Innovation in Construction A Project Life Cycle Approach

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachDr Beliz OzorhonDr Beliz Ozorhon is a civilengineer. Her PhD workfocused on modelling theperformance of internationaljoint ventures in construction.She joined Salford Centre forResearch & Innovation in July2008 as a Research Fellowto investigate the ways howinnovation occurs in theconstruction industry. Herresearch interests mainlyinclude innovation, knowledgemanagement, strategiccollaborations, internationalconstruction, and project management.Mr Carl AbbottMr Carl Abbott is a SeniorResearch Fellow at theUniversity of Salford andManager of Salford Centre forResearch & Innovation. Sincehe joined the University ofSalford in 1999, he hasworked closely withindustry in the region, helping toestablish the Centre forConstruction Innovation andworking as the ConstructingExcellence Regional InnovationDirector. He is joint co-ordinatorof the recently establishedCIB task group on RecognisingInnovation in Construction.His current research interestsinclude innovation, offsitemanufacture, benchmarking,and ICT.Professor GhassanAouadProfessor Ghassan Aouad isthe Pro-Vice-Chancellor forResearch and Innovation atthe University. Ghassan isalso Co-Director of the £5mEPSRC funded Salford Centrefor Research & Innovation inthe Built & Human Environment,a visiting professor atUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia(UTM), and Fellow of the CIOB.Ghassan has spent the last 20years teaching and researchingsubjects related to the areasof Information Modelling andVisualisation, nD simulation,and process mapping.Professor James PowellProfessor James Powell isthe Director of UPBEAT &Smart City Futures. Hisresearch areas include spaceand resource utilisation,design methods, the productintroductory process, technologyand knowledgetransfer, multi-media forprofessional communications,partnering, culturalchange, action learning, theinformation superhighway andsimulation, including virtualreality.Contacting SCRIIf you would like to find out more of this project please contact any of the following team members:Beliz OzorhonResearch Fellowbeliz.ozorhon@boun.edu.trCarl AbbottSCRI Managerc.abbott@salford.ac.ukGhassan AouadPro Vice Chancellorg.aouad@salford.ac.ukJames PowellUPBEATj.a.powell@salford.ac.ukPam AllenSCRI Administratorp.allen@salford.ac.ukSalford Centre for Research and Innovation in the built and human environment (SCRI)University of Salford, 4th Floor, Maxwell Building, Salford M5 4WT, United KingdomTel: +44 (0) 161 295 2649 Fax : +44 (0) 161 295 4587 Web: www.scri.salford.ac.ukPrinting copyrightDesign and Print Group,University of Salford, Maxwell 100,Salford, M5 4WT, England.© Beliz Ozorhon, Carl Abbott, Ghassan Aouad, James Powell 2010All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photopying, recording, or otherwise without prior written permissionof the copyright owner. However, there is no restriction on the onward circulation of this report in electronic formprovided it is transmitted in its entirety.First published 2010ii

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to those who contributed in our research in different stages.Our research partner Centre for Construction Innovation (CCI) Northwest deserves special thanks.They provided the contacts for our survey and case studies.We thank all organisations and interviewees that contributed to our below case studies:n Cleveleys Sea Defence and Promenade SchemeBirse Coastal (Caroline Mottram and Dave Fazakerley) and Wyre Borough Council (Carl Green)n The Castlefields Estate Regeneration ProjectCruden Construction (Stephen Morris and Dave Woodward) and Plus Dane Group (Inger Leach)n Lancaster University County and Grizedale Eco-ResidencesUniversity Partnerships Programme (Bob Giles) and GWP Architecture (John Wybor and Chris Guyatt)n Cheetham Hill Tesco Eco-StoreVinci (Andrew Besant-Roberts)We also thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for the financial supportthat they provided for this project.iii

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachExecutive summaryThe construction industry has long been criticised for its conservatism and lack of innovation. But is this characterisationfair? Much of the innovation in the sector occurs at the project level and tends to be process and organization based.According to official statistics construction companies invest comparatively little in formal R&D, but rather adopt newtechnology and develop new ideas to improve their operations. Such innovations are difficult to capture with standardindicators which tend to be more suitable for technology intensive sectors. Consequently, more research is required to developappropriate metrics for the different types of innovative activities that are carried out throughout the lifecycle of construction projects.This report investigates the ways that construction innovation occurs and tries to address the difficulties in measuring this. Firstly, itintroduces the basic concepts related to innovation and emphasizes the importance of systemic innovation metrics that reflect thebreadth of the sector. It provides a list of indicators currently used to measure construction innovation based on a literature reviewand discusses the adequacy of these metrics. Then, it proposes a framework that analyses the innovation value chain (IVC) throughthe investigation of components of the innovation process including the drivers, inputs, enablers, barriers, tools, and outcomes.The IVC view considers three stages of innovation: idea generation, conversion, and diffusion. A questionnaire was designed basedon this framework and a survey was administered to investigate the innovative activities of construction companies. The findingsof the survey suggest that the contractors largely innovate to improve their processes and services; their innovations are mainlyorganization-based and incremental and driven by their clients. Although they are successful at generating ideas, they struggle todiffuse these ideas and convert them into products and services at the same level.The project level has been largely ignored in analysis so far; however it is the key to improving innovation performance. Thereport extends the IVC analysis at the project level, by adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, through the production of four casestudies. These case studies have been selected among award winning projects at the North West Regional Construction Awards2009. Interviews have been conducted with the key actors to track the collaborative ways in which the successful innovations havebeen generated and to investigate the consequent benefits of innovation at the project and company level. The reported cases areall examples of collaborative partnership among project teams and demonstrate a number of technical and organisational innovationsand good practices. These are grouped under four categories namely, strategic partnership, Modern Methods of Construction,lean construction, and community engagement. The innovative practices not only led to a number of project level benefits suchas reduction in duration and cost, improved quality and environmental performance but also wider benefits such as enhancedcorporate image, knowledge transfer to inform future decisions, client and end-user satisfaction, and improved quality of life.The findings of this survey are expected to illuminate further studies that will investigate the dynamics between project and firm levelinnovation that will help understand the role of different actors in facilitating innovation throughout the lifecycle of a constructionproject. The key lessons from this report are as follows:ivn To present a fuller picture of construction innovation, a wider built environment perspective should be adopted.n Much R&D activity is taking place that is not registered officially. More should be done to raise awareness of the R&D Tax Creditscheme to construction companies.n A representative range of measures for construction innovation needs to be created. In this regard, the Innovation Value Chainapproach to the measurement of innovation provides a flexible and simple system that can usefully be adopted alongsidemeasures that consider the economic, social and environmental impacts of innovation.n More research is required to better understand the complex relationship between regulation, innovation and business need toinform future policies.n The benefits of innovation can only be realised by fully understanding the components of the whole innovation process that isbased on knowledge acquisition, transformation, and diffusion. Our understanding of innovation and how it occurs in the sectorcan be enriched further by detailed work that brings together different theoretical perspectives on innovation that will enable thedevelopment of context sensitive ways of recognising and measuring innovation.

1 IntroductionInnovation is a complex and multidimensionalprocess that has received the attention ofresearchers in all fields due to its contribution toeconomic growth, competitiveness and quality of life.Innovation in general terms is the creation and adoptionof new knowledge to improve the value of products,processes, and services. Innovation in constructionservices has been recognized as a source of competitiveadvantage by the policy makers as well as industrypractitioners.The construction industry has always been amongthe driving forces of the economy, however it hasalso long been criticised for its lack of efficiency incomparison to other industries and its unwillingnessto innovate. The performance of the UK constructionindustry was analysed in the “Rethinking Construction”report (Egan, 1998). In addition to creating a ‘Movement forInnovation’ the report described how the UKconstruction industry, at its best, displayedexcellence and delivered the most difficult andinnovative projects. It is now over 10 years sincethe Egan report and the image of the industry aslacking innovation still persists, but is this image fair?This report aims to shed light on this basic question.3) The findings of this survey were used to guidethe next stage of the research that involved adeeper analysis of innovation and its associatedprocesses through the production of case studies andinterviews with key parties in selected projects. Four detailed case studies taken from winning projectsform the Northwest Construction Awards are presented.The case studies extend the Innovation Value Chainapproach to a multi-stakeholder project level. Throughthe case studies a comparison of standard measuresand perceptions against the reality of innovation as itoccurs at the project level can be made.The report attempts to provide answers to this questionthrough three approaches:1) Through an analysis of existing measures ofinnovation in construction, the report investigateswhether the measures currently used capture the fullextent of innovative activities in construction.2) The results of a firm level analysis of innovation inconstruction are presented to better understandcompanies’ perceptions of innovation. The analysis isbased upon a survey of entrants into the NorthwestRegional Constructional Awards and investigatescompany perceptions of innovation via an InnovationValue Chain approach.1

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle Approach2 What is Innovation?This section of the report provides a brief overviewof inn ovation, its importance to companies and theeconomy in general, and the various types andclassifications of innovation. Innovation is regarded as oneof the key factors contributing to national economic growth,competitiveness, and higher living standards and is atthe heart of the knowledge-based economy (OECDand Eurostat, 2005). However, there is not a single andcomplete definition of innovation. The UK’s Departmentof Trade and Industry (DTI) states that innovation is “thesuccessful exploitation of new ideas” and that “it isthe key business process to compete effectively in theincreasingly competitive global environment” (DTI, 2007).There are many attempts to classify different typesof innovation. For example, Henderson and Clark(1900) classify innovation as incremental, modular,architectural and radical depending on the degree ofproduct/architectural knowledge required to implement.In the UK the DTI (2007) state that innovation can takeseveral forms including product innovation (changes in theproducts/services) which an organisation offers; processinnovation (changes in the ways in which they arecreated and delivered); position innovation(changes in the context in which the products/services areintroduced); paradigm innovation (changes in theunderlying mental models which frame what theorganisation does). Phillips (1997) distinguishesbetween technological innovation and non-technological(including organizational and marketing) innovation.Technological innovations comprise implementedtechnologically new products and processes andsignificant technological improvements in products andprocesses. Organisational innovation in the firm includessignificant changes in organisational structures; theimplementation of advanced management techniques;and the implementation of new or substantially changedcorporate strategic orientations. Marketing innovation,on the other hand, is the implementation of a newmarketing method involving significant changes inproduct, price, and promotion strategy (OECD andEurostat, 2005).The White Paper explicitly recogniesthe importance of forms of innovationbeyond the invention of new (technological)products and points out the “changing face of innovation”that includes services, business processes and models,marketing and enabling technologies (DIUS,2008). Research and development is not a goodindicator of innovation or knowledge generation in manyservices sectors; high levels of innovation activity areoften not based on R&D expenditures (NESTA, 2008)unlike the case in manufacturing. Construction is partlymanufacturing and partly services, so constructioninnovation needs to be investigated taking into accountits unique nature.Construction is a very diverse sector and there is notone single way in which innovation occurs. It willvary throughout the supply chain and project stages,and just as innovation will mean different things todifferent economies, so it is equally important to realisethat the challenge and meaning of innovation for a smallspecialist sub-contractor will almost certainly be verydifferent from that of a multinational constructioncontractor (Abbott et al., 2008). As Blayse andManley (2004) stated, building and construction is partlymanufacturing (materials, components, equipment)and partly services (engineering, design, surveying,consulting, and management) industry. Therefore, theorganisational context of construction innovationsdiffers significantly from a great portion ofmanufacturing innovations (Slaughter, 1998).Innovation differs in every sector and patterns ofinnovation in manufacturing differ from those inservices (DTI, 2007). Organisational change often drivesinnovation in services (NESTA, 2008). ‘InnovationNation’ White Paper (DIUS, 2008) presents a broad vision ofinnovation and its importance not only to manufacturingbut also for services, the creative industries, the publicsector and the third sector.2

is excluded from the analyses in industry-based surveys.Architectural and engineering consulting firms that carryout most of the design work in construction, typicallythe most innovation in construction, are also excludedfrom the standard construction industry innovationclassifications. This point is developed further byBarrett et al. (2007) who point out that the standarddefinition of construction does not include much of theinnovation rich and value-adding constructionactivity such as manufacturing, architectural andtechnical consultancy, business services, and realestate activities. The built environment cluster analysisprovides a wider approach to analyse the operations andfunctions of the construction sector within the overalleconomy of a country (Carassus et al., 2006).Adopting a built environment view helps analyse the majoreconomic activities of manufacturing, production, assetmanagement, project management, distribution, andservices. A similar approach was adopted in one of thestudies (Reichstein et al., 2005) that included all firmsin traditional construction as well as the firms involvedin architectural activities, urban planning and landscapedesign, quantity surveying and engineering consultancyand design activities in the variable broad constructionsector.It is possible to apply the basis of Milbergs’s (2004)framework and investigate the innovation process inconstruction at the business level. Based on an extensiveliterature review, Table 1 presents a list of metrics forinputs, contextual variables, implementation, outputs,and impacts of innovation at the construction firm level.Table 1: Measures of innovation at firm level (Ozorhon et al., 2009)InputsContextual (institutional)variablesImplementation(processes/activities)R&D spendingNumber of R&D projectsNumber of ideas or conceptsNumber of people actively devoted to innovationSources of information (internal and external)Capital (investment in ICT, purchase of software and equipment)Networks (technology alliances)Organizational factors (company structure, culture, organizational learning, resources)Country related factors (political, economic, regulations, public policies, socio-cultural conditions)Industry-related factors (fragmentation, competitiveness, technological advancement,project-based, lack of an agenda, no of parties, legal issues )Tools, techniques, strategies (knowledge management, human resources, IT and R&D, design,marketing, distribution, business process reengineering)OutputsNumber of new products introduced/commercialized/exportedNumber of new processes/services introducedIntellectual property (patents, trademarks, designs)ImpactsRevenue growth due to new products or servicesShort and long-term profitabilityIncrease in organizational effectivenessIncrease in technical capabilityImprovement of service/product quality/processesImprovement of organizational structureImprovement of human resourcesMarket penetration and growthBetter company imageInnovation collaborationsImprovement of client satisfaction5

