Building Research & Information

ISSN: 0961-3218 (Print) 1466-4321 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Implementation of construction innovations

E. Sarah Slaughter

To cite this article: E. Sarah Slaughter (2000) Implementation of construction innovations,

Building Research & Information, 28:1, 2-17, DOI: 10.1080/096132100369055

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096132100369055

Published online: 18 Oct 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1008

View related articles

Citing articles: 77 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbri20

Download by: [Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia] Date: 05 October 2016, At: 19:41
B u i l d i n g Re se a r c h & I n f o r m a t i o n (2000) 28(1), 2–17

Implementation of construction innovations

E. Sarah Slaughter

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 1-174, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
E-mail: slaughte@mit.edu

Construction innovations can provide the critical component for a company’s long-term competitive strategy.
To capture these competitive and other expected beneŽts, however, a construction company needs to under-
stand the means through which innovations are implemented, and the strategies it can employ to increase
the effectiveness of these operations. Construction-related companies can follow different strategies, based
upon the nature of the innovation, their capabilities, resources and overall market strategy. The six stages of
implementation are generally described, followed by a description of the types of activity required for each
type of innovation, with detailed case studies.

L’innovation dans la construction peut eÃtre l’atout majeur de la strate gie concurentielle aÁ long terme d’une en-
treprise. Pour saisir ces avantages concurentiels et d’autres avantages attendus, une socie te du secteur de la con-
struction doit cependant comprendre les moyens qui permettent de mettre en oeuvre l’innovation ainsi que les
strateÂgies qu’elle peut adopter pour augmenter l’ef® cacite de ses ope rations. Les entreprises du secteur de la
construction peuvent appliquer des strateÂgies diffe rentes, reposant sur la nature de l’innovation, leurs capacite s,
leurs ressources et leur politique commerciale globale. Dans cette communication, l’auteur de crit d’abord de fa-
cËon ge neÂrale les six eÂtapes de la mise en oeuvre de l’innovation puis les types d’activite s propres aÁ chaque
forme d’innovation et propose en® n des eÂtudes de cas deÂtailleÂes.

Keywords: construction innovation, innovation cases, innovation implementation, innovation management

Introduction on the products (materials and components), pro-

Innovations can form the backbone of a compa-
ny’s competitive strategy. A new design or tech-
nology may be the means through which a
company can achieve the client’s objectives for a
speci® c project, or its own objectives across a set
of projects for different clients. Recent research on
construction innovations provides the basis to
expand current understanding on innovation im-
plementation and diffusion, and apply them to
the construction industry (Slaughter, 1993b;
Slaughter, 1997; Ramirez, 1998; Rogers, 1998;
Slaughter, 1998).
An innovation in this research is de® ned as a non-
trivial improvement in a product, process, or sys-
tem that is actually used and which is novel to the
company developing or using it (Schmookler,
1952; Marquis, 1988). For this article, the focus is
Building Research & Information
ISSN 0961-3218 print/ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
cesses and systems, speci® cally associated with
the design and construction of built facilities.
Therefore, the application context explicitly con-
sidered is a construction project, with its attendant
issues of uniqueness and inter-® rm coordination
(Slaughter, 1998).
A signi® cant factor for construction innovations is
the degree of risk associated with their use. Con-
structed facilities consist of many complex and in-
terdependent systems (Winch, 1998). Introducing
change into this complex multi-system context can
create a ripple effect of secondary and tertiary im-
pacts, which can be dif® cult to anticipate using
current construction management theory and
techniques. Companies considering the initial use
of an innovation need a systematic approach to
identify the activities that can reduce avoidable
uncertainty and risk, increase the effectiveness of
 IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATIONS

