Challenges and Opportunities for Innovation in the Public Works ...

different evolutionary stages. Each of these stages has its own purpose, function, behavior,
players, barriers to overcome, dangers, and rewards.
Contrary to a predicable single metamorphosis process, one can envision an array of
T 2 principles variations for the different key players of the AEC industry. That is, one size
does not fit all. Therefore, each of the T 2 stages needs to be studied to determine viable
ways of performing it; I call this the development of "T 2 Flavors". Each flavor corresponds
to an alternative, yet plausible, way of executing each individual T 2 stage. Transferring a
specific technology to a specific AEC key player requires selecting T 2 flavors from each of
the T 2 stages; I call this the development of a "T 2 Mixin". It is a forgone conclusion that
technology-dependent "T 2 Mixins" need to be developed for each player in the AEC lifecycle
process.
The uniqueness of the flavors and mixins terms conveys the idea that there is not a
single answer for every firm and for every technology. Instead, developing a variety of
options is needed to customize the best combination that fits the idiosyncracies of a specific
firm. This is just like going to the ice cream parlor and buying a gallon of ice cream (nonfat
of course) made of one scoop of chocolate, two of vanilla, one of strawberry, and so on.
What you get is an ice cream mixin that suits your taste.
The AEC industry is at a crossroads. 'Where do we go from here depends a great
deal on where we wish to take the AEC industry, for if we do not care much, then it does
not matter which way we go.' 5 I have chosen an essay format style to summarize a few
Technology Transfer issues which in my opinion need further comprehension and
investigation. These issues with which I dealt are certainly not of my own creation or
postulation alone; they have been shaped by the contributions of many renown researchers
and practitioners over a period of time. The contributions made by Bob Tatum of Stanford
University, for example, have distilled formalisms, concepts and terminology which have
proven very relevant in our understanding of the intricacies and idiosyncracies of the AEC
industry players [Tatum 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, Hansen 1989]. Generic models of
innovation development and deployment and their adaptations to the needs of a research
laboratory have provided the underpinnings for subsequent studies in the areas of innovation
and technology transfer [Rogers 1983, Shaffer 1985]. Furthermore, specialized technology
transfer models for expert systems have validated and expanded previous formalisms and
models [Bonnett 1989, De La Garza and Mitropoulos 1991, 1992, Feigenbaum, Nii and
McCorduck 1988, Helton 1990, Hester 1991, Mahler 1989, 1991, Matsuda 1991, Stretton
1991]. Developers of state-of-the-art software technology, as well as organized consumers
of it, have also confirmed technology transfer and innovation postulations made by
organizational behavior scientists [Cleveland 1991, Bowlin 1991, Moorhead 1989]. It is
interesting to notice how Buddy Cleveland of Jacobus Technology, for example, uses as
much space in his newsletter articulating the upcoming visualization software for the AEC
Industry as the roots and remedies of fear associated with automation [Cleveland 1991]. I
5Quote adapted from Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll.
163