4. A Survey of Construction Innovation at the Firm-LevelIn order to develop measures for innovation that areappropriate to particular sectors it is necessary tounderstand the sectors own view of the significanceof innovation and how and why it does (or does not)occur. To this end, this section of the report presentsan analysis of innovation at the firm level that is theresult of a survey of entrants for the 2009 NorthwestRegional Construction Awards. The entrants for theawards provide and interesting sample for analysis as,by definition, they believe themselves to be at the forefrontof current practice. The survey itself used an InnovationValue Chain (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007) approachso that although the survey considers innovationfrom a firm-level it considers all stages in the process ofdeveloping new ideas, putting these ideas into practiceand diffusing successful practice to the wider organisation.4.1 The innovation value chainThe stages of innovation have been classified invarious ways by different authors. Rogers (2003)offers five stages namely, knowledge, persuasion,decision, implementation and confirmation. Wolfe (1994)suggests ten stages including idea conception,awareness, matching, appraisal, persuasion, adoptiondecision, implementation, confirmation, routinization,and infusion.Tangkar and Arditi (2000) proposed asix-phase labyrinth of innovation, where the flow ofsuccessful innovation comprises need, creation,invention, innovation, diffusion, and adoption.Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) on the other hand presentsinnovation as a sequential, three-phase process thatinvolves idea generation, idea development, and thediffusion of developed concepts that includes sixcritical tasks namely, internal sourcing, cross-unit sourcing,external sourcing, selection, development, andcompanywide spread of the idea. In their classification,the whole process is referred as the IVC. The first phaseis to generate ideas that can happen inside a unit, acrossunits in a company, or outside the firm; the second phaseis to convert or select ideas for funding and developingthem into products or practices; and the third is to diffusethose products and practices. Similarly, Roper et al.(2008) model IVC as a recursive process that has threemain links such as ‘knowledge sourcing’ to assembleknowledge necessary for innovation, ‘knowledge transformation’to translate knowledge into physical innovation,and finally ‘knowledge exploitation’ to improve theenterprise performance. The IVC offers a tailored andsystematic approach to assessing firm-level innovationperformance (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007). It is possibleto apply the basis of the IVC framework and investigatethe innovation process at the project level as wellas the firm level. Table 1 shows the links of value chainand key questions to measure each link.Table 2: The innovation value chain at firm-level (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007)IDEA GENERATIONCONVERSIONDIFFUSIONIn-houseCross-pollinationExternalSelectionDevelopmentSpreadCreationwithin a unitCollaborationacross unitsCollaborationwith partiesoutside the firmScreening andinitial fundingMovement fromidea to first resultDisseminationacross theorganisationKeyquestionsDo people inour unit creategood ideas ontheir own?Do we creategood ideas byworking acrossthe company?Do we sourceenough goodideas from outsidethe firm?Are we good atscreening andfunding newideas?Are we good atturning ideas intoviable products,businesses, andbest practices?Are we good atdiffusingdeveloped ideasacross thecompany?7

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle Approach4.2 Innovation framework forconstructionFigure 1 shows the proposed innovation framework, thispaper has adopted, where the stages of innovation aredetermined as ideas, conversion, and diffusion based onthe IVC by Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007). In this model,based on the level of innovation capacity, ideas are generatedthrough the acquisition of necessary knowledgeand investment; these ideas are converted into product/process/service innovations within the company; finallythese innovations are exploited to achieve performancebenefits and impacts.An innovation event, in the form of a new product orprocess, represents the end of a series of knowledgesourcing and translation activities and also the beginningof a process of value creation which may result inan improvement in the performance of the innovatingbusiness (Roper et al., 2008). The organisations employa number of tools, techniques and strategies throughoutthe whole process and external factors such as drivers,barriers and enablers determine the effectiveness ofcreation and diffusion of innovation. In this respect, itcan be stated that Milbergs’s (2004) framework at thenational level is adapted for the construction industryto analyse firm level innovation process. The overall innovationperformance is determined by the success ofthe IVC together with the benefits and impacts achievedthrough the innovations.Figure 1: Framework for analysing innovation in construction8

4.3 The research methodologyOne of the major objectives of this report is toprovide insights as to how innovation is transformedfrom knowledge production, transferred into theconstruction industry and is diffused and embedded intothe normal processes of construction companies. To thisend, a framework for analysis has been developed basedon the innovation value chain (IVC) approach wherecomponents of the innovation process are definedwhich clearly focus on the internal and external determinantsand outcomes of construction innovation. In thiscontext, in collaboration with the Centre for ConstructionInnovation (CCI) Northwest, a survey wasadministered to the applicants of the 2009 North WestRegional Construction Awards that constituted a samplesize of 47. The awards entrants were chosen as they allbelieve that they are at the leading edge of constructionin the region and were willing to share their innovations,and so the sample should provide an insight intoperceived best practice. A total of 30 completedquestionnaires were returned resulting in a 64%response rate. The following questions aimed tomeasure the different components of innovation at thefirm level using a Likert Scale (1-5) for each question:n To what extent do the following factors create theneed for your organisation to innovate?n To what extent do the following factors facilitateinnovation within your organisation?n To what extent does your organisation utilize thefollowing external sources of innovation?n To what extent do the following factors help promoteinnovation within your organisation?n To what extent do the following factors impede theuptake of innovation within your organisation?n To what extent does your organisation excel at thefollowing innovative practices?n To what extent do you think the following actors driveinnovation within the construction sector?n To what extent does your organisation derive thefollowing outcomes of innovation?n To what extent is your organisation good at the threedifferent stages of the IVC?n Does your organisation have an innovation policy/strategy?n Does your organisation have a procedure to monitorthe success of innovation?4.4 Findings of the surveyThe major aim of this survey was to provide insights oncurrent innovation practices and performance of theindustry that would inform the case studies thatwere produced in the next stage of the research. Thequestions focussed each construction firm on thedrivers; internal inputs and external knowledge sources;enablers; barriers; innovative practices; benefits/outputs;actors; and innovation performance.Drivers of innovation: In order to understand whatdrives an organisation to innovate the question wasasked: To what extent do the following factors createthe need for your organisation to innovate? (1-5)Table 3: Drivers of innovationDriversPerformance (cost reduction,Meanproductivity, effectiveness) 4.8Environment/sustainability 4.7End-user requirements 4.6Technological developments 4.3Competition 4.1Regulation and legislation 4.0Aesthetics/design trends 4.0The results are intended to shed light on the maindrivers for innovation at the firm level. Unsurprisinglythe results show that the main driver is performanceimprovement. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that theenvironment/sustainability, and meeting end-userrequirements are close behind. This indicates thatalthough there is a recognition that successfulinnovation ought to bring improvement in its own rightbut even so it is often something that has to be doneto meet external factors such as environmental factorsor client/user requirements. These findings are similarto those found in other studies (e.g., Slaughter, 1993;1998; Gann, 2000; BERR, 2008).9

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachInternal inputs and external knowledge sources ofinnovation:The IVC begins with the generation of new ideas. Thefollowing two questions were designed to better understandthe actions/processes that organisations take togenerate new ideas and the sources of the new ideasthemselves.Table 4a: Internal inputs of innovationInputsMeanInformation 4.2Investment in training and education 4.1Number of ideas or concepts 4.0Establishment of networks(technology alliances) 3.8Investment in ICT, purchase of softwareand equipment 3.8Number of people actively devotedto innovation 3.6R&D spending 3.0Number of R&D projects 3.0The respondents indicated that provision of information,training and education, and generation of ideas and orconcepts are the main factors in fostering innovation. Itis interesting to note that R&D spending and projects arenot regarded as an important input as also suggested byNESTA (2006).Table 4b: External knowledge sources of innovationTo what extent does your organisation utilize the followingexternal sources of innovation (1-5)?SourcesMeanClients 4.3Partners 4.2End-users 4.1Suppliers/manufacturers 4.0Contractors 3.9Designers 3.9Consultants 3.8Conferences, workshops 3.8Research institutes/universities 3.7Best practice clubs 3.7Construction Skills 3.6Competitors 3.6Fairs, exhibitions 3.6Government 3.5Professional bodies 3.4Companies from other industries 3.2Facility managers 3.3Business Link 3.1Financial advisors 2.6Table 4a indicates that information and the generationof new ideas are the key factors in fostering innovation.Table 4b above examines the relative importance ofthe various sources of knowledge towards innovation.Significantly the top 7 sources of knowledge are all fromwithin the construction supply-chain, with the mostsignificant knowledge sources listed as clients,partners, and end-users followed by suppliers. This tends toindicate that the ‘pull’ for innovation in order to meetdemand is more significant than the ‘push’ towardsinnovation in the form of new products/materials fromsuppliers or new concepts/models from external sources.This mirrors findings by Dikmen et al. (2005), whoshowed that clients, consultants, and suppliers were themajor sources of knowledge that supported innovations.These findings points out the significance of the knowledgeapplication and exploitation subsystem that is proposedin regional innovation systems (Autio, 1998).10

Enablers of innovation:This question was intended to help understand thefactors that are seen as significant in enabling innovationwithin an organisation.Barriers to innovation:This question was intended to elicit from therespondents the main barriers to innovation for theirfirms.Table 5: Enablers of innovationTo what extent do the following factors help promote innovationwithin your organisation (1-5)?Table 6: Barriers to innovationTo what extent do the following factors impede the uptake ofinnovation within your organisation (1-5)?EnablersMeanLeadership 4.6Supportive work environment 4.4Collaboration with partners 4.4Deep understanding of the customer 4.3Education & training policy 4.1Knowledge management practices 4.1Encouraging staff to get involved withexternal networks 3.9Use of problem solving techniques 3.7Awards, grants, funds 3.6Government schemes 3.5Reward schemes 3.3Emphasis on research & development 3.2The top two factors are seen to be leadership and asupportive work environment. These outweigh the othermore formal enablers which tends to indicate that whereschemes are put in place without the surrounding ‘cultural’factors of leadership and supportive environmentthey are not likely to flourish. The next most significantfactors are collaboration with partners, and deep understandingof the customer which reinforces the findingsof the previous questions and strengthens the impressionthat innovative solutions are often co-developed atthe project level from within the supply chain. This is alsosuggested by Tatum (1987) who has shown that leadership,supportive organisational structure, collaboration,and customer orientation are the main enablers of innovationwithin the organisation. On the other hand,reward schemes and emphasis on R&D do not appearto be seen as significant enablers of innovation. In thecase of reward schemes this may be because it is a specifictype of scheme that may only be used in certainorganisations, nevertheless the low ranking of R&D asan enabler of innovation again appears to confirm thefindings of the previous questions.BarriersMeanEconomic conditions 3.9Availability of financial resources 3.6Fragmented nature of construction business 3.4Unwillingness to change 3.3Lack of government role model 3.3Inappropriate legislation 3.3Risk in commercialising innovations 3.2Temporary nature of construction projects 3.2Extensive inter-organisational change required 3.1Lack of awareness 3.0Lack of qualified staff 3.0Lack of end-user involvement 3.0Lack of innovative investments /procedures/ practices (R&D, training and education) 3.0Adversarial approaches within thesupply chain 2.9Lack of clear benefits 2.9Belief that the industry is doing wellwithout innovation 2.8The two top barriers to innovation are clearly seen tobe economic conditions and availability of financialresources. It is interesting to note that financial concernscan 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 profitability butbelieve that they cannot innovate unless economicsallow. These two factors are followed by a group of factorsled by the fragmented nature of construction followed byunwillingness to change, lack of government supporand inappropriate legislation.11

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachAdoption of advanced practices:Having asked questions relating to the generalconditions for and against innovation this questionwas intended to provide evidence as to which practicescontractors believe they excel, as an understanding ofthis will help inform the types of innovation that theymight be expected to introduce.Table 7: Innovative practicesTo what extent does your organisation excel at the followinginnovative practices?PracticesMeanCollaborative practices 4.3Contract management/client relations 4.3Waste management 4.1Energy efficiency/carbon reduction 4.0Knowledge management 3.9Design solutions (virtual/collaborativedesign, modelling and simulation tools, BIM) 3.8Web-based project management/extranets 3.8Off-site manufacturing, modern methods ofconstruction 3.7Business process reengineering 3.7Marketing strategies 3.7Information and communicationtechnologies (ICT) 3.6Advanced materials (composite,high performance) 3.3On-site IT applications (GIS, GPS, RFID) 3.3Automation of processes 3.2Based on the responses (Table 6), it is observed thatcontractors believe that they are good at organisationalinnovations such as collaborative practices, contractmanagement/client relations. In terms of technologicalinnovations they practices mirror the second most significantdriver for innovation (environment/sustainability)with contractors now believing that they excel at wastemanagement and energy efficiency/carbon reduction.It is worth mentioning that information andcommunication technologies (ICT), advancedmaterials (composite, high performance), on-site ITapplications (GIS, GPS, RFID), and automation ofprocesses are among the least adopted practices.These findings also support previous evidence thatmuch of construction innovation is process andorganisation-based (Slaughter, 1993) and oftencharacterised by the widespread adoption of newpractices as a result of advances in technological andbusiness processes (Lansley, 1996).Role of actors in construction innovation:The respondents were asked to identify the majorinnovators within the construction sector. This issignificant as it can illustrate not only from which partydo most innovations come from but also provide insightsas to which types of innovation are considered to besignificant by the contractors surveyed.Table 8: Innovators within construction sectorTo what extent do you think the following actors driveinnovation within the construction sector?Actors of innovationMeanSuppliers/manufacturers 4.0Design teams 3.9Clients 3.8Consultants 3.6Contractors 3.5Project managers 3.5Subcontractors 3.4End-users 3.3Facility managers 3.312