innovation use and analyse the regions of impact Examples of construction innovations by cate-
on other interdependent systems and processes. gory can aid the distinction among classes of
This research primarily addresses the systematic innovations (see Fig. 2).
approach to use innovations. Related research has
developed a set of computer-based process mod- Speci® c innovations from the point of view of a
els that can be tailored to speci® c construction contractor will demonstrate the concepts, even
projects to assess the system and inter-system im- though the perception of the degree of change
pacts of innovations (Slaughter, 1997; Slaughter and links to other systems can differ signi® cantly
and Eraso, 1997; Slaughter, 1999). among different members of a value-added chain
(Afuah and Bahram, 1995). For example, a reinfor-
An innovation can be assessed with respect to its cing steel bar with a raised pro® le represents an
advancement of the state of knowledge as well as incremental innovation to a general contractor,
its links to other components or systems (Fig. 1). with a modest expected improvement in perform-
An incremental innovation is a small improve- ance from increased interaction surfaces with the
ment in current practice, and has minimal impacts concrete, but no signi® cant change in concept or
on other components or systems (Marquis, 1988). links to other systems. In contrast, ® bre reinforced
On the other hand, an architectural innovation is plastic reinforcing bars with a traditional pro® le
a small improvement within a speci® c area or core for cast-in-place concrete slabs (Civil Engineering,
concept, but requires signi® cant modi® cation in 1997) is a modular innovation, with a change in
other components or systems in order to function the core concept (from steel to FRP) but no
(Henderson and Clark, 1990). A modular innova- changes in links to other systems. Self-compacting
tion is a signi® cant improvement (or even a new concrete, which eliminates the vibration and con-
concept) within a speci® c region, but requires no solidation stage of placing concrete (Okamura et
changes in other components or systems (Hender-
son and Clark, 1990). A system innovation is a set
of complementary innovations which work to-
gether to provide new attributes or functions and
together can signi® cantly advance the state of
knowledge or practice (Cainarca et al., 1989;
Slaughter, 1998). Finally, a radical innovation is a
completely new concept or approach which often
renders previous solutions obsolete, including in-
terdependent components or systems (Nelson and
Winter, 1977). These categories of innovation can
be used to establish the degree to which the pro-
posed innovation will require special skills, exper-
tise and activities to be effectively implemented.

Radical

High
Modular
System

Change in
concept

Incremental Architectural

None High
Change in
links
Fig. 2. Reinforcing steel bars: Raised proŽ le bars
Fig. 1. Categories of innovations by changes in con- would be an incremental innovation. FRP bars would
cept and links to other systems. be a modular innovation.

3
SLAUGHTER

al., 1995), is an architectural innovation, since it Identification

Objectives
uses available materials in a modi® ed mixture but Alternatives
causes signi® cant changes in related processes. A Evaluation Evaluation
new bridge design, which might use FRP sheets Measurement Project Criteria
Rewards Company Criteria
as tensile members and as the stay-in-place forms
for a high performance self-compacting concrete
slab and incorporate small active dampers to ab-
sorb dynamic load impacts, would be an example Use Commitment
of a system innovation, coordinating the set of Learning Internal allocation
complementary innovations to achieve new levels Modification Publicity
of performance. The use of advanced composite Preparation
materials to make a whole bridge is an example of Company team
a radical innovation, with changes in the core con- Project Team
Company
cepts as well as the links to other systems and
with the potential to render current technologies
Fig. 3. Implementation stages for innovations.
obsolete.

Construction-related companies can follow differ-

ent strategies to effectively plan for and use de-
sign and technology innovations, based upon the
nature of the innovation, their capabilities, re-
sources and overall market strategy. The six
stages of implementation are generally described,
followed by the types of activity required for each
category of innovation with detailed case studies.
Implementation stages
The effective use of construction innovations can
be planned through a cycle of implementation
stages and activities (Meyer and Goes, 1988;
Goodman and Grif® th, 1991; von Hippel and
Tyre, 1995). The six stages often identi® ed in the
theoretical literature and empirical studies are: 1)
identi® cation; 2) evaluation; 3) commitment; 4)
detailed preparation; 5) actual use; and 6) post-
use evaluation (Fig. 3).
Although most implementation processes may
proceed through each of the stages, in certain
cases the evaluation stage may reveal new criteria
which need to be reconsidered in the identi® ca-
tion stage and these two stages may cycle through
a few repetitions. In addition, previous experience
with implementing other design and technology
innovations can feed directly into current
decisions and activities through organizational
learning about speci® c innovations and the imple-
mentation process as a whole. While the
implementation stages are common among
many engineering ® elds and industries, certain
aspects are particularly important for construction
innovations.
IdentiŽcation
The ® rst stage of the implementation cycle is the
clear speci® cation of the objectives associated with
the project and organization(s), and the identi® ca-
tion of potential alternatives to achieve those
objectives. Often alternatives are identi® ed within
the ® rms involved from the set of known means
to achieve familiar objectives. For innovations,
however, the sources to identify and=or develop
the innovations are often more widely spread
throughout the value chain (Fig. 4), and the
general industrial environment (Nelson and
Winter, 1977; Dosi, 1982).
The impetus for this wider search is often that
either the familiar means to achieve an objective
do not perform to the required standards, or the
objectives themselves are new to the ® rm respon-
sible for identifying the alternatives (Roberts,
1982; Mans® eld, 1988). Recent research on con-
struction innovations indicates that an innovation
is often developed at this identi® cation stage in
Architect
Engineer
SUPPLIER
GENERAL
CONTRACTOR OWNER
MANUFACTURER
SUB
CONTRACTORS
LABOUR
Fig. 4. Value-added chain in construction as sources
of innovation.

