7 Comments
Nov 21, 2021Liked by Brian Potter

Thanks for this post Brian. You touch briefly on the common problem with the construction innovations in your list--that they're lateral improvements on products, and have practically no impact on construction productivity. A fiberglass door takes as long to hang as wood door. In the case of vinyl windows, and by extension all modern clad-composite windows, proper installation actually requires an increase in labor inputs. PEX is a little faster to install than copper, but any productivity gain gets more than canceled when homebuyers demand more plumbing fixtures.

In theory, SIPS offer the most productivity gains on overall shell construction, but they create an additional planning burden on design and site management. They also can slow down some of the trades because of the challenges associated with running wiring and plumbing.

In my brief career in single family home architecture the highest impact innovation has probably been LED lighting. Even in that area, easier and faster installation hasn't moved the needle on construction costs or speed.

Expand full comment
Nov 21, 2021Liked by Brian Potter

There is quite an extensive literature about the diffusion of innovations sitting at the intersection of the disciplines of economic history, and productivity studies within economics (JEL code D24, mainly). Being economists, the economists often look at proxies like patents and royalties rather than directly at individual innovations, though. The historians are better.

Vaclav Smil has summarised some research about the time required for innovations, with a focus on what he calls "prime movers", augmentations of muscle power such as wind power, water power, steam engines and turbines, electric motors, internal combustion engines and jet turbines.

His recent book "Grand Transitions" covers these, although I found his earlier "Energy In Nature and Society" to be better for some of them. The latter book also has charts of (USA) adoption curves for telephones (landlines), radios, refrigerators, color TVs and more.

In almost every case the adoption cycle falls into this 20-to-40-year duration that you have identified. Some of his innovations, like nuclear power, also saturate well below 100%.

Incidentally, the tractor is not a good example of an innovation for reasons of new capabilities. Pretty much everything that tractors did initially--pulling things, ploughing, harrowing, seeding, etc.--was done with horses and horse-powered machinery beforehand. In "Energy In Nature and Society" there is a photo of a team of 20 horses pulling a McCormick combine harvester. Tractors were also preceded by traction engines -- the same thing, except steam powered and consequently larger and heavier. New capabilities--front-end loaders, spraying equipment, etc.--came after tractors were established. Initially a tractor was a low-latency, tireless horse: you didn't have to spend an hour fetching it and harnessing it before starting work, nor did you have to manage its workload so carefully.

Expand full comment

Thank you for all of the writing your regularly publish Brian. It has greatly informed my thinking around construction innovation and I enthusiastically look forward to reading each new post.

I've tried to identify the 'dimensions' of construction innovation and I would love to know if I'm missing something:

- Cost

- Complexity

- Time

- Functionality

- Environmental impact

- Aesthetic value

Further to these dimensions of innovation, how would you compare their contribution to the success of specific historical construction innovations. For example, does an innovation that decreases cost more likely to succeed than an innovation that decreases the time to completion? In this post about innovation uptake, you mentioned that innovations in construction rarely increase functional capability (like the arguably unsuccessful smart glass); I'm curious how successful smart glass would have been if it did not also increase cost and complexity. I'm also curious about how the dimensions interact, such as with innovations that decrease cost and decrease complexity (eg. PEX) - are there multiplicative effects? I'm not sure if you take requests for future posts or have time time to answer my query but I'd love to hear your perspective on the idea I've put forward here.

Expand full comment

I wonder if the lack of uptake has to do with the limited way that they are implemented.

For example, if all a developer does to implement factory-built modular construction is to build a factory and install some heavy duty cranes to deliver the large modules into place in a building, it's hard to see how that will result in any time and money saved.

It seems to me you'd have to consider transportation networks - including the well-known constrictions of too narrow flatbed trucks that have to fit on roads. You also have to consider running the factory 24/7, not just when the sun shines on the site, and maybe some kind of storage facility until the job site is ready to accept the modules, or, better yet, maybe, to install kleig lights at the site so it can run 24/7 too, if that's allowed. Of course, this comes with tradeoffs in terms of labor costs for night shift workers, but the upside of getting a project done in 1/2 or even 1/3 the time ought to outweigh that.

Innovation may not be working simply because it is not innovative enough.

Expand full comment

To be fair, comparing innovation in construction (or any other industries for that matter) to that of information technology is a bit unfair. The rate of innovation in information or computer technology is unprecedented in modern history. Since 1970 you could think of an important innovation happening in the sector every year.

Expand full comment