The findings reveal that the major innovators areviewed as the suppliers, followed by the designers,clients (Table 7). Being in the fifth place, contractorswould appear to believe, that in comparative terms,they do not perform well. The results support the ideathat suppliers act as key driver of technical innovationin the construction industry, since they invest far morein R&D than contractors or consultants and thereforemore likely to develop product innovations (Gann,1997). The result is perhaps also interesting in termsof what it reveals about the mindsets of the contractorssurveyed. The previous question revealed thatcontractors believe that they are good at organisationalinnovation and waste and energy reduction, yet despitethis they do not feel that they contribute to innovationas much as suppliers, designers, clients and consultants.The question remains is this because these four typesof organisations are outperforming them in terms ofinnovation or is it because the types of innovation(product/material) from suppliers and designers areviewed as more significant than the more processoriented innovation typical of a contractor. In the samevein, it is also interesting also to note that end usersand facility managers are not viewed as significantactors in the innovation process despite the fact thatclient satisfaction and improvement of services are citedin the subsequent question as two of the major benefitsof innovation. This would seem to indicate a mindsetwithin the industry that still views innovation from atechnology push rather than a user pullperspective despite the growing recognition in theliterature of the importance of service driven innovation(Barrett, 2007) and the evidence from elsewhere inthis survey that client/end user pull is a more significantdriver of innovation.The role of different participants in stimulating andachieving innovation will be revisited in the followingcase study section.Benefits/impacts of innovation:By obtaining a better idea of the expected benefitsof innovation, we can improve our understanding ofwhy a company would choose to innovate and how itmight measure its success. Outputs of innovation aretraditionally measured by patent or trademarkapplications. However, modern construction companieslargely function and innovate by the quality of theirprocesses, the people operating them and the wayin which they change and adapt to suit the changingbusiness environment. Developing on Henderson andClark (1990), Slaughter (1998) presented five modelsof 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 asmall change, based upon current knowledge and experience,whereas a radical innovation is a breakthrough inscience or technology that often changes the characterand nature of an industry.Table 9: Innovation benefits/impactsTo what extent does your organisation derive the followingoutcomes of innovation (1-5)?Outcomes of innovationMeanBetter company image 4.7Improvement of services 4.4Improvement of client satisfaction 4.4Improvement of product quality 4.4Improvement of processes 4.3Increase in technical capability 4.3Increase in organizational effectiveness 4.2New services 4.1New products 4.1New processes 4.1Market penetration and growth 4.0Revenue growth due to new productsor services 3.8Short and long-term profitability 3.8Improvement of organizational structure 3.6Improvement of human resources 3.6Intellectual property (patents,trademarks, designs) 3.513

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachThe most significant benefit of innovation is seen tobe better company image. As Tatum (1987) suggestedreputation is the most valuable asset for a constructionfirm and is effective in sustaining long term competitiveadvantage. This is followed by improvement inservices, client satisfaction and product quality whichare grouped together. This is a significant finding whichreinforces that although innovation may be importantfor contractors per se it is external factors such asimage, services and satisfaction that are seen to providethe most significant benefit to an organisation. The lowsignificance of intellectual property reinforces 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 of innovation do notreflect the focus of activity of contractors and consequently will give a poor indication of actual innovativeactivity.Innovation performance:Finally another key integrational point related to measuringthe innovative performance of companies was to assesstheir strategies and processes. The respondents wereasked specifically to state how good they believed thatthey were in terms of their IVC activities. Based on thefindings, 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 (diffusion –3.9) and developing ideas into viable products, services,or businesses (conversion – 3.8). The reasons behind theslightly lower performance levels at the conversion anddiffusion of ideas compared to the generation of ideasare explored in more detail in the next section.The respondents were also asked to state whether theirorganisation has an innovation policy/strategy and aprocedure to monitor the success of innovation ornot, since these two play a significant role in theperformance of innovative activities (DTI, 2007). 55% of thecompanies indicated that they have an innovationstrategy, and 62% of them stated that they monitor/measuretheir innovation processes. The case studies in thefollowing section investigate futher how these strategiesand procedures are employed in the organisations. Moredetail on how these activities actually occur and the waythat strategies are implemented will be explored in thefollowing sections.Bringing the Survey Findings TogetherThe findings 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 from whom they learnthe most from. The main focus of their innovations isorganization-based and incremental rather than radicalor product based innovations. Slightly more than a halfof the respondents have an innovation strategy and theirinnovativeness is determined largely by the effectivenessof leadership, work environment, and collaborationswith partners. They specialize in introducing new waysof doing business more often than adopting advancedtechnologies. Whilst they can be regarded as successfulat generating ideas; they believe that they are lesssuccessful at diffusing these ideas and convertingthem into products and services at the same level.Significant issues worthy of further investigation includethe seeming mismatch between conventional indicatorsof innovative activity such as R&D spend and patents andthe locus and nature of innovation within the variousstakeholders within construction projects. Both of theseissues will be investigated in more detail in the followingsection.14

5. Case Studies Illustrating a Project Life Cycle toConstruction InnovationGann (2001) suggests that project-based constructionfirms often struggle to learn between projects, wherePowell (1997) has shown that this is often the besttime to develop lasting real changes after reflection onexisting practices. Unfortunately, such firms oftenhave weak internal business processes and rarely engagein activities such as post occupancy evaluation sothey do not know how to continuously improve theirprocesses. Measurement of the dimensions and elements ofconstruction innovation at the project level should bekey to improving the innovation performance of suchcompanies. However, analysis of innovation at theproject level shows it is typically ignored by them.Indeed the literature shows this is mostly due to thedifficulties in monitoring different activities carried outby different parties in each stage of the project (Dulaimiet al., 2002, Blayse and Manley, 2004).There are several reasons for this. Management ofconstruction innovation is complicated by thediscontinuous nature of project-based production inwhich, often, there are broken learning and feedbackloops. Project-based firms need to manage technologicalinnovation and uncertainty across organisationalboundaries, within networks of interdependentsuppliers, customers and regulatory bodies (Gann andSalter, 2000), but in tight time-spans and with littlefeedback on what works well. On the other hand,project-based firms are always innovating at thelocal level; this is because they have to as their work isalways unique, always delivered to bespoke designs,always achieving something new (Keegan and Turner,2002). Studies by Gann and Salter (2000) point out theneed for 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 trackinnovative activities during the lifecycle of a constructionproject and how to integrate the new into traditionalways of working.Relationships and knowledge-flows are important forinnovation at all levels of economic activity, includinginternationally, nationally, inter-sectorally, sectorally,inter-firm, intra-firm, inter-project and intra-project(Manley, 2008). In a complex systems industrysuch as construction, firms have to rely on thecapabilities of other firms, and often sub-contractorswith less understanding of new ways of working, toproduce innovations where this can only be achievedby the cooperation between those concerned with thedevelopment of products, processes and designs (Blayseand Manley, 2004). In order to understand howinnovations occur throughout the lifecycle of aconstruction project, it is necessary tounderstand the role of each project stakeholder bothindividually and collectively. It is increasingly accepted thatconstruction innovation encompasses a wide range ofparticipants within what in manufacturing would be called a“product system” (e.g. Marceau et al., 1999); thedifference in construction that operatives move througha changing context, as the building rises from theground, whereas in manufacturing the product movesby the operative.To carry out the wider study of innovation we envisage, acomprehensive approach of the construction industry istherefore necessary. One that recognises its uniqueness,but also understands construction as a manufacturingprocess and a service industry. This means specifyingthe different kinds of firms 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 workforce, owners, professional associations,private capital providers, end users of public infrastructure,vendors and distributors, testing servicescompanies, educational institutions, certification bodies,and others (Blayse and Manley, 2004).From thisperspective, clients can, and do, act as acatalyst to foster innovation by exerting key pressureon the supply chain partners to improve their overallperformance and by helping them to devise strategies tocope with unforeseen changes (Gann and Salter, 2000);they can also demand high standards of work (Barlow,2000), and by identifying specific novel requirementsfor their project (Seaden and Manseau, 2001) absorbsome part of the accompanying risk. Knowledge andfinancial provision, effective leadership, anddissemination of innovations are also among the keyroles which clients could play (Egbu, 2008).15

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachContractors on the other hand play a mediator role inthe interface between the institutions that developmany of the new products and processes (materials andcomponents suppliers, specialist consultants and tradecontractors), and those which adopt such innovations(clients, regulators and professional institutions – seeWinch, 1998). Contractors introduce different typesof innovations depending on their specialty areas. Itis therefore suggested that companies operating inbuilding, infrastructure, housing, industrialconstruction should be investigated to understand theirinnovation potential, as well as the subsectors ofconstruction, including architecture, urbanplanning, surveying, consultancy, asset/facilitiesmanagement, and project maagement.Such a more detailedanalysis would reveal better ways of understanding andmeasuring innovation in different phases including theproduction, construction, and marketing.Figure 2 shows clearly the innovation value chainpresented for 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 firm level processes andinnovation at the project level should be explored in thiscontext, to observe and then understand how differentfirms contribute to innovation process by developingand implementing strategies, assigning resources tocreate ideas and diffuse them.Figure 2: Innovation value chain in a construction project16

5.1 The research methodologyFollowing on from the questionnaire survey, thissection further explores the need to link between firm levelprocesses through the analysis of 4 case studies. Thesecase studies have been produced on award winningprojects at the North West Regional Construction Awards2009. Interviews have been conducted with the keyactors to track the collaborative ways in which thesuccessful innovations have been generated and toinvestigate the consequent benefits of innovation at theproject and company level. The following issues wereaddressed during the interviews:n Project information (type and size of theproject, parties involved)n Main reasons/drivers to innovate (end user,competition, performance requirements, technology,etc.)n Major innovation introduced within the project (typeof innovation and stage within the project lifecycle),outputs of innovation (in terms of new or improvedproduct/process/service)n Inputs of innovation (human, financial, technical,and non-technical resources and internal/externalknowledge sources)n Enablers of innovation (at each level)n Barriers to innovate (at each level)n Major tool/strategy employed to realize innovation(innovation policy, measurement system, strategies atfirm and project level, solution of problems)n Roles of each stakeholder in (stimulating/ implementing)the innovation (relations, communication, andcooperation among project participants)n Major benefits/impacts of this innovation(productivity, profitability, image, new markets, etc.)n Lessons learned from the innovation process(capturing/transferring project knowledge)The cases highlight the breadth and depth of thecompanies’ activities to bring innovation into projects.The active measures to drive value from collaborativepartnerships and community/end user engagementfeature as significant enablers of innovation. Theindings of these case studies are also published asindividual reports and can be found atwww.innovationcasestudies.5.2 Case study 1: Cleveley’sCoastal Defence andPromenade EnhancementSchemeTHE CONCEPTA partnership between Wyre Borough Council, BirseCoastal and other strategic partners was formed inMarch 2004 following an extensive, quality-basedtender process compliant with European procurement.The project was designed to improve flood protectionto 8700 properties in the Cleveleys area and toupgrade Cleveleys’ promenade. The Project is WyreBorough Council’s largest ever civil engineering projectand the first partnering contract it has let. The schemewith a contract value of £21m was funded by WyreBorough Council, DEFRA, Environment Agency, EuropeanRegional Development Fund and delivered in 30 months.The Cleveley’s scheme has been delivered in accordancewith the principles of Constructing Excellence, engagedmultiple stakeholders making a real difference to thelocal environment and the quality of life. Demonstratingnumerous examples of innovation and best practice, itis considered for the ‘Project of the Year’ award by CCINorth West.INNOVATION JOURNEY/STORYInnovation on the ProcurementThe innovative procurement and delivery of this projectwas based on the key tenets of the Latham and EganReports. In particular much emphasis was placed onthe adoption of the partnering approach to achievebetter working relationships and deliver more efficientconstruction in terms of quality, customer satisfaction,timeliness in delivery and value for money has beenwell documented since publication of these reports.Partnering provides the conditions that can enable realcost savings, eliminate waste, encourage innovationand promote learning from experience. To capitaliseon these benefits, and deliver best value, the Councilreplaced its old price-based competitive tendering with aquality-driven process using the New EngineeringContract (NEC). Under this system, 26 contractorswere assessed through a 3-stage selection process thatevaluated experience, financial stability, commitmentto health & safety, employee skills, and references fromclients, subcontractors and suppliers.17