4

response to project objectives, which cannot be
met with known means (Semlies, 1999).
Traditionally, manufacturers and suppliers have
been viewed as the primary source for construc-
tion-related innovations (Quigley, 1982; Pries and
Janszen, 1995). However, recent research has
demonstrated that general and speciality contrac-
tors can be a signi® cant source of construction-
related innovations (Slaughter, 1993a; Semlies,
1999), particularly for innovations which involve
the integration and interaction among systems,
such as with architectural and system innovations.
Designers, including both architects and structural
engineers, can also be signi® cant sources of inno-
vations, particularly during the early stages of a
project conceptualization in response to strong
client requirements (Semlies, 1999).
A critical factor for the identi® cation stage is the
presence of a person within the company who is
aware of potential solutions that might be applic-
able to the problem at hand. These `gatekeepers’
can identify new alternatives and can often pro-
vide relevant information to aid the subsequent
evaluation stage as well (Allen, 1984). Another cri-
tical role during this stage can be an `idea genera-
tor’, who can respond to new challenges through
the development of unique solutions (Roberts and
Fusfeld, 1988). The `gatekeeper’ and `idea genera-
tor’ roles can often be performed within design=
construction ® rms by the same person (Stewart
and Tatum, 1988; Nam and Tatum, 1997).
Evaluation
Once the preliminary set of alternatives has been
identi® ed, they are evaluated with respect to the
project objectives, in particular to measure the
performance of the alternatives on key criteria
Table 1. Project and company criteria to evaluate innovation alternatives
Project criteria
Cost
Long-term facility performance
Construction performance
Duration (design, planning and construction)
Technical feasibility
Worker safety
Environmental impacts
Risk of failure
Implementation complexity
IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATIONS
(Table 1). Given the cost-competitive nature of the
construction industry in most markets, the com-
mon expectation is that reducing design and
construction-related costs is the main focus of
most innovative activity (Duke, 1988; Seaden,
1996). However, recent research indicates that a
large portion of the innovations suggested and
accepted within the construction industry actually
improve the performance of either the design=
construction process or the performance of the
completed facility itself (Johnson and Tatum,
1993; Semlies, 1999).
The key point is that evaluating innovative al-
ternatives only with respect to current known al-
ternatives and especially without explicit
consideration of potential improvements in other
aspects, such as performance, worker safety and
technical feasibility, may not reveal the full range
of bene® ts which could be expected from innova-
tions. Although many construction innovations
are considered with respect to a speci® c project,
they can provide bene® ts to the company as a
whole as well (Goodman and Grif® th, 1991;
Laborde and Sanvido, 1994). Under certain condi-
tions, the act of innovating itself can provide
strategic bene® ts and the successful implementa-
tion of an innovation can enhance a company’s
reputation (Christensen and Rosenbloom, 1995;
Hampson and Tatum, 1997). Even if the expected
project-based bene® ts of an innovation do not
appear to offset the expected costs, the company-
wide bene® ts in the competitive and strategic
implications over a longer time, or more projects,
may reveal strong incentives to use an innovation.
The evaluation of the alternatives needs to be
performed with respect to the overall objectives of
the project and the ® rm and not only in compari-
son with the known attributes of common alter-
natives taken individually (Winch, 1998).
Company criteria
Reputation impacts
Unique capability
New market
Compatibility with and utilization of existing capabilities
Improvement of existing capabilities
Appropriability of beneŽ ts
Effective use of innovation
Size of initial commitment
5
SLAUGHTER

