over their competitors. in their struggle to increase market share. The use of design-and-build contracts in the UK has been increasing rapidly. It has been suggested that this form of building procurement is now in excess of 20% of the total market. But with the growth of this sector, is there a greater opportunity to exploit the benefits of technological development? In a recent survey of 18 companies engaged in design and build work.4 only three contractors were committed to what has been called “pure” design and build,5 i.e. using only in-house designers. The remainder, either in total or in part, use external design consultants. In many cases the design is treated as another “package”, rather like packages of work that are subcontracted in management type contracts. In one notable case, the “design-and-build” contractor was appointed just before the work commenced on site. “Design-and-build” has become an expedient contractual arrangement in order to provide the client with a single source of responsibility during the construction phase of the project. In the short term, “pure” design-and-build provides the opportunity to design out potential production problems. (Japanese contractors will only build from drawings prepared by their own designers.) Continuous feedback from site enables designers to produce buildings achieving high standards of buildability. ‘Ball, M., Rebuifding Construction, Routledge, London, 1988. ‘Obika, B., Survey of Design and Build Controcrors, PCL, unpublished, 1989. 5Rowl~nson. S.. Deszgn and Build - tts Devefopment and Present Status, OccasIonal
Paper
36, CIOB.
Process Innovation and the Structure of the Construction Industry
65
In the longer term, future developments in robotics will demand control of the design by the producers. This is principally for two reasons. First, buildings are currently designed for labour intensive production. The introduction of robotics and machine assembly will require reconsideration of component size, handling capacity, jointing techniques, etc. Secondly, the future generations of robots will be driven directly by information provided by CADCAM systems, i.e. the building design information entered into the drafting machine will be processed by computer to directly control the process or assembly robots. Of course, clients can still benefit from a single source responsibility method of procurement. The modest goal of enhanced buildability can only be addressed through proper feedback, even when the contractor is appointed early in the preconstruction phase. The commercial incentive to invest in R&D can only be seriously addressed when the designers are regularly employed by the contractor, preferably as permanent members of staff. Contractors will argue that uncertainty and lack of continuity dissuade them from employing in-house design teams, and the “Big 6” Japanese contractors engaged in design and build are, indeed, much larger than UK construction companies. However, there are examples in the UK of smaller contractors engaged in “pure” design and build. It is often the larger design-and-build contractors that tend to use outside external design consultants or, in some cases, subsidiary design companies, citing uncertainty and lack of continuity for their chosen method of working. Until product competition and product differentiation become a feature of contractors’ marketing strategies, it is difficult to imagine British contractors moving towards major research and development programs related to product enhancement. Similarly process development, such as robotics and high level automation, will be retarded until contractors have much better control over the design and specification of buildings - design having influence over the process as well as the aesthetics and effectiveness of the product. BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, M., The Application of Robotics and Advanced Automation to the Construction Industry, OccasIonal Paper, Chartered Institute of Building, 1989. Brown. M., “Barriers to the Apphcation of Robotics and High Level Automation within the United Kingdom Construction Industry”, Proc. 6th Int. Symp. Robotics and Automation in Construction, San Francisco, 1989. CIRIA. Feastbiiity Study - the Applicatton of Advanced Robottcs to Civil Engineering and Construction. DTI, London, 1987. Wing, R., “Robotics in Construction - a State of the Art Review”, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part 1, 937-952, 1989.