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachAt the start of design, a partnering charter was producedthat committed all partners to deliver a quality schemefor the public; achieve an exemplary safety record;ensure the achievement of best value for the budget atall times; communicate effectively with all thoseinvolved or affected by the scheme; be considerate tothe community and to the environment; and deliver tothe Council and public without defects.The client recognised that Early ContractorInvolvement (ECI) and integrated working were essential indelivering a successful 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 ofthe project. Support was received from the funders ateach stage of the project.Innovation in the Community engagementVisitor experience in the promenade was primeconsideration in the design concept, which incorporatesfeatures to entice the visitor along the length of theredeveloped promenade, providing focal points ofinterest, information, outlook and experience of thehighest quality. Extensive public consultation was heldfrom the very outset of this scheme when the localcommunity were asked what they wanted from aseaside frontage. A design competition was undertakenfor the selection of the architect/designer to prepare amaster plan. Four designs were subject to consultationand a joint decision was made to choose the final designafter they were reviewed by the contractor Birse Coastalfor budget compliance and ‘buildability’.To ensure that the community involvementcontinued through the life of the project, an interest group‘Cleveley’s Seafront Partnership’ was established. Thiswas comprised of local residents, community groupsand representatives from retailers, leisure facilitators,hotels, restaurants, the police and commercialbodies. Their brief was to work with Wyre BC and BirseCoastal, identify any potential problems early-on forresolution and continue input throughout construction.The Seafront Partnership worked alongside the constructionteam to secure additional funding/grants for publicartwork and amenity enhancement features tocompliment the scheme and add to the visitor’sexperience.The level of public interest and involvement inthe scheme led to it being formally brandedas ‘the people’s promenade’. The team used avariety of communication methods to keep an openand informative dialogue with the public including:n An accessible exhibition centre featuring displays ofthe history of the promenade, the design of the newscheme, proposed works, weekly progress reports,a feedback book and an overview of the followingmonths activities.n Activities and competitions were provided for children.n Reporting progress through video, photographs andartists impressions on a dedicated project web site andthrough presentations made throughout work period.n A visitor’s opinion book was made available for visitorsto record their comments. Thousands of commentsboth positive and negative were assessed and a datafrom the feedback book was tabled and executed bythe project board on a monthly basis.n Regular meetings of the community and constructionteam to resolve issues and take forward good ideas.n Community engagements events at constructionmilestones, for example ground breaking andsectional completions.n The local press and radio were also engaged to updatethe public on the progress and aims of the scheme.Innovation in the Construction processBecause of the difficult working environment, anycoastal protection scheme carries inherent risks duringconstruction. The construction team’s solution to thepotential risks of the project was the innovative use ofprecast concrete units as a safe, cost effective, higherquality and more sustainable alternative to traditionalsolutions such as rock armour or in-situ concrete. Itshould be noted that the R&D team has worked ondesign issues particularly with the precast concrete units.Precast units were manufactured using a high strengthconcrete (Tarmac ‘Toproc C75’) in a purpose-builtfacility, just 5 miles away from site. This allowed theteam to take advantage of traditional manufacturingtechniques such as just-in-time delivery and leanconstruction, which resulted in less waste and higherefficiency. It also allowed the team to maximise health,safety, quality and environmental benefits associatedwith off-site construction, whilst the close location ofthe facility significantly reduced haulage costs of thecompleted units to site. An additional benefit ofthis solution was that no pollution occurred in thesensitive coastal environment.18

As concrete is precast off-site, therewas no risk of washout from unsetconcrete and a greatly reduced number of vehiclesrequired on-site.Peat onsite caused unstable ground conditions whichhad not been identified by the original site survey,however, Birse were able to identify an innovative, costeffective and sustainable solution to stabilize the groundthat saved the project up to £1m; this was absorbed intothe 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 wereinstalled to provide power for heating and lighting in theshelter areas, and LED luminaires were used to provideenergy efficient lighting.Strict zero tolerance targets were set to provide safeworking conditions. Weekly safety meetings meant thatany potential health and safety issues could be identifiedand thus prevented at an early stage and responsibilityfor project monitoring and continuing safety of workersand public was given to every member of the team. Thisresulted in there being no reportable incidents onsite.Effective knowledge sharing and then its managementare 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 diffused to followingprojects. This project included a range of hard and softmechanisms to promote and enable effective knowledgemanagement [ Give examples for clarity]. One centraldevelopmenty in this respect was the web site ‘cleveleysseawall.co.uk’,which was kept updated with all projectinformation, pictures, progress reports.The diffusion of the ideas and best practicethroughout the project was taken beyond the organisationsdirectly involved. The project was a registered ConstructingExcellence demonstration project (project number 2800).As such, the project team actively participated in thecollection and dissemination of key performanceindicator (KPI) results, which are used to inform theindustry. The team also contributed to the ConstructingExcellence case study document, providing an insightinto the innovative techniques and best practice adoptedon site.It should be noted that local people were employedwhere possible in areas such as administration, securityand skilled labour. In total 75% of staff on the schemelived within approximately 35 miles of the site. Birse alsoendeavoured to employ local suppliers. 76% of supplierswere located within a 25 mile radius.Innovative methods and toolsThe project included a rigorous performance monitoringregime both in terms of efficient delivery of the projectbut also in terms of wider community impacts. To thisend, a customer quality plan of works, combined with aLive Quality Alert System, contributed to the high qualityof the finished project. All partners were incentivised bya pain/gain share arrangement and used an open-bookand live cost monitoring system which could be reviewedand observed by any partner at any time.19

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachINNOVATION ACHIEVEMENTSThe project is described by the project team as astunning project, the most successful ever (both Birse’sand the council) having won 18 awards based aroundfactors that include financial, safety, construction, andthe relationship side.Project benefits:Evolving value engineering and design developmentcontinued throughout the scheme leading to:n Development of an integrated public realm andcoastal defence improvement schemen Development of a multi-functional team basedon trust and mutual understanding of the desiredoutcomesn Use of robust, high-quality materials for low whole lifecost eg: micro silica concrete, natural aggregates forcolour, stainless steeln Incorporation of innovative ideas eg: offsitemanufacture using precast concreten Improved understanding of risks and contingenciesvalued at £3.8 millionn Demonstrable savings of £1 million to daten Securing external funding in excess of £14.5 millionn Improved health and safety through design – the teamhas achieved, to date, over 352,000 hours of workswithout a reportable accident or loss in work time.safer, more secure environment and promote healthyactivities including walking, cycling, activities on thebeach and use of the fishing clubs.INNOVATION VALUE CHAINIdea Generation:A principal idea that was brought into the projectwas the use of partnering and associated processimprovement as called for in the Latham and Eganreports. Although these are well established ideas, theyare not always applied successfully in traditional waysof working. The project team on this innovative schemeensured that, with the partnering approach in placethrough the procurement route, steps were taken toestablish trust and drive efficiency.The project was very notable for its use of an ‘openinnovation’ approach to idea generation. Openinnovation recognises that the best ideas can notnecessarily be generated in-house. In response tothis, many organisations now actively pursue strategiesof outsourcing idea generation, developing methodsof bringing ideas in from widespread, evolvingand diverse networks. The use of extensive publicconsultation should be seen in this regard. Equallyrelevant is the way that solutions such as the precastfacility have been co-developed through an openapproach within the team.n Programmed to meet the defined councilobjectives 72 weeks ahead of target. This time saving wascalculated from the target completion in theoriginal scoping study based on experience fromprevious schemes.n Excellent public communication routes andconsultation developedn Understanding and meeting the expectations of ourcustomersContribution to quality of life:The Cleveleys Seafront Scheme transformed a dated anddilapidated 1920’s seafront into a vibrant, modern 21stcentury seaside frontage, comprising coastal protectionand a new promenade accented by seating, shelters,feature lighting, new café and extensive landscaping.The new promenade has been developed for fullaccessibility, providing a high quality, safe environmentfor the user. The scheme exploits the assets of thenatural coastal heritage, uses them to create and retainjobs through the development of a sustainable tourismdestination. The scheme has also helped to provide aAnother key theme in modern innovation is that of‘service driven innovation’. Again the public consultationshould be seen in this light. In construction it is possibleto deliver a project efficiently, e.g. to cost and time, butfor the solution delivered to not meet the needs of theuser. A user or service driven perspective was used hereto bring the ideas into the project from the public and soensure that the sea defence wall meets their aspirationsand needs.There are also many instances where a moretraditional ‘scientific’ approach is used to generate ideas.Considerable time and effort was committed toensure that the design was buildable and that modernconstruction techniques could be used.Similarly where technical information and solutions wereneeded the team worked with a university to obtain thetechnical information needed to better understand coastalprocesses.20

Conversion of Ideas:A combination of open and scientific approaches wasused to bring ideas into the project. Idea generation isonly useful if the ideas are then put into practice. Thekey decision in this regard was to use a procurementapproach that enabled early contractor involvement.This ensures that ideas can be tested for theirbuildability and building methods can be developed that areappropriate to the design.It is also important to note that many technicalsolutions could only be delivered through the organisationalinnovation enabled by the procurement route. The useof Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) is oftenseen as a technical or product innovation. However, thesuccessful use of MMC on this project relied on processinnovation that was enabled by the collaboration of theproject team. This in turn enabled solutions such as thejoint precast facility and logistics based around efficientdelivery that were essential elements in the successfuluse of MMC.The use of knowledge management approachescan also be seen as an enabler for the effectiveconversion of ideas into practice. In this regard, knowledgemanagement is essential for ensuring that the full projectteam are aware of and understand the latest techniquesthat are to be used on the project. Effective knowledgemanagement is also essential to the effective diffusionof solutions throughout the project and in subsequentprojects which is the third element of the innovationsupply chain.Performance measurement should also be seen as onekey enabler for the diffusion of project innovations.The monitoring regime provides the evidence of thesuccess (or failure) of the various innovations, which in turnsupplies the supporting information needed to justifyongoing use.The registration of the project as a ConstructingExcellence Demonstration Project is also notable asa means of diffusion of innovations on an industrywide basis. This not only provides a formal mechanismfor capturing lessons from within the project but alsoprovides an industry wide dissemination route.Constructing Excellence brings the IVC full circle.Not only is it a diffusion route, it also provides anindustry wide model for open innovation. Viewed in thisregard the diffusion of the ideas from this project isrepaid in kind by the generation of ideas from otherConstructing Excellence projects that can be used andapplied on subsequent projects.The drivers, inputs, processes, enablers, barriers,outcomes, and lessons learnt are examined fordifferent innovative activities throughout the project in thebelow table. This summarises key elements of the projectsinnovations in a readily absorbable way making it openfor use by contractors and other partners involved inconstruction.Diffusion of Solutions:Many of the ideas that are applied successfully withinthis project are brought in from their use in previousprojects. This successful diffusion of new innovations isthe third element of the IVC.Within the project, the diffusion of innovation throughoutthe supply chain is enabled through the trustcreated by the partnering approach. This is underpinnedby the knowledge management approach. Longer termbenefits will accrue if the supply chain remains togetherand works on follow on projects. The pre-cast facilityprovides a good example of this and will be supportedby a procurement approach on follow on projects thatencourages the appointment of established teams.21

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachTable 10: The innovation register for Case Study 122

5.3 Case study 2: The CastlefieldsEstate Regeneration ProjectTHE CONCEPTThe Castlefields Estate Regeneration Project inRuncorn, Cheshire is a unique 10 year partneringregeneration scheme that has delivered an awardwinning range of over 500 units of new housing, as partof the vision for a sustainable future for Castlefields. Thisproject is a successful example of collaborative partnershipbetween Plus Dane Group and Cruden Constructionthat embraced ‘Rethinking Construction’ principlesand achieved continuous improvement through theapplication of lean construction. The CastlefieldsRegeneration Partnership is using more than £44m offunding to completely revitalise this estate. The masterplan proposed a comprehensive programme of over 50individual projects from the redesign of infrastructureand transport to community facilities and modern mixedtenure housing. The next phase of regeneration includesthe redevelopment of the existing local centre, into anew community hub.INNOVATION JOURNEY/STORYInnovative ProcurementThe basis for all successful business processes employedthroughout the Castlefields regeneration started fromthe close relationship and integration of the projectteam. It was essential that all members of the team,including key supply chain partners, were included inplanning and programming as early as possible. Thispartnering approach enabled design to be rationalisedand input from Cruden Construction and the timberframe supplier taken into account in the early stages ofthe design process.Cruden and Plus Dane achieved to adopt innovativetechniques through applying lean principles and theyformed a partnership with Space 4 as the timber framesupplier and maintained this partnership for years. PlusDane Group employed RWD as consultants to aid in thedevelopment of methods and procedures to improve siteprocesses. Plus Dane determined to work with Crudento eliminate the initial cost barriers of modern methodsof construction (MMC) in order to reap long term savingsand benefits. The funding of RWD by Plus DaneGroup and the agreement to further invest jointly withCruden Construction demonstrates both partners’ desireand willingness to engage other specialists who couldhelp to drive out waste through the adoption of lean.These benefits have been brought through from phaseto phase, demonstrating continuous improvement.One of the most important ingredients of anysuccessful regeneration partneship is the involvement of the local community. Residents of the Castlefields estatehave been heavily involved in the regeneration processas well as in the development of each individual scheme.Project team members have had the opportunity toestablish positive working relationships with the localcommunity, and better understand the needs and wantsof the residents affected by the redevelopment.Innovative Modern methods of constructionTimber is renewable, sustainable, recyclable, non-toxic,waste-efficient and bio-degradable and as such thereis no other building material that matches its positiveenvironmental impact. Timber frame is a structuralsystem that has been tried and testedthroughout the world for centuries. It is the mostenvironmentally friendly form of construction available thatconforms to Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) andOff-Site Manufacturing (OSM) principles. A study carriedout by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) showsthat modern timber frame construction produces nearzero carbon emissions. Timber frame is renowned for itsexcellence in energy efficiency terms. Timber frameis engineered to the highest level of accuracy andquality; promotes greater efficiency and supply chainintegration; brings predictability and greater control tothe construction process; improves construction healthand safety; and has fewer defects and high customersatisfaction.There are many forms of timber frameconstruction to choose from, including advanced and closedpanel, volumetric and hybrid systems. ‘Space 4’ closedtimber frames were used as the structural elements of thesuperstructure in Castlefields. By using MMC methods,the closed timber framed panelled units went fromground floor slab to panels in place in just twelve weeks- half the time of a similar traditional build. Packagedas house types, the panels were zipped together onsite and finished in facing brickwork, with render andcedar boarding alongside aspects of double heightglazing. The benefits of MMC were evidenced in manyways; not only was the site accident free, it was dryer andcleaner for the labour force to work on. There were alsobenefits for local residents too, with reduced levels ofvehicle movements and noise.23