Commitment often emerge among the team members, particu-

In the third implementation phase, the con-
struction company commits to the innovation(s)
selected after evaluation. The company’s commit-
ment is demonstrated through its internal alloca-
tion of resources to the implementation of the
innovation (Tatum 1987) and often through public
announcement and acknowledgement of its deci-
sion to use the innovation. The irrevocability of
publicly announced commitments to innovations
can often provide the internal impetus to over-
come problems as they occur, and to drive the
implementation to completion (Goodman and
Grif® th, 1991).
The process through which a construction com-
pany actually decides to use an innovation often
relies upon the actions of a particular `champion’,
who is willing to shepherd the innovation along
(Roberts and Fusfeld, 1988; Nam and Tatum,
1997) (Table 2). The resources committed include
the initial ® nancial, personnel, equipment, and
material resources, but also the longer-term re-
sources required to maintain the condition or
operation of the innovation.
Preparation
A critical, but often neglected stage in the imple-
mentation process is to actually prepare for the
implementation. The units that need to be pre-
pared include the people within the company
who will implement the innovation, the project
team (e.g. owner, designer, general contractor,
speciality contractors) in which the innovation
will be implemented and the construction com-
pany as a whole (Cross, 1983). During this pre-
paration stage, the construction team needs to be
able to accomplish two key activities: 1) to actu-
ally obtain the resources; and, since most con-
struction processes are labour-intensive, 2) to
develop and train the personnel who will be
involved. At this point, the project leader will
larly with respect to the implementation of the
innovation. This team leader will often take a
critical role in coordinating and negotiating
among the parties as needed, and will make
critical decisions during the actual use of the
innovation (Table 2) (Nam and Tatum, 1997).
In some cases, a company may decide to `try out’
a small version of the innovation before full-scale
commitment. This approach can often provide im-
portant experience, and reveal critical factors for
full-scale use. However, these small scale trials
cannot be interpreted as full implementation of
the innovation, since they may not necessarily
provide accurate information on either the costs
or bene® ts that could be obtained from a full-scale
commitment (von Hippel and Tyre, 1995). The
`scale effects’ of most construction projects is so
signi® cant that tests done in less than full scale or
the complete facility may signi® cantly differ from
reality. Despite potential drawbacks, small-scale
trials can be an important internal and external
signal of the commitment to the innovation. In
these early tests, modi® cations or adjustments can
be made as necessary before the project is in full
operational ¯ ow.
While the novel component, system and=or pro-
cess are given a `dry run’, and the resources are
assembled and readied, the team itself can be pre-
pared through the review and adjustment of the
incentives of the project team to actively engage
in the innovation implementation. For example, if
one party believes that it is doing all the work to
make the implementation succeed but another
party is obtaining all of the bene® ts, the successful
implementation may well be in jeopardy. The
development of a sense of common (or at least not
con¯ icting) objectives and the distribution of tan-
gible and intangible bene® ts throughout the teams
during the preparation stage, can increase the
willingness of the parties to collaborate in addres-
sing problems in the implementation as they arise

Table 2. Roles in innovation (Nam and Tatum, 1997; Roberts and Fusfeld, 1988)
Role Project stage key involvement Activities

Idea generator IdentiŽ cation Create novel design, product, process, system
Gatekeeper IdentiŽ cation, evaluation Scan, assess, synthesize, apply external and internal information
Champion Commitment Encourage, protect, promote innovation to formal acceptance
Project leader Preparation Coordinate resources and activities to develop=implement innovation
Coach Preparation, use Guide, develop, train, support internal resources

6
 IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATIONS

(Teece, 1988). Recent research has demonstrated
that several parties can simultaneously obtain
these bene® ts (e.g. `win-win’ outcome) and can
continue to appropriate those bene® ts over several
projects (Ramcharan, 1997).
Use
Typically, construction innovations are changes
introduced into large, complex systems. As a
result, the use stage itself is often a time in which
adjustments and changes are made on-site to
obtain the expected bene® ts, or to take advantage
of opportunities to increase the level of bene® ts
obtained (Slaughter, 1993b; Hutcheson et al., 1996;
Kangari and Miyatake, 1997). These modi® cations
can include changes to the processes or systems to
most effectively use and accommodate the innova-
tion, and also changes to the innovation itself to
better ® t the complex set of systems (Fleck, 1994;
von Hippel and Tyre, 1995; Voss 1988). The sig-
ni® cant roles during this stage are the `decision-
maker’, who has the control and authority over
the needed resources and among the necessary
parties (Nam and Tatum, 1997), and a `source of
competence’, with respect to the innovation, who
can guide the changes and modi® cations as
needed.
In addition, the on-site personnel must learn
about the innovation and how to use it. Different
types of innovation may require different levels of
training to effectively use them, and the sources
of the training can differ (Cross, 1983). This on-site
training and learning can be particularly impor-
tant when an innovation has the potential to make
existing skills and competencies obsolete, since
either the existing personnel can resist the imple-
mentation of the innovation, or the personnel im-
plementing this innovation may not be drawn
from the traditional labour pool.
Post-use evaluation
Even though project teams usually disperse
quickly after the end of the project, certain in-
formation about the innovation implementation
should be collected immediately (Table 3). These
data can be used to evaluate the organization
processes as well as the speci® c innovation use
(Rubenstein et al., 1976; Buijs and Silvester, 1996).
The ® rst element in the evaluation is to compare
the original expectations of bene® ts and costs to
the actual outcomes. The project and company cri-
teria involved in the early evaluation of the alter-
natives should be reviewed and updated based
upon the experience with the innovation. Meas-
ures of performance should be examined, and fed

Table 3. Data needed for effective re-use of innovations

Category of data Detailed information

Technical 1. Component=system speciŽ cations

2. Actual implementation activities
3. ModiŽ cations made
4. Actual training needed
5. Technical performance measures

Project 1. Actual impacts on project as a whole

2. Special project activities, problems
3. Actual commitment within project team
4. Integration with other components=systems

