Innovation in Construction A Project Life Cycle Approach

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