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachInnovative Lean constructionMMC required tighter, more reliable processes leadingto the adoption of lean principles. Lean construction isthe continuous process of eliminating waste, meeting orexceeding all customer requirements, focusing on theentire value stream and the pursuit of perfection inthe execution of a constructed project. Lean constructionmay require more time in the design and planningphases, but this attention eliminates or minimizesconflicts that can dramatically change budgets andschedules. Supply chain management is an importantsupport function for facilitating lean construction. Inaddition, organisations are required to change theirbusiness processes to deliver the expected benefitsof lean construction. Standardisation of the finishingprocesses brought benefit to the supply chain,reducing wastage of materials on site as well as wastedoperations.MMC and lean construction involve totally differentoperations that were threatening for the whole industryin the beginning. Not only did the contractor haveto experience challenges to shift to new processes butalso the subcontractors had to follow at the same paceand they had to adjust the operations based on the siteconditions, which were not always favourable.Construction in this way was far ahead of normalschedules due to the unexpectedly quick insallationsof the timber frames and the construction team haddifficulties in allocating sufficient number of staff tocontinue with the finishings. The major barrier andfrustration for the contractor in this phase was the poorservices; service disconnections and relocations causedmajor delays in the project. Despite struggling in theconstruction phase, supply chain partners are expectinglong term benefits from MMC and lean construction.Innovative methods and toolsPlus Dane Group devote resources from across the Groupto ensure they understand and are able to effectivelydeploy new technologies and techniques as theyemerge, ranging from renewable energy sources throughsustainable housing solutions to MMC to create highvalue low cost solutions for the clients. They are keento create a true learning culture with Cruden andmechanisms to enable more sharing knowledge andbest practice.Cruden is very keen to share its knowledge andexperience through the supply chain. They try to fosterinnovation based on their business and innovation plan.Their ultimate objective is to be able to meet client needsbetter and be able to adapt to a changing world. Thekey actions that will help them innovate both individuallyand collectively focus on the staff, clients, suppliers, andlean construction. These are listed as set as a series ofconversations in their business plan:n ‘Innovator of the Month’ to reward the individualshaving exceptional contributionsn Chairman’s lunches every two months to give directaccess to the topn Sustainability Group to research innovation within theindustryn Marketing Meeting Group to collate up to datefeedback from direct contact by Senior Managersn Feedback from the Customer Care Team and annualKPI Radar Chartsn Salford University’s SCRI Team to conduct a detailedsurvey of the RSL Client’s by interviewn Work at Salford University in the ‘Think Lab’ with‘Innovation Circles’ that bring together suppliers andsubcontractorsn Assessment by the suppliers next year to help thembecome a learning organisationn A series of small projects with a live construction arenato challenge their norms about how they performn Sharing the ‘Lean’ learning amongst all theirconstruction teams and exploring new ways ofthinking and working using the Castlefields pilots asa case study.Contribution to quality of life:The main attention is drawn to economical, socialand environmental issues in respect to the needs offuture generations in the Sustainable Communities Planintroduced by the UK government. Castlefields hasbeen undergoing significant transformation, includingsubstantial public and private sector investment. ALiveability Study undertaken by Liverpool Housing Trustas part of the overarching regeneration partnershipestablished that 78% of residents feel that theregeneration, through demolition and new build has ledto an improvement of the estate. 50% of residents nowsay the regeneration of the area has influenced theirdecision to stay on Castlefields. Castlefields regenerationprogramme seems to have pleased the residents so far.24

INNOVATION VALUE CHAINIdea Generation:The project was very notable for its use of a ‘clientdriveninnovation’ approach to idea generation.Building regulation on social housing had a greatimpact on the processes and performance of thisregeneration project. The UK Goernment’s initiative tocreate sustainable homes is released in the CfSH. This coderequires the contractors to use innovative products in theirconstruction processes and deliver the specified sustainabilityperformance levels. The client was experienced interms of MMC and introduced the idea of using closedtimber frames to achieve sustainability. The next stagewas to search for the right product and assess its ‘buildability’with the contractor.A further example of the work done to gain a full understandingof the client is provided by the work commissionedby Cruden with the University of Salford to surveyRSL clients. This service driven approach to innovation ismirrored by the feedback collected from the customercare team, Marketing Meeting Group and performanceKPIs.Product innovation is only one component of the IVC inthe construction supply chain, the responsibility of whichlies with the suppliers. However, the implementationrequires joint effort by the client, designer, contractor,suppliers, and subcontractors. The project team ensuredthe successful implementation of product innovationthrough a series of organisational innovations.A principal idea that was brought into the project wasthe use of partnering and associated process improvementas called for in Egan report. Although these are wellestablished ideas, they are not always applied successfully.The project team ensured that, with the partneringapproach in place through the procurement route, stepswere taken to establish trust and drive efficiency startingfrom the design process till the execution of MMC.Taken together, the project team have used a widevariety of measures to facilitate and support thegeneration of new ideas. A scheme such as ‘Innovatorof the Month’ ensures that all staff are aware of theimportance of innovation and have the opportunity tocontribute, this is supported by the idea of Chairman’slunches to firmly establish the fact that there is nohierarchy or monopoly on the generation of ideas. Thisconcept is extended beyond the organisation through‘Innovation Circles’ that bring together the supply chainin an open approach to sharing ideas and tacklingproblems.There are also many instances where a moretraditional ‘scientific’ approach is used to generate ideas.Considerable time and effort was committed toensure that the design was buildable and that modernconstruction techniques could be used. Thescientific approach extends to the use of performancemonitoring throughout the project. Performancemonitoring provides the information needed to removeinefficiencies and drive improvement. This is true notonly for this project but for the ongoing applicationsof solutions developed on this project into followingprojects.Conversion of Ideas:A combination of open and scientific approaches wasused to bring ideas into the project. Idea generation isonly useful if the ideas are then put into practice. Thekey decision in this regard was to use a procurementapproach that enabled early contractorinvolvement. This ensures that ideas can be tested for their‘buildability’ and building methods can be developedthat are appropriate to the design. The InnovationCircles created by Cruden provide one method wherebythe supply chain members are formally brought togetherto help put solutions into practice.It is also important to note that many technicalsolutions could only be delivered through the organisationalinnovation enabled by the procurement route. Theuse of MMC is often seen as a technical or productinnovation. However, the successful use of MMCon this project relied on process innovation. Theproject team identified that potential benefits of MMCcould only be achieved through the application of leanprinciples that involves supply chain integration and processreengineering.Contractor’s devotion to learn about lean principles wasappreciated by the client and they shared the cost forlean consultancy to deliver higher performance.25

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachDiffusion of Solutions:The successful diffusion of new innovations is the thirdelement of the IVC that is achieved through the client’sdrive to become a ‘learning and sharing’ organisation.Within the project, the diffusion of innovationthroughout the supply chain is enabled through the trustcreated by the partnering approach. This is underpinnedby the knowledge management approach. The use ofknowledge management approaches is an effectiveenabler for the diffusion of innovations within andoutside the organisations. In this regard, knowledgemanagement is essential for ensuring that the full projectteam are aware of and understand the latest techniquesthat are to be used on the project. The contractor triedto foster innovation within the company through someincentives and diffuse those inovations to the supplychain in Innovation Circles. Longer term benefits willaccrue if the supply chain remains together and workson follow on projects.Performance measurement should also be seen as anenabler for the diffusion of project innovations. Themonitoring regime provides the evidence of thesuccess (or failure) of the various innovations, which in turnsupplies the supporting information needed to justifyongoing use.The drivers, inputs, processes, enablers, barriers,outcomes, and lessons learnt are examined for differentinnovative activities throughout the project in the belowtable.26

Table 11: The innovation register for Case Study 227

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle Approach5.4 Case Study 3: LancasterUniversity Eco-ResidencesProjectTHE CONCEPTThe eco-friendly accommodation at LancasterUniversity is the first replicable scalable model of itskind and has been designed as an environment that willencourage ‘good habits’ in terms of sustainable living.It is hoped that the accommodation will help to attractincreasing numbers of students from across the UK andinternationally. University Partnerships Programme (UPP)established a partnership with Lancaster University in2003 to develop 950 rooms. The eco-friendly modelwas based on the research of Dr Avi Friedman. Thisresearch has been transformed into bespokeaccommodation by TheGoddard Wybor Practice. The country’s firsteco-residence was constructed using timberframes based on good, simple planning. Off-sitemanufacturing (OSM) of the timber frames contributed toreducing the amount of construction materials requiredand waste generated during the build. It was significantlyquicker than traditional concrete builds and reduces thecarbon-footprint of the build considerably.INNOVATION JOURNEY/STORYInnovative PlanningLancaster University’s ‘County’ and ‘Grizedale’Eco-residences were developed to address issues andproblems identified from three previous phases ofnew-build residences at the university. Theuniversity also sought to develop future university estateson the basis of sustainable principles. HEFCE guidance onuniversities’ environmental performance provides animportant benchmark. HEFCE has confirmed that from2011, all HEFCE capital funding will be subject toInstitutional Carbon Management Plans and further,that pursuant to the Climate Change Act, the HigherEducation Sector is likely to be set a target of reducingcarbon emissions by 80% by 2050.A working group (GreenLancaster) developed four keyobjectives as the design criteria for the university’s Phase4 residences:n Environmental sustainabilityn Reduced construction and rental costsn Enhanced social spacen Improved design quality and specificationThe key success has been to achieve a highlysustainable development at an affordablecost. Affordability has been achieved by looking at theconstruction process and how the detail design mayincorporate features which facilitate construction.Much of what has been incorporated is based on NorthAmerican best practice and the work of ProfessorAvi Friedman who is head of the Affordable HomesProgramme at McGill University, Montreal.Professor Friedman’s work has been funded by centralgovernment for over 20 years and he is recognisedas a world authority on the subject of affordablehousing. The key features of this ‘sustainable by design’concept focused on a simple design delivering high energyefficiency and heat recovery. The units were builtusing sustainable and renewable materials. Each unit wasfitted with a Building Management System (BMS) thatconstantly monitors and communicates utility use.Innovative ProcurementLancaster University has selected UPP as partner for Phase4 of its Residences Programme, which delivered nearly1000 rooms. The deal has included a re-financing of theprevious three phases of the Residences Programme, onwhich UPP also partnered with Lancaster University, anda 10-year extension of the leases, allowing the Universityto release a significant amount of capital, to be reinvestedback into the institution. The agreement transferredconstruction, operational, asset and demand risk fromthe university. UPP will provide facilities managementservices to Lancaster University for the duration of the48 year contract.Another partnership, GreenLancaster, was establishedbetween Lancaster University Student’s Union (LUSU),the University’s Estate Management department, andthe UPP, the aim of which was to help departmentsacross campus promote and deliver environmental initiatives.They have helped increase recycling rates, reducetoxic waste, reduce energy consumption and green theUniversity’s supply chain. In addition they have generatedjobs for students, as well as raising the profile ofenvironmental issues amongst staff and students.Engagement with student residents at an early stage inthe design process and the inclusion of students andother stakeholders’ requirements was key to producingan acceptable and high quality student residence. Followingcompletion, further engagement on obtainingand addressing initial feedback from new residents wasalso critical. This stakeholder participation model will beused in future student residence developments.28

Innovative Modern Methods of ConstructionAlthough the systems or products used in the schemehave been used before, the main innovation in this projectis that all the various design and construction approachesare brought together in a coherent, holistichousing concept that was both sustainable and affordable.Prefabrication is a major factor in keeping costs andwaste to a minimum. Both the structural timber framesand bathroom pods are built off-site and delivered readyfor quick installation and connection.By using timber sourced from sustainable, managedforests for the building’s superstructure, the carbonfootprint of the build is reduced by 30%. Minimisationof construction impacts have been achieved by theconstruction contractor through a variety of measuresincluding site utility monitoring, with targets forelectricity and water, a construction site wastemanagement plan, use of reusable hoardings and‘eco-cabins’ for onsite accommodation.Construction was far ahead of schedule due to theunexpectedly quick insallations of the timber frames.Just in time (JIT) deliveries were fundamental tomaintaining the construction programme. MMCrequired tighter, more reliable processes leading tothe adoption of lean principles. Standardisation of thefinishing processes brought benefit to the supply chain,reducing wastage of materials on site as well as wastedoperations.Panelised timber frame construction was new to somemembers of the construction team, and seminars/project meetings were held at an early stage with thecontractor/supply chain partners with regard to theprocess approach and construction technology involved,both to give confidence and exchange knowledge.‘Toolbox talks’ were initiated with the workforceof the various supply chain partners to ensure requirementswere properly implemented on site. Many detaildesign or construction issues incorporated in the schemehave been adopted by supply chain members as generalpractice moving forward.Innovative Methods and ToolsLancaster University recognises the significantenvironmental impacts associated with its operationsand also its responsibility to address these impacts inall areas of its activities through its Environmental Policyand Environmental Management System (EMS). Theenvironmental impact of new or refurbished buildingsis very carefully evaluated from conception, throughdesign and construction to operation. The County andGrizedale Eco-residences have a Building ManagementSystem (BMS) which constantly communicates utility useto enable the students to monitor their carbon footprintfor their townhouse which is calculated from its water,gas and electricity usage.A competition was launched in January 2009 topromote this function with the residents and motivate themto be more environmentally conscious. This was set-up inconjunction with GreenLancaster to promote andincentivise reduced energy and utilities use, andreward the townhouses with the lowest resultant carbonfootprint. Each townhouse has the opportunity to win£600 per term which is the average cost of their utilitybill. Students can log onto the Green Lancaster websitehttp://www.greenlancaster.org.uk/carbon-competition/and view the carbon footprint and utility use for theirhouse in real-time, as well as check on who is winning.Carbon emissions were reduced by 11.3% (or 16 tonnesCO2) for January-April 2009 compared with the sameperiod last year, when there was no carbon contest.Carbon emissions per person per day also dropped from3.54kg in 2008 to 3.14kg in 2009. Students achievedthese results by taking some simple actions such asswitching off the TV at the mains, not leave anythingon standby, half-filling the kettle, cooking together, andfilling up the washing up bowl instead of running thetap.INNOVATIVE ACHIEVEMENTSSignificant financial and environmental benefits havebeen achieved for both the University and studentresidents in the County and Grizedale developments.n The cost was decreased from £32,000 to £29,830 perstudent room in comparison to previous phase.n The rent charged to students had a 15% reductionagainst the rental charges in previous phase.n The residences are anticipated to better CO2emission targets from the Building Regulations, withannual emissions of 963kg CO2/annum/studentagainst design criteria which predicted emissions of1,147kg CO2/annum/student.n Gas consumption is anticipated to reduce by 5-10%per student room compared to the previous phase ofresidences.n U values of 0.26 W/m2 (walls), 0.135 W/m2 (Roof/Floor) and 1.1 W/m2 (windows/doors) have beenachieved.n The construction contractors are registered with the‘Considerate Contractors’ scheme, and achievedan audit score of 32 out of 40 in a ConsiderateContractors external audit.29