Organization 1. Applicability to current projects

2. Applicability to potential projects
3. Actual commitment of upper management
4. Company rewards

Strategy 1. Comparable technology by competitors

2. Project outcomes (duration, cost) compared to competitors
3. Strategy to increase competitive advantage

Society 1. Demonstrable social beneŽ ts

2. Reductions in meeting social objectives (regulations, codes)

7
SLAUGHTER
back into the identi® cation and evaluation stages
of the same and related innovations.
Independent of the relative success of the inno-
vation with respect to the project and company
objectives, the personnel involved in the imple-
mentation stages should be rewarded (Meyer and
Goes, 1988; Laborde and Sanvido, 1994). Some of
the rewards are intrinsic to the innovation process
itself, in providing personal pride and challenges
to the people involved, as well as developing their
professional competencies and reputation. In ad-
dition, the construction company can provide
explicit rewards to personnel involved in the
innovation process. These rewards may range
from formal recognition within the company (e.g.
an internal award) to public recognition (e.g.
nomination for a national or international con-
struction innovation award). They can also focus
on the employee’s job itself, such as explicit
expansion of the job description to include inno-
vation or other related activities, increased project
or company responsibility and the opportunity to
formally act as the company’s liaison with innova-
tion sources or collaborators. Finally, the rewards
can include monetary amounts, either as a project
bonus or through an upward adjustment of
salary.
Implementation by innovation type
The general implementation stages described
above can differ signi® cantly when applied to
speci® c innovations. A construction-related com-
pany can plan its strategy for innovation imple-
mentation by considering explicitly the type of
innovation which is being considered or may be
incorporated into the ® rm’s activities. The ® ve
types of innovation (incremental, architectural,
modular, system and radical) can be matched to a
company’s existing and emerging resources and
competencies, and an overall near and long-term
strategy for the ® rm to effectively implement
innovations can be developed.
Implementation of incremental innovations
By de® nition, incremental innovations are modest
improvements in a product, process or system,
with no or only minor changes in the links to
other components or systems. Incremental innova-
tions can come from many different sources, but
are most often, in construction, derived from
8
experience and generated within a company that
then applies it (Myers and Marquis, 1969). A
company can identify a relevant process-related
innovation at almost any stage because this inno-
vation would affect only its own activities. An
incremental product innovation (i.e. material or
component) is most often embodied in a physical
element which is speci® ed during the design or
planning stages, but it can also be obtained or
substituted later, even during construction. An
incremental improvement in a system, such as
through a con® guration change among known
components, can also be identi® ed at any stage,
but may be most likely to appear after the speci® c
components and their baseline con® guration are
established, such as in late design=planning to
actual installation on site during construction.
The evaluation of incremental innovations is often
not very complicated or lengthy, since the ex-
pected changes and bene® ts are minor, with little
associated risk and uncertainty. In the same way,
the commitment stage does not require many spe-
cial or extensive resources, and a local champion
who can propose and defend the incremental in-
novations compared to the previous best can be
suf® cient to obtain commitment. The preparation
for the innovation is often accomplished using
standard available materials, equipment, and la-
bour (Slaughter, 1993a). However, it must be
noted at this point that while an innovation may
be perceived to be an incremental innovation to
the project members on the site, it may have re-
quired extensive off-site development and pre-
paration and indeed may be perceived as a
signi® cant change to the state-of-knowledge and
the links to other components and systems to
other members of the value-added chain (Afuah
and Bahram, 1995).
During the actual use of the incremental innova-
tion, the decision-making required to accomplish
the implementation can be at the local level, and
the implementation itself can build directly upon
existing competencies. Attention should be given
to the identi® cation of problems during this stage,
to ensure that the innovation does not require
changes in the linkages to other areas, that is, that
it is not actually an architectural innovation. The
post-use evaluation stage for incremental innova-
tions is particularly dif® cult because these minor
improvements are often not remembered by the
organization through any formal mechanism,
and are often quickly forgotten as well by the

