Technology and Industry Structure
What
evidence is there that there is an emerging global elite among construction
firms, as argued in this previous post? This is not an easy question to answer
because the evidence tends to be partial and rather anecdotal. However, two
recent reports help shed some light on the issue.
A
2015 report from the
OECD examined the performance of a “representative sample” of companies in 24
countries between 2001 and 2013, and discovered that the top 5% of them
continued to increase their productivity while the other 95% were almost
stagnant. They called the top firms “frontier firms”, and they identified a
widening gap between these firms and the laggards.
Their
analysis was an at a very high level of aggregation, using the manufacturing
and services sectors of the economy (at the two digit SIC level). Manufacturing
frontier firms had an increase in labour productivity of 2.8% a year compared
to 0.6% a year for the rest, and in services the gap was even wider, with the
frontier firms increasing productivity by 3.6% compared to 0.4% for the
laggards. This productivity data came from another 2015 OECD study called The
Future of Productivity.
The
OECD researchers found for firms at the productivity frontier, new innovations
are the key to their competitive advantage. The strength of these global
frontier firms is their capacity to innovate, which increasingly requires more
than just investing in R&D and implementing technology. It requires the
capacity to combine technological, organizational, and human capital
improvements, which the OECD calls “knowledge based capital”. From this
perspective, the main source of the current productivity slowdown is not a
slowing in the rate of innovation by the most globally advanced firms, but
rather a slowing of the pace at which innovations spread through the economy
from frontier firms to others. The gap between the frontier firms and laggards
will therefore continue to widen, and the report argues for public
policies to increase technology diffusion to counteract this, most of which
will be too politically difficult to implement in any meaningful way (like
deregulating services in the EU).
How
does this apply to construction? First, construction is classed as a service
industry, so the gap between the frontier and the rest is probably wide, even
extremely wide. Second, the fragmented nature of the industry and preponderance
of small firms with limited technical and knowledge resources will restrict
innovation. This is compounded by the significantly better quality of managers
at larger firms (the subject of another OECD paper).
Third, many or most firms in the industry will not have the capital to invest
in developing the internal capabilities or business models that are required to
move toward the frontier.
The
OECD argues investment in innovation should extend beyond technology to include
skills, software, and organisational know-how (i.e. managerial quality), and
innovation depends on the bundling of these investments. For many small and
medium sized contractors this too would be well beyond their current plans or
objectives, which might extend to some basic BIM capability or supply chain
integration. Generally, because the difference in size between the small and
medium firms in construction and the largest contractors is so large all these
effects will be magnified, and the gap between the frontier firms and the rest
may well be much larger than the averages found by the OECD researchers.
A
few examples follow. Two global are contractors and they demonstrate the extent
of the gap argued above, with the resources and scale to research, develop and
test the wide range of software and hardware now available. The third is a start-up
that has major firms as partners and sponsors who are backing a technology
innovator, and who would be expected to deploy the technology once proven. All
three have created internal innovation labs and fabrication shops to experiment
with emerging technologies and create custom software tools, and have built
significant R&D teams and partnerships.
Skanska
and its partners are developing wireless monitoring of buildings, using sensors
to record data on temperature and vibration, and embedding sensors into
roadways in a pilot project for self-driving buses and trucks in Sweden. The company
is using drones for surveying and is testing the use of robots and
concrete printing, and radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and barcodes
on products and components. They are extending
their use of 3D BIM models to VR, operations management and FM using software
developed in-house. In 2010 Skanska launched an Innovation Grant Program to provide
employees support to partner with local universities, which led to funding for
their idea of Flying
Factories for offsite manufacturing.
Fluor
Corporation have a long history of nuclear EPC and in 2011 became the majority
shareholder in NuScale Power, a
small modular reactor (SMR) technology developer. These SMRs are a factory built
modular electricity generating system. The company expects to submit its US Design
Certification Application in December 2016 and to be fully licensed by 2020. The
first generating plant could be operating, in Utah, in 2024.
MX3D is a Dutch start-up working with
partners such as ArcelorMittal, ABB and Autodesk. In 2014 they invented a six axis
3D printing robot by equipping an industrial robot with an advanced welding
machine, and developed the software to control it. They can 3D print metals and
resin in mid-air, without the need for support structures, and are printing a
steel footbridge across a canal in
Amsterdam as a demonstration project of what they call digital fabrication. The
videos are very cool.