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachA key benefit is expected to be reputational, withLancaster University being seen as a leader in termsof environmental design and construction, but alsoin terms of stakeholder and end user participation indevelopment and input into the Eco-residencesdesign and concept. External recognition and interestin the project has been very significant. Estates DepartmentDirectors from seven universities have toured theEco-residences developments.Contribution to Quality of Life:Lancaster University have carried out questionnaire surveysof students using the new accommodation to obtaintheir comment and opinion. The feedback has beenextremely positive as has comment from parents who inmany cases are leaving their children in a new environmentfor the first time. Initial resident feedback has beenvery positive. Students general comments on the CountyEco-residences from a snagging meeting (4th February2008) have included ‘Probably the best accommodation you will live inas a student’, ‘very sociable’, ‘light, airy and clean’,‘very nice accommodation’, ‘good space for afamily’ (2-bed flats), ‘good lighting’ and ‘really niceplaces to live – really enjoy it’.Following are the major social benefits of theEco-residences:n The improved social space provision is a majorsocial benefit for residents as the townhousespossess a large kitchen/dining room and lounge area,as well as, patios, individual townhouse gardens andaccessible communal gardens, which includebarbeques and seating.n Residents are able to monitor utility use and thecomprehensive in-house control systems willenable them to regulate their use of utilities andminimise their carbon footprint, with the chance ofsignificant utility bill reductions for the best performingdwellings.n The transport linkages from the Eco-residencedevelopments have been carefully designed tominimise transport impacts. Both the County andGrizedale Eco-residences are provided with excellentpedestrian linkages to the main pedestrian walkwaysand essential campus amenities and public transportlinkages.n The Eco-residences provide an environmentwhere sustainable living is a normal part of theenvironment. The Eco-residences provide a lesson in independentliving, with residents responsible for their ownenvironment and decisions.INNOVATION VALUE CHAINIdea Generation:The project was very notable for its use of a‘service-driven innovation’ approach to idea generationwhich is enabled through the funding mechanism ofthe project. The service-driven approach to innovationemphasises the need to take the perspective ofconstruction right through to the built artefact asconsumed by the user. The university aimed to createa social space for the students that would encourage‘good habits’ in terms of sustainable living. And so enduser requirements were an important component of thescheme. Engagement with students and their input atan early stage in the design process led to producingacceptable and high quality student residences. Thisaspect is considerably strengthened by the measuresthat are in place to monitor and provide information onenergy use as a means of directly involving the studentswith the ongoing operation of the building. Ideas andlessons from this will prove to be very useful in futureschemes.A further driver to consider the whole life-cycle of thebuilding is provided by building regulation on socialhousing which had a great impact on the processes andperformance of this regeneration project. In additionto the requirements of Building regulations and HEFCEguidance on universities’ environmental performance,Lancaster University’s own desire for the adoption ofsustainable practices was a major driver for thesuccess of this project. The university is host to twoenvironmental research centres that help to ensure that theydevelop environmental strategies and implement them in aneffective manner. Taken together this ‘client-driveninnovation’ approach to innovation required that thebuilding incorporate sustainability into its operations andmonitor the environmental impact through its EMS.Another key ingredient of successful delivery of thisproject was the innovative use of partneringapproach. The University has selected UPP as partner todesign, build, fund, and manage its eco-friendlyaccommodation under a unique 48-year contract. Thispartnership opened the way to adopt the ‘sustainableby design’ concept of Avi Friedman in the bespokedesign by GWP Architecture which in turn was the resultof a more formal collaboration to ensure that thebest ideas from around the world are brought into theorganisation.30

After finalising the design, the project team lookedfor a cost effective solution that could deliver thesustainability and quality requirements. Based onthe previous work by the architect, they decided toapply MMC and the closed panel timber frame was theinnovative solution to speed up the process andachieve sustainability. Product innovation is only onecomponent of the IVC in the construction supply chain theresponsibility of which lies with the suppliers. However,the implementation requires joint effort by the client,designer, contractor, suppliers, and subcontractors. Theproject team ensured the successful implementation ofMMC through a series of process innovations includingJIT delivery and lean construction.Conversion of Ideas:Idea generation is only useful if the ideas are thenput into practice. In this respect, all project membersshared the same values and had strong commitment toinnovation and high quality. Extensive workwas previously undertaken to examine constructionprocesses and incorporate elements within theesign that facilitate construction. To help ensure theseprinciples are put into practice the project teamidentified that the maximum benefits of MMC wouldonly be achieved through the application of leanprinciples and spent considerable effort to apply thoseprinciples. JIT delivery was another solution to catch upwith the quick construction as a result of MMC. ‘Toolboxtalks’ were initiated with the workforce of thevarious supply chain partners to ensure requirements wereproperly implemented on site.However, the domain is not limited to universityaccommodation; the same principles can now beapplied to deliver successful housing and commercialbuilding projects.The university acknowledged the significance ofsustainability and wanted to diffuse this among thestudents. The necessary infrastructure was put in placeby the architect and the whole process was achievedthrough successful partnering. Delivering a cost effectivesustainable project, all partners try to push the industryto adopt same principles.Performance measurement should also be seen as anenabler for the diffusion of project innovations. Themonitoring regime provides the evidence of thesuccess (or failure) of the various innovations, whichin turn supplies the supporting information needed tojustify ongoing use. It is notable that the BMS has raisedthe awareness of students in terms of sustainabilityand has become an integral component of their dailylives. Cost savings are reflected into the rents that wasan additional benefit for the students. Students nowshare their experiences with their friends and families tospread the idea of eco-friendly environments.The drivers, inputs, processes, enablers, barriers,outcomes, and lessons learnt are examined for differentinnovative activities throughout the project in the tableon the following page.The university played a key role in establishinganother partnership, GreenLancaster, the aim of whichwas to help departments across campus promote anddeliver environmental initiatives. A competition waslaunched by GreenLancaster to promote and incentivisereduced water, gas and electricity usage, and reward thetownhouses with the lowest resultant carbon footprint.This is achieved by the BMS that constantly monitors thecarbon footprint based on the utility use.Diffusion of Solutions:The successful diffusion of new innovations is thethird element of the IVC that is achieved through theclient’s drive to become a leader in eco-friendly universityaccommodation. Much of the concept itself has beenbased on work previously developed by the projectpartners in the area of social housing. Theproject is recognised as a best practice in its field; someuniversities are planning to adopt similar schemes.31

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachTable 12: The innovation register for Case Study 332

5.5 Case Study 4: Cheetham HillTesco Environmental FormatStoreTHE CONCEPTThis scheme is the first repeatable format to be builtfor Tesco, with the aim that this will become thestandard design format for future stores. The innovationsthat were achieved through the scheme have beenselected through design workshops and testing duringthe procurement stages of the project. The successbehind the project lies in the collaborative working relationshipamong the project participants and commitment toinnovation and meeting project goals. Thecontractor’s (Taylor Woodrow) role in this project wascritical in ensuring that the design team all workedtogether to deliver the clients aims. A mixture of newconstruction techniques were sought to deliver anenvironmentally friendly, energy efficient, sustainable,innovative, integrated, and value added project,whilst maintaining customer and client satisfaction. Thescheme is the first supermarket to run on vegetableoil via a CHP unit that provides the energy and heatrequirements of the store. Examples of environmentallyfriendly innovations include a certified hybrid timberframe, sustainable cladding system, X-Lite roof lights,wind catchers and clerestory glazing.INNOVATION JOURNEY/STORYInnovative PlanningTaylor Woodrow has been partners with Tescosince 1985 when Tesco decided to form strategicalliances with its contractors. The key reason for strategicpartnering for them was to continue to innovate theirsupermarket buildings, so that they would be built fasterfor less money and deliver high performance. Workingtogether as a part of the team was the major enablerof innovation in this project. The team worked with B& K Timber Structures to supply timber frames. As oneof the only firms in the UK able to offer a completepackage of expertise in both steel and timber design,engineering, manufacture and installation, they wereable to undertake the project at Cheetham Hill withefficiency, ensuring Tesco was in a position to commencetrading on schedule.Tesco is very successful at managing the innovationprocess through collaboration with their strategicpartners. Tesco has nine contractors working withthem, all of which carry out R&D on their behalf. Thisdecentralised research approach brings mutual benefits;people having specific expertise invest in developingnew solutions for Tesco but the continuous(repeatable) nature of the projects encourages them toinnovate and they benefit from the buying power of Tescoat the same time and learn from them on monitoring theiroperations and managing the supply chain. Tesco alsohas its own technology centre and a small non-tradeconcept store that is open to its partners to test theirideas in.Innovative Design and Construction ProcessConstruction of the Eco-Store in Cheetham Hill wasbased on the principles of using wood instead ofmetal; introducing more natural daylight into the storeto use less electricity; achieving a more energy-efficientheating and air-conditioning system; using less energyand water; generating our own energy; rethinkingrefrigeration, fixtures and signage; andminimising waste; all of which contributesignificantly in cutting the store’s carbon footprint.The construction processes was similar to a standardTesco format store but the innovations below wereintroduced in terms of products and processes:n Hybrid timber frame: One of the most importantelements of the environmentally friendly designfeatures is the innovative hybrid timber-steel structure.Through careful design detailing and valueengineering, B & K Timber Structures incorporatetheir expertise in steelwork fabrication to offer hybridstructures. They combine the aesthetic andenvironmental benefits of timber with the economicbenefits of steel that reduce carbon footprint withoutcompromising quality.n Sustainable cladding system: The system wassourced from Lithuania and required a lot of detailingand planning to execute a very smooth installationwithout any problems. It was manufactured off siteand offers an embedded/carbon energy saving of 8%and the cladding is 100% recyclable.n TriArch walling solution: This system is aprefabricated walling system, which is made fromrecycled gypsum and timber boarding. Thisproduct is 100% recyclable, there is no requirement forplastering as the system is pre-finished and ready foreither wall paper or paint finish that ultimately resultsin no wastage.33

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle Approachn Roof lights: The pre-manufactured roof lightsystem comprises of polycarbonate which contains ananogel core preventing solar heat gain within thesales area of the store, but allowing the transfer ofdaylight. This helps reduce lighting levels in the storeby the introduction of natural daylight without thedanger of solar heat gain.n Combined heat and power (CHP) unit: The teamworked on alternative energy sources on site suchas wind, solar, bio-gas, CHP and combined cooling,heat and power (CCHP). This unit runs on CHP thatprovides heat and electricity to the store with the useof vegetable oil as an environmentally friendly theprimary fuel source.n CO2 refrigeration: Natural refrigerants improveenergy efficiency in comparison to conventionalsystems and have a greater advantage during themajority of the year when ambient temperatures arebelow peak summer values. CO2 is a highly efficientrefrigerant that improves the performance of heatexchangers and hence the temperatures of foodstuffs.n Wind catchers: These have been provided to providea vent for warm air build up with the store. Fresh air isthen sucked from the outside to provide a continuouscirculation of fresh and cool air.n Mechanical systems: CO2 sensors have beeninstalled which are linked back to the BuildingManagement System will allow the mechanicalsystems to ramp up or down dependent upon theoccupancy levels within the store. This helps to reduceenergy usage.Innovative Methods and ToolsTesco wants to play a leadership role in tackling climatechange. Their aim is to mobilise collective action amongcustomers, suppliers and employees, to help protect theenvironment and generate a mass movement in greenconsumption.Tesco has built a series of environmental stores in everycountry they operate since 2006, where they test newtechnologies and designs to save energy and reduce ourcarbon footprint. Their major objectives set in the climatechange programme regarding their buildings areto:n Help customers to understand their own carbonfootprint and what they can do to reduce it.Tesco supported its targets with a £100 millionSustainable Technology Fund starting in 2007 to supportlarge-scale carbon reduction technologies in their stores,distribution centres and supply chains worldwide. In2008, they invested around £60 million in energy-savingand low-carbon technologies, and over £26 million in47 CHP and CCHP plants for local generation, as wellas 27 wind turbines and one store installation for solargeneration. These technologies are expected to reducetheir carbon emissions by about 6,000 tonnes of CO2per annum.Taylor Woodrow’s Technology Centre combines aunique blend of experience and skills across a range ofdisciplines and offers solutions at every stage of theconstruction cycle aiming to increase the value ofcustomers through the provision of technicalexpertise. The Centre comprises a team of engineers,consultants and scientists dedicated to providing innovativesolutions for the construction industry. This centre actsas an internal centre of excellence and was involvedthroughout the construction process of CheethamHill. For example, Taylor Woodrow set up an internalconsultancy with them to develop a method ofworking out the consistency of grout mixes involved in theinstallation of the floor tiles and review information forthe nanogel filled roof lights.Taylor Woodrow developed a design manual andwebsite to share with other Tesco contractors toknowledge share experiences and learn from deliveryof the project. They also contributed by working alongsideTesco in collating information concerning materialusage and specifications, together with identifying how toreduce wastage through using certain types ofproducts. They delivered a presentation to the other Tescopreferred contractors on site as a work session over aperiod of three weeks. This involved a debate aboutmaterials and environmental initiatives integration. Thisdemonstrated their commitment to sharing knowledge.n Continue to reduce the footprint of existing buildingsby 50% by 2020 (compared with 2006),n Ensure all new buildings, on average, emit 50% lessCO2 by 2020 compared to an equivalent store in2006, and34