individuals involved. It may also be dif® cult to
ascertain the actual costs and bene® ts from these
innovations, since they are by nature small. A
company can establish certain routines to quickly
and easily collect post-use evaluation data, such
as through a query just as the project ends about
the acceptability of a product not previously spe-
ci® ed, or equipment not previously used, or
through a project documentation system that ¯ ags
minor improvements for easy access.
An example of the implementation of an incre-
mental innovation is the use of the CyraxTM
spatial measurement system (Fig. 5). The Cyrax
uses a special unit to direct a laser beam at a ® xed
target. When the beam bounces off the target, the
distance and surface characteristics of the target
can be measured and recorded using a receiver.
The Cyrax system converts these readings into a
relational matrix of the characteristics of the
target, which are then processed automatically
into a three dimensional CAD image within a
6 mm accuracy (Hwang, 1997; Thomson, 1998).
For owners, architects, structural engineers, con-
struction planners and other users of 3D CAD
data and images, the innovation is an incremental
improvement over existing techniques such as
photogrammetry, providing high accuracy much
more quickly and less expensively. (However, to
the photogrammetry industry, this innovation is a
radical change from current state of knowledge
and practice, and may well make existing technol-
ogies obsolete.) The innovation was developed in
a joint research programme between Lincoln Lab-
oratory at MIT, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
and Cyra Technologies, building upon the differ-
Laser Scanner 3D CAD of
and Receiver Existing Facility
Fig. 5. Cyrax 3D laser scanning system.
IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATIONS
ent organizations’ competencies and proprietary
technologies.
During implementation, the Cyrax’s advantages,
in terms of cost, performance and speed, ® rst
brought the innovation into consideration by sev-
eral users, including the US Navy and Chevron
Petroleum, as a simple replacement for current
surveying and documentation activities (Phair,
1997; Thomson, 1998). These and other companies
contracted for facility surveys using Cyrax as an
incremental improvement in the process of data
collection and translation to CAD ® les. Its use re-
quired no changes in other components, systems
or processes and was virtually indistinguishable
from CAD ® les generated through other means.
Implementation of architectural innovations
Architectural innovations involve minor improve-
ments to a core concept or area, but require
signi® cant changes in other components or sys-
tems. In some cases, architectural innovations are
® rst perceived as incremental innovations, with
the attendant assumptions of minimal impacts on
other elements, which can then require extensive
late modi® cation and adjustment during use, with
associated higher costs and longer implementa-
tion time (Henderson and Clark, 1990). Apparent
minor improvements should therefore be evalu-
ated explicitly with respect to their potential
impacts on other components and systems.
Architectural innovations can come from many
different sources, both within and outside an in-
dustry and at any point along the value-added
chain, but they appear to have stronger potential
for successful implementation when they originate
from sources with knowledge of and control over
the connections among the components and sys-
tems (Slaughter, 1993a). They also appear to be
more successfully implemented when they are re-
cognized and planned for early in the project,
such as between design and early construction, to
acknowledge the need for explicit and implicit co-
ordination (Semlies, 1999). The evaluation of these
innovations must be made with respect to the full
set of effected components and systems, since an
assessment that focuses only on individual ele-
ments will not reveal the full set of potential costs
and bene® ts because it will exclude the secondary
and tertiary impacts of the innovation use.
The interaction with other components and sys-
9
SLAUGHTER
tems will require a different level of commitment
and preparation than was discussed for incremen-
tal innovations. For the implementation of archi-
tectural innovations, all of the effected parties will
need to commit to the innovation and often to ex-
plicitly coordinate their products, resources or
processes. These requisite changes in other sys-
tems may also require special resources or addi-
tional time, which will have to be negotiated with
respect to the appropriation of the bene® ts from
the innovation. For example, a small change in a
component that requires another trade to rework
their standard work practices will not be wel-
comed unless the party required to bear the cost
also receives some of the bene® ts, such as through
additional revenue or reduced costs. Indeed, the
appropriation of any bene® ts from these innova-
tions may be dependent upon the degree of co-
operation among the parties. These negotiations
among the affected members will need an innova-
tion champion who has authority and responsibil-
ity across the set of affected members, who can
direct the analysis of the type and location of the
changes needed and can commit resources where
necessary. The preparation for the implementation
of an architectural innovation may also involve
testing and trials of prototypes, `learning by try-
ing’ (Fleck, 1994).
The actual use of the architectural innovation may
require further attention and active modi® cation
to coordinate and adjust the components, pro-
cesses or systems to achieve the objectives. At this
stage, a decision-maker will need to have the on-
site responsibility and control to expedite the
implementation through adjudicating disputes,
committing resources and reaching ® nal agree-
ments. The post-use evaluation can document the
degree of inter-® rm coordination and the agree-
ments reached, but must also explicitly distin-
guish between the technical outcomes and the
impact on the project as a whole and the involved
organizations. It may be particularly important to
obtain an evaluation from each of the effected
parties, since their perception of the outcomes
may differ signi® cantly. The future use of the
innovation may depend as much upon the team
that is re-assembled as on the speci® c knowledge
and experience obtained from the ® rst use of the
innovation because of the need for accommoda-
tion and adjustment.
An example of an architectural innovation is the
desegregate concrete, developed by Kajima Con-
10
struction for the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge in Japan
(Shimizu, 1997). Desegregate concrete is a new
mixture of materials (mix proportion of 1:9:0 of ce-
ment to slag to ¯ y ash) to create a type of concrete
which could cure underwater with adequate
strength and other performance requirements.
The speci® c objectives for the innovation were to
decrease construction time for the pier founda-
tions of the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge in Japan and in
particular to reduce the chance that delays in the
foundation construction could delay other large
scale systems. This innovation involved only min-
or changes within the core concepts, but major
changes occur in the relationship of the innova-
tion to other components and processes. In parti-
cular, the mixture itself uses available materials,
but signi® cantly changes the process through
which the concrete is placed and protected during
curing.
During the ® rst phase of the implementation
process (i.e. the design of the Akashi-Kaikyo
Bridge), the need for an underwater concrete was
identi® ed and several alternatives were developed
by Japanese construction companies, which were
assessed by the Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Authority
(Shimizu, 1997). The Authority then made a major
commitment to the underwater concrete, conduct-
ing large-scale tests of its properties, and publiciz-
ing the results. The contracts for pouring the
foundations were awarded to two of the compa-
nies who had developed competing versions of
the concrete (Kajima Construction and Taisei Con-
struction) and these companies assessed the
changes required in other portions of the process,
and invested in capital facilities, including two
series of batch plants. During the early pouring of
the concrete, the production staff had to learn
how to use the new equipment effectively, espe-
cially the large-scale batch plants. In fact, during
the ® rst casting, ® ve out of six pumps went out of
order, but the redundancy of the system allowed
the placement to continue without interruption
(Shimizu, 1997). The foundation pours were com-
pleted successfully, and the performance of the
desegregate concrete during the construction pro-
cess and its tested characteristics were evaluated
with respect to expectations, and found to be a
signi® cant improvement over standard methods.
Implementation of modular innovations
Implementing modular innovations, which have a
major improvement in a core concept or area, but

no or only minor changes in the links to other
areas or components, requires different expertise
than the implementation of incremental or archi-
tectural innovations. Modular innovations are
developed by organizations with the speci® c ex-
pertise, capability and control in the core concept
area. These organizations could be at many points
in the value-added chain or in external institu-
tions, such as laboratories and universities. Lack
of changes in other systems allows the expertise
to be localized in the core concept itself, but the
signi® cant change in the core concept usually
requires that the innovation be identi® ed and
evaluated earlier in the project than occurs with
incremental innovations and relies upon the spe-
ci® c competence in the concept area to effectively
evaluate the innovation. The evaluation of the
modular innovation is, with respect to the mod-
ule it replaces and the risks associated with the
change concern the technical uncertainty within
the conceptual development path (Dosi, 1982).
Commitment for a modular innovation is needed
from the parties responsible for achieving the
owner’s objectives, such as designers and owners’
representatives, because of the degree of risk asso-
ciated with the change in the core concept. This
commitment may require an innovation champion
at the module level, who can defend the innova-
tion through his=her competence in the area. The
commitment stage may also require the assign-
ment of special resources to obtain the innovation
and install it. Because of the signi® cant change in
a key concept area, the commitment stage may in-
volve several speci® c activities to raise the visibi-
lity of the implementation of the innovation, in
which a champion may receive formal public
commitment to the implementation. This publicity
can in turn provide signi® cant reputation bene® ts
for the organization as a whole associated with
being considered a technology leader, while con-
® ning the risk to the module itself. In the same
way, the innovation bene® ts can often be obtained
by the organization speci® cally associated with
the module, without coordination or negotiation
with other parties.
Preparation for the implementation of the modu-
lar innovation includes the speci® c acquisition
and delivery of the special resources and any re-
quired training. The use itself of the innovation is
often straightforward, with no changes in other
components or systems, and, because of the pre-
paration activities, little change or modi® cation on
IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATIONS
the site itself that is the responsibility of the site
crew. (Adjustments to the modular innovation to
reach expected performance levels can be expli-
citly arranged as the responsibility of the innova-
tion source.) Post-use evaluation can directly
consider the expected performance levels com-
pared to the actual levels achieved and these
measures of innovation success can be clearly
speci® ed and evaluated with respect to the inno-
vation itself and the module it replaces. Docu-
mentation of the implementation, including
innovation sources, can be suf® cient to encourage
the re-use of the innovation on other projects.
An example of a modular innovation, from the
point of view of a general contractor, is the use of
¯ exible piping for horizontal plumbing runs (Fig.
6). Flexible piping uses cross-linked polyethylene
tubes that can convey water at standard tempera-
tures and pressures for low to mid-rise buildings
(Murray, 1999). Flexible piping replaces small dia-
meter copper piping, and is a signi® cant change
in the core concept. Copper piping is rigid, and
delivered in 6 m (20 ft) ® xed length segments,
which are then cut and welded together to bring
water (hot or cold) from a source to the usage
point of a ® xture. Bends in copper piping rough-
in are accomplished through the use of `elbows’
and other ® xed radius turn components. In con-
trast, ¯ exible piping is delivered to the site on
30.5 m (100 ft) spools, which can be unwound as
the ¯ exible piping is threaded through the spaces
available, which can eliminate most of the connec-
tions between piping segments, and the physical
elbow or turn components.
Use of ¯ exible piping on low-rise commercial and
residential buildings has been adopted in some
areas, primarily where a plumbing speciality con-
Fig. 6. Flexible polyethylene piping.
11
SLAUGHTER
tractor has taken the lead in promoting the system
to owners and designers (Murray, 1999). The
change in the core concept, from copper to poly-
ethylene has often required special documentation
for acceptance in local code jurisdictions in the
USA to verify the technical performance of the
new system. It can be directly compared to cur-
rent standard materials and methods and exhibits
signi® cant savings in time and material, and eli-
minates dangerous tasks such as welding. On site,
¯ exible piping has been successfully employed
with little disruption of normal activities; indeed,
it is currently being incorporated into the plumb-