INNOVATION ACHIEVEMENTSTesco’s climate commitments through the combinationof new technology and good business lead to dramaticreductions in their carbon footprint. The Cheetham Hillstore’s carbon footprint is 70% less than an equivalentTesco store built in 2006. This has been achieved in thefollowing ways:n 31% through energy efficiency measures, such as rooflights allowing more natural daylight into the store,saving on electricityn 20% by using natural refrigerant, using CO2 insteadof HFCsn 19% by using a combined heat and power plantrunning on “recycled vegetable oil”, according toSymonds, enabling the store to generate its ownelectricity and make use of the waste heat.Other achievements by Taylor Woodrow related to thisproject include:n Zero tolerance on site for health and safety issuesn 89% Customer Feedback score on lessons learnt andfuture goalsn In the top 10 of the company house keeping leaguethroughout the last 4 months of the contractn BREEAM “Very Good” ratingn Over 500 visitors from client to other contractors whovisited the to learn about the technology they wereinstalling on the siteContribution to Quality of Life:Cheetham Hill was an area of high unemployment andsocial deprivation. This scheme targeted to employ40% of its staff who were currently unemployed localpeople. The scheme will have a significant impact upon theregeneration of this town and reenergize thecommunity. The store is also Tesco’s latest regenerationpartnership, with around half of the 260 employeeshaving previously been unemployed or on benefits forsix months or longer.The project was also notable in terms of communityengagement. Taylor Woodrow contacted the localprimary school and worked with them at disruptivetimes to ensure that noise was kept to a minimum andawareness was raised at all times within the programme.Over 150 letters were also hand delivered to ensure localresidents were made aware of vibration and road worksthat were being carried out.INNOVATION VALUE CHAINIdea Generation:The project was very notable for its use of a ‘clientdriveninnovation’ approach to idea generation. Tescorecognised the importance of delivering highenvironmental performance and set its agenda to reduceits carbon emission throughout its operations. Theydeveloped a climate change programme and startedbuilding environmental format stores that would helpthem design a repeatable store concept and increasethe likelihood of winning planning permission fromenvironment conscious Local Authorities to build newsustainable stores in the future. Being committedstrongly to carbon reduction, Tesco works ondeveloping and implementing green technologieswith their partners and supply chains.Tesco themselves can be seen to operate an openinnovation policy. The ideas are brought into the projectfrom all of their supply chain partners in a coordinatedfashion. As such, one of the main enablers of successfuldelivery of this project was the innovative use ofpartnering approach. Tesco established strategicpartnerships with its contractors dating back to 1999.The repeatability of the projects offered by Tesco wasanother advantage for the team members. They collectively worked to search for suitable products,invested in developing tailored products and tested themin their internal technology centres and on-site.Once the design for an environmental format storewas achieved, the project team looked for a costeffective solution that could deliver the sustainability andquality requirements. Product innovation is only onecomponent of the IVC in the construction supply chain, the responsibility of which lies with the suppliers to a largeextent. In this project, contractor also invested in R&Dand was involved in product innovations throughcooperating with its internal technology centre.Conversion of Ideas:A combination of open and scientific approaches wasused to bring ideas into the project. Idea generationis only useful if the ideas are then put into practice. Inthis regard, the strategic partnership between the clientand the contractor created a conducive environment totest the innovative products for their buildability. Thecontractor invested in R&D to satisfy the objectives setby the client, they committed considerable time andeffort to achieve a cost-effective design solution. TheTechnology Centre worked as a consultant for thecontractor and played a major role in innovating usinginternal resources that saved time and money.35

Table 13: The innovation register for Case Study 437

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle Approach5.6 Cross-case AnalysisThe four cases studies reported in the previous sectionall of which were examples of collaborative partnershipamong project teams demonstrate a number oftechnical and organisational innovations and bestpractice.The first case study was a coastal enhancement schemethat achieved considerable project benefits in terms ofbudget, time, and quality through the use of MMC.Understanding the client and end-user engagementstarting from the design of the project were the mainenablers of innovative solutions for creating apublic space as well as a defence structure. The schemetransformed the town by inducing business investmentand provided local employment thereby improving thequality of life. The second case study was an urbanregeneration project where the innovation wasmainly driven by the client. The focus was onsustainability based on the CfSHs. The long term partnershipbetween the client and contractor helped theproject team meet the requirements specified in the Codethrough the use of MMC and adoption of lean productionprinciples. The product innovation was achieved by theselection of the right supplier and several organisationalinnovations were achieved by the contractor based on a wellestablished business plan. The third case study wasthe eco-residence halls project that involved a uniquepartnership between the client and the developer.The project was notable for its design innovation,effective planning and choice of the procurement method.Student engagement was one of the striking features ofthe project that aimed to increase students’ awarenessabout carbon reduction. The project achieved reducedlevels of carbon emissions through an innovative design,low energy materials, and measures taken during theoperation of the buildings. The fourth case study wasthe construction of the first repeatable eco-supermarket.The strategic partnership between the client, contractor,and the supplier enabled the team achieve productinnovations, save cost and time, and improve quality aswell. New ideas were supported along the constructionvalue chain, new products were developed and testedwithin the internal facilities and diffused to the market.Below table summarises the key components ofinnovations achieved by the project parties in allfour cases. These are grouped under four categoriesnamely, strategic partnership, MMC, lean construction,and community engagement. For each category,examples for the drivers, inputs, activities, tools,enablers, barriers, and outcomes are provided.These four projects present various examples ofproduct and process innovations as well as organisationalinnovations. The point of departure in most of thesecases was the end user engagement to providebetter services. The use of MMC and OSM were the mostcommon ways of innovating the processes ofconstruction companies. Precast concrete units,timber frames, and hybrid (steel-timber)structural frames were the product innovations that weredeveloped by the suppliers; however, the idea to usethese products were brought mainly by the clientsand the contractors changed the way they operatedpreviously to adopt these innovative products.On the way from idea generation through diffusion,several drivers, enablers, and barriers play role in the effectivenessof the whole process. Either technologicalor non-technological, there are some key elements toinnovate. Successful innovation often requires effectivecooperation, coordination and working relationshipsbetween the different parties in construction projects(Gann and Salter, 2000; Ling, 2003). The collaborativepartnerships were the major success factor in all of thefour projects. All project participants recognised theimportance of team work and fully understood theissues specified in Egan and Latham reports. Beingcommitted to delivering best practice and achieving innovation,all teams invested financial and human resources todevelop and implement new ideas and practices.Knowledge management, performance monitoring,collaboration within and outside the supply chainwere the common tools used to achieve innovations.Inexperience, reluctance, and cost were the mainbarriers regardless of the characteristics of each project.The innovative practices led to a number of benefits atthe project level including reduction in completion times,reduction in cost, improved quality, health and safety,minimized waste, and low carbon footprint as well asefficient, affordable and sustainable construction.The wider benefits of innovations in these projectswere enhanced corporate image, recognitionthrough regional and national awards, futurecollaboration along supply chain, experience in MMC andsustainability, knowledge transfer to inform futuredecisions, client and end-user satisfaction, access to newmarkets, income generation for the local people, andimproved quality of life.38

Table 14: The combined innovation register39

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachThere are many lessons that can be learnt from thesecase studies as summarised below:n There is no substitute for good planning; innovationbenefits can only be achieved through planned effortto invest in new ideas and convert them into practicein a systematic way.n Early contractor involvement and integrated workingare essential for a successful outcome by minimisingthe discontinuities within the value chain.n Contractor’s sole effort to innovate does notguarantee success, support from like-minded peopleis crucial.n Innovation in construction can only be achievedthrough understanding client requirements andcollaboration throughout the whole project lifecycle.n Repeatability of projects and strategic partnershipbetween the client and the contractor help the teamsachieve its targets starting from the design phasethroughout its operation.n New methods are jeopardizing for constructionindustry since changing traditional way of workingis not an easy task. Devotion to innovate is thekey to break the industry’s resistance to change.Commitment from all parties along the supply chain isone of the major enablers to innovate.n Building regulations can drive both technological(product and process) and organisational innovationswithin the construction supply chain. Client’s devotionto meet those regulations and effective team workwill ensure buildable solutions are developed.n Qualified labour resource, capable of requisiteinnovation, is scarce within the constructionindustry. Sharing knowledge and best practice alongthe supply chain can improve the culture and skills of theworkforce and it is therefore crucial for projectsuccess.n Exploiting potential efficiency benefits requiresorganisational innovations such as supply chainmanagement and business process reengineering.n Creative and open approaches to communityconsultation can improve the relationship with thelocal community and bring ideas into the projects.n Benefits of MMC are not short-term, strongcommitment from all project participants is essentialto ensure long-term benefits.n Achievements and the experience gained caneasily be transferred to other similar projects and newlydeveloped products can be offerred to the market.n Sustainable construction can also be affordable byadopting the lean principles and transferring theproject knowledge and key lessons to future projects.n Idea generation is easier compared to convertingthose ideas into practice since this requires advancedskills, commitment and large investment.40

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSThis report has investigated constructioninnovation through a literature review of its measurement, asurvey of innovation at the firm level and case studies ofinnovation in a project setting. This section of the reportbrings the findings together in order to highlight thekey lessons of the research and to suggest areas wherefurther research is needed. The key lessons from thisreport are as follows:6.1 Measurement ofConstruction InnovationConventional measures of construction innovationunder represent the amount of innovation that takesplace within the construction sector. This is for twomain reasons. Firstly, standard surveys of innovationonly take a narrow view of the sector (SIC Code). Toresent a fuller picture of construction innovation thesituation should be analysed from a wider built environmentperspective that includes material suppliers, designand use of facilities. Secondly, even within this widerperspective, conventional measures do not wellrepresent the innovation which is taking place. Thesurvey indicated and the case studies confirmed thateven where activities such as R&D take place this isoften within a project context and would not be includedin official statistics. Consequently, although the casestudies illustrate a wide range of activities to promoteinnovation and a wide range of outcomes from theseinnovations, only a small proportion of these wouldbe picked up by conventional statistics. The creationof a representative range of measures for constructioninnovation is being taken forward by NESTA. Althoughthis report is not detailed enough to make such concreteproposals two recommendations can be made.1) Much R&D activity is taking place that is notregistered officially. More should be done to raiseawareness of the R&D Tax Credit scheme to constructioncompanies. This would directly benefit the companiesand improve the statistics.2) The Innovation Value Chain approach to themeasurement of construction provides a flexibleand simple system that can usefully be adopted at acompany and project level to produce meaningful dataand information ob the effectiveness of innovationpolicies and practice.6.2 How Innovative isConstruction?The case studies illustrate the range and breadth ofinnovative activity in construction. To a degree, thecharacterisation that the industry follows ratherthan leads seems to hold true. The survey shows thatcontractors in particular list client and end usersatisfaction coupled with environmental/sustainabilityissues as key drivers for innovation. The reverse view couldalso be taken. The case studies illustrate many examples ofcontractors and wider project teams going to greatlengths to understand the end user and to provideinnovative solutions in response. This user drivenapproach is often cited as a characteristic of innovativeindustries.The range of activities that project teams use to bringideas into projects is also notable. The fact that muchof this is done within project supply chains may meanthat the activity escapes conventional measurementbut could also be seen to be indicative of an openinnovation approach among the supply chain. The mostformal example of this is provided by the fourth casestudy whereby Tesco marshalled the expertise of itssupply chain partners to develop their eco-friendlysuperstore, but similar arrangements exist in all ofthe case studies. Although the fragmented nature ofconstruction is often cited as a barrier to innovationone of the key strengths of the industry is its ability toemploy organisational innovations to reconfigure supplychains in order to deliver solutions to client needs. Theperception from the survey is that innovation is led bythe suppliers and the designers yet the case studiespresent a more complex picture. Whilst it is true thatthe case studies illustrate innovative design solutionsemploying advanced off site solutions, the casestudies also illustrate that these innovations are only madepossible through process innovation from the contractorin order to meet specific needs driven by the client.In summary, the case studies illustrate a wide rangeof innovation from all members of the supply chain inorder to meet the requirements of clients and end users.Although the case studies are taken from projects thathave been recognised for their innovation, the types ofinnovation that they illustrate are widespread in presentday construction projects. The true test of whether ornot an industry is innovative should not be measured byactivity or types of innovation; rather it should be measuredby the outcomes or results of innovation. This isexplored further below.41

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle Approach6.3 The Results of InnovationIt is important to understand the widespread natureof the outcomes of innovation illustrated by the casestudies in this report. The case studies provide ampleillustration that successful innovation can and doesproduce significant financial benefits, producing morecost effective solutions in less time. But this is not thefull story. Much of the focus of the innovation revealedby the case studies and confirmed by the survey isenvironmental or alternatively to do with wider issuessuch as well being or health and safety. If these factorsare drivers of much of the innovation in the industrytoday then the capacity of the industry to innovateshould be measured against metrics relevant to thesedrivers just as much as they should be measured againststandard economic performance criteria. Against anymeasure, performance improvements such as a 10%reduction in gas consumption, 74% increase in wasterecycling, a 70% reduction in energy use or a zeroreportable accident record ought to be significantmeasures of innovation just as much as reductions incost per square metre or production time.Much of this performance improvement is drivenby clients and regulation. The case studies illustratethat although the response to this drive is strong,it is not without difficulty. Although the outputs ofinnovation encompass economic, environmental and socialsustainability businesses have to respond to anoverwhelmingly finance driven market. Some innovations have incurred significant up front costsbefore any long term benefits can be achieved. Thestable long term relationships present in the casestudies have made it possible to overcome this barrierbut this is not always the case. More research is neededto better understand the complex relationship betweenregulation, innovation and business need in order toensure that future regulations are drafted with this inmind.6.4 Clients Driving InnovationThe preceding discussion has focussed on the widerange of innovation that is taking place in thereport’s case studies. The case studies are, however,acknowledged examples of best practice within theindustry. As such the factors that have created theconditions for successful innovation are worthy ofinvestigation. The survey revealed the importance ofclients as a key driver of innovation and clientsatisfaction as a key result. In each case study, the clientshave played an exemplary role in both creating the rightproject conditions in which innovation can flourish andin understanding and communicating end user needsto the wider project team. The project conditions werecreated largely due to the long term procurementrelationships that existed that enabled collaborativeworking and made investment worthwhile due topotential paybacks on future projects. In addition, theclients were very clear about performance requirementsthat were required in return for the long term relationship.The case studies also illustrated how the clients andthe wider project team developed deep understandingof end user requirements and how this is affected bythe built environment. So, although the importance ofthe client in delivering successful projects is well known(eg., Egan 1998, Brandon and Lu, 2008), it is alsoimportant to realise that this can occur only inparticular circumstances with particular types of client (eg.,Sexton et al., 2008; Tzortzopoulos et al., 2008). Onecase study provides a particular example of a clientresponse where these conditions are not present. InCase Study 3 (Student Accommodation) the universitysub-contracts the client role to a company thatspecialises in delivering and managing studentaccommodation in an innovative financial arrangement.In summary, the case study clients have played a keyrole in producing collaborative project teams throughprocurement mechanisms that have ensured anintegrated approach in meeting end user needs.Without professional clients with a deep knowledge ofthe user this situation is unlikely to occur.42

6.5 SummaryThe report has illustrated some of the wide range ofinnovation that occurs in construction projects andhas confirmed that much of this is hidden fromconventional metrics. Much ofthe innovation that does occurhappens at the project level and has results that impactupon the three pillars of economic, environmentaland social sustainability. Each of the project stakeholdersplays their part in successful innovation which reinforcesthe view that analysis of construction innovationshould take a wide view that encompasses a projectperspective. A view that fragments the industry willunder represent the innovation that occurs, in part, bynot reflecting the types of innovation produced by thedifferent industry stakeholders.The fact that much innovation goes unrecognised doesnot however mean that there is room for complacency.For example, each case study illustrates the ongoingimportance of clients in driving innovation – withouttheir drive and knowledge many of the innovationsillustrated would be unlikely to occur.Our understanding of innovation and how it occursin the sector is far from complete. The benefits ofinnovation can only be realised by fully understandingthe components of the whole innovation process thatis based on knowledge acquisition, transformation,and diffusion. Our understanding of innovation andhow it occurs in the sector can be enriched further bydetailed work that brings together different theoreticalperspectives on innovation that will enable thedevelopment of context sensitive ways of recognisingand measuring innovation.43

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle Approach7. REFERENCESAbbott, C., Aouad. G. and Madubuko, L. (2008) AnInnovation Platform for Construction, NWUA PilotProject to Develop Innovation Platforms in Non-scienceResearch Disciplines, Salford Centre for Research &Innovation, University of Salford.Autio, E. (1998) “Evaluation of RTD in regional systemsof innovation”, European Planning Studies, 6, 131-140.Barlow, J. (2000) “Innovation and learning in complexoffshore construction projects”, Research Policy, 29(7-8),973-989.Barrett, P. (2007) “International examples of service-driveninnovation in construction”, NESTA/BERR, London.Barrett, P., Abbott, C., Ruddock, L. & Sexton, M. (2007)Hidden innovation in construction and property sectors,RICS Research Paper Series, 7(20), RICS, London.BERR (The Department for Business, Enterprise andRegulatory Reform) (2008) Supporting Innovation in Services,BERR-DIUS, London.Blayse, A.M. and Manley, K. (2004) “Key influences onconstruction innovation”, Construction Innovation, 4,143-154.Brandon, P. S., and Lu, S.-L. (2008) Clients drivinginnovation, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex.Carassus, J., Andersson, N., Kaklauskas, A., Lopes, J.,Manseau, A., Ruddock, L. and Valence, G. (2006) “Movingfrom production to services: a built environmentcluster framework”, International Journal of StrategicProperty Management, 10(3), 169-184.Cleasby, B. (2004) Consolidation events: Learning andCapability Building In Project-Based Firms, University ofSussex, Brighton.Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M.T. and Artuk, U. (2005) “Integratedframework to investigate value innovations”,Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(2), 81-90.Dickinson, M., Cooper, R., McDermott, P. and Eaton, D.(2005) An analysis of construction innovation literature,5th International Postgraduate Research Conference,April 14-15, University of Salford, Salford, UK.DIUS (Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills)(2008) Innovation Nation, DIUS, London.DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2007) Innovationin Services, Department of Trade and Industry, London.Dulaimi, M.F., Ling, F.Y.Y., Ofori, G., De Silva, N. (2002)“Enhancing integration and innovation in construction”,Building Research and Information, 30(4), 237-247.Edquist, C. (1997) Systems of Innovation: Technologies,Institutions and Organizations, London.Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction: The Report ofthe Construction Task Force, DETR, London.Egbu, C. (2008) Clients’ roles and contributions to innovationsin the construction industry: when giants learn todance, in Clients Driving Innovation, Brandon, P. and Lu,S.L (eds), Blackwell Publishing, UK.Faber, J., Hesen, A.B. (2004) “Innovation capabilities ofEuropean nations - Cross-national analyses of patentsand sales of product innovations”, Research Policy, 33,193-207.Gann, D.M. (1997) “Should governments fund constructionresearch?”, Building Research and Information,25(5), 257-267.Gann, D.M. (2000) Building innovation: Complex constructsin a changing world, Thomas Telford Publications,London.Gann, D.M. (2001) “Putting academic ideas into practice:technological progress and the absorptive capacityof construction organisations”, Construction Managementand Economics, 19(3), 321-330.Gann, D.M. and Salter, A. (2000), “Innovation in project-based,service-enhanced firms: the construction ofcomplex products and systems”, Research Policy, 29(7-8), 955-972.Henderson, R. and Clark, K. (1990) “Architectural innovation:The reconfiguration of existing product technologiesand the failure of established firms”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 35, 9-30.44

Hansen, M.T. and Birkinshaw, J. (2007) “The innovationvalue chain”, Harvard Business Review, 85(6), 121-130.Howells, J. (1999) Regional systems of innovation? InArchibugi, D., Howells, J., Michie, J. (Eds.), InnovationPolicy in a Global Economy, 67-93, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.Keegan, A. and Turner, J.R. (2002) “The management ofinnovation in project based firms” Long Range Planning,35, 367-388.Koskela, L. and Vrijhoef, R. (2001) “Is the current theoryof construction a hindrance to innovation?”, BuildingResearch and Information, 29(3), 197-207.Lansley, P. (1996) Innovation: the role of research, educationand practice, in Harlow, P. (Ed.), Construction Papers,No. 59, Ascot, UK: CIOB.Ling, F. (2003) “Managing the implementation of constructioninnovations”, Construction Management andEconomics, 21(6), 635-649.Lundvall, B.A. (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towardsa Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning,Pinter, London.Manley, K. (2008) “Implementation of innovation bymanufacturers subcontracting to construction projects”,Engineering, Construction and ArchitecturalManagement, 15(3), 230-245.Marceau, J., Houghton, J., Toner, P., Manley, K,Gerasimou, E. and Cook, N. (1999) Mapping the buildingand construction product system in Australia,Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science andResources, Sydney.Milbergs, E. (2004) Measuring innovation for nationalprosperity - innovation framework report, http://www.ibm.com/ibm/governmentalprograms/innovframe2.pdf,10/25/08.Milbergs, E. and Vonortas, N. (2004) Innovation metrics:Measurement to insight, http://www.innovationtools.com/pdf/Innovation-Metrics-NII.pdf, 11/10/08.Nelson, R.R. (1993) National systems of innovation: acomparative analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford,UK.NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technologyand the Arts) (2006) The innovation gap – Why policyneeds to reflect the reality of innovation in the UK, NES-TA, London.NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technologyand the Arts) (2007) Hidden Innovation, NESTA, London.NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technologyand the Arts) (2008) Taking Services Seriously – Howpolicy can stimulate the ‘hidden innovation’ in the UK’sservices economy, NESTA, London.NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technologyand the Arts) (2009) ‘The Connected University’, London:NESTA.Niosi, J., Saviotti, P., Bellon, B. and Crow, M. (1993) “Nationalsystems of innovation - In search of a workableconcept”, Technology in Society, 15, 207-227.OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)(1999) Managing National Innovation Systems,OECD, Paris.OECD and Eurostat (Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development) (2005) Oslo Manual, 3rd edition,OECD/Eurostat, Paris/Luxembourg.Ozorhon, B., Abbott, C., Aouad, G. (2009) Measuringconstruction innovation, 5th International Conferenceon Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-V) Collaboration and Integration in Engineering, Management andTechnology, 659-666, May 20-22, Istanbul, Turkey.Phillips, R. (1997) Innovation and firm performance inAustralian manufacturing, Industry Commission, StaffResearch Paper, Canberra.Powell, J. A. (2007) “Creative Universities and theirCreative City-Regions”, Industry and Higher Education,21(5), 323-335.Reichstein, T., Salter, A.J. and Gann, D.M. (2005) “Lastamong equals: a comparison of innovation in construction,services and manufacturing in the UK”, ConstructionManagement and Economics, 23, 631-644.Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovation, 5th edn,The Free Press, New York.45

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachRoper, S., Du, J. and Love, J.H. (2008) “Modelling theinnovation value chain”, Research Policy, 37, 961-977.Seaden, G. and Manseau, A. (2001) “Public policyand construction innovation”, Building Research andInformation, 29(3), 182-196.Sexton, M.G. and Barrett, P.S. (2003) “A literaturesynthesis of innovation in small construction firms:insights, ambiguities and questions”, ConstructionManagement and Economics, 21, 613-622.Sexton, M.G, Abbott, C. and Lu, S-L. (2008)Challenging the Illusion of the all Powerful Clients’ Role, inDriving Innovation in Brandon and Lu (eds) Clients Drivinginnovation, 43-48, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, WestSussex, UK.Winch, G. (2003) “How innovative is construction?Comparing aggregate data on constructioninnovation and other sectors - a case of apples and pears”,Construction Management and Economics, 21(6), 651654. Wolfe, R.A. (1994) “Organizational innovation:review, critique and suggested research”, Journal ofManagement Studies, 31(3), 405-431.Yitmen, I. (2007) “The challenge of change forinnovation in construction: A North Cyprus perspective”,Building and Environment, 42, 1319-1328.Slaughter, S.E. (1993) “Builders as sources of constructioninnovation”, Journal of Construction Engineeringand Management, 119(3), 532-549.Slaughter, S.E. (1998) “Models of constructioninnovation”, Journal of Construction Engineering andManagement, 124(3), 226-231.Slaughter, S.E. (2000) “Implementation of constructioninnovations”, Building Research and Information, 28(1),2-17.Tangkar, M. and Arditi, D. (2000) “Innovation in theconstruction industry”, Civil Engineering Dimension,2(2), 96-103.Tatum, C.B. (1987) “Process of innovation inconstruction firm”, Journal of Construction Engineeringand Management, 113(4), 648-663.Tzortzopoulos, P, Kagioglou, M. and Treadaway, K.(2008) A Proposed Taxonomy for Construction Clients inBrandon and Lu (eds) Clients driving innovation, 58-68,Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, UK.Veshosky, D. (1998) “Managing innovation informationin engineering and construction firms”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, 14(1), 58-66.Winch, G. (1998) “Zephyrs of creative destruction:understanding the management of innovation in construction”,Building Research and Information, 26(5),268-279.46

8. Notes47

SCRI Research Report4Innovation in constructionA Project Life Cycle ApproachNotes48

Notes49

Professor Mike KagioglouSCRI DirectorThe University of SalfordMaxwell BuildingSalford M5 4WTUnited KingdomT: +44 (0)161 295 2649F: +44 (0)161 295 4587E: scri@salford.ac.ukwww.scri.salford.ac.uk£12.00the design team university of salford 0161 295 2639