ing union training programmes in California.
Implementation of system innovations
A system innovation is a combination of innova-
tions, which are integrated to provide new func-
tions or attributes and thus can entail a high
degree of technological uncertainty and interface
complexity. While the individual innovations may
come from a variety of sources, the integrated
system innovation appears to be most successful
when it is conceived and implemented by a
source which has system expertise and control
and when it is identi® ed and evaluated during
the early conceptual design phases (Hutcheson et
al., 1996; Semlies, 1999).
Since the objectives of a system innovation are
often to provide a new performance attribute or
function for a whole system or facility, the evalua-
tion of the innovation must be assessed across the
combination of innovations and not by individual
innovation at the system level. The complementar-
ity of the innovations can be the critical factor to
deliver the expected bene® ts and independently
analysing and evaluating the innovations can neg-
lect this level of impact. To complicate matters
further, a system innovation cannot be directly
compared to existing alternatives, since it often
provides new attributes, but may instead be com-
pared to the current existing system with respect
to the achievement of the owner’s objectives.
Comparison between the expected performance of
the innovation and the existing system may re-
quire advanced modelling and analysis compe-
tence (Winch, 1998).
Commitment to the implementation of a system
innovation will be required from all project mem-
bers to explicitly and implicitly collaborate to inte-
grate the innovations. Even parties not expected
12
to be directly involved in the implementation may
need to be willing to be ¯ exible in their resource
and timing assignments. In addition, the system
innovation itself may require special resources
across several trades or areas of expertise, particu-
larly in aspects of the system performance. The in-
novation champion will need to be able to
promote the innovation across the project team
and direct the evaluation through the implemen-
tation of the innovation with respect to the overall
performance objectives. The commitment to a sys-
tem innovation, because of its involvement of the
whole project team, often entails a high degree of
visibility and this visibility can provide signi® cant
bene® ts to all involved parties when the imple-
mentation goes well, but can also expose the par-
ties to unfavourable reviews if it does not.
The preparation for the implementation will re-
quire access to the special resources and will most
probably entail a high degree of testing and trials
to reduce the system uncertainty and complexity,
and to develop the technical and system compe-
tency with respect to the innovation, to `learn by
trying’ (Voss, 1988; Fleck, 1994). The bene® ts from
the system innovation will depend heavily upon
the active collaboration of the team members and
the distribution of bene® ts among the involved
parties should be explicitly considered with re-
spect to costs incurred during implementation.
The actual use of the innovation will require ac-
tive attention and modi® cation to coordinate and
adjust the complementary innovations to achieve
the overall objectives. In some cases, new inter-
faces can be created to further improve the per-
formance and to decrease complexity (von Hippel
and Tyre, 1995). The decision-maker at this stage
has to exercise system and project-wide control to
expedite the implementation and maintain the
focus on the overall objectives of the implementa-
tion, including the company’s strategic bene® ts.
The post-use evaluation will need to explicitly
consider the full range of bene® ts, and can often
be most effective when it includes the company,
industry and social bene® ts regardless of the
technical and project success of the implementa-
tion itself. Documentation of these implementa-
tion outcomes, from the project assessment and
other sources, such as through industry and
professional publications as well as general med-
ia, can provide the basis on which the full system
innovation, or a modi® ed combination can be
implemented effectively on future projects.

A prominent example of a system innovation in
construction is the `Smart Building’ system devel-
oped by Shimizu Corporation and Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries to automate the erection of
high-rise buildings (Engineering News Record, 1993;
Kangari and Miyatake, 1997). The system innova-
tion consists of ® ve speci® c innovations: an auto-
mated material transport system; a self-jacking
erection frame; a new structural steel connection;
an intra-system information and control system;
and an automated welder. The complementarity
of the innovations provides new functionality, in-
cluding the complete enclosure of the working en-
vironment and signi® cant reduction of labour
requirements, strenuous tasks, and exposure to
dangerous conditions. The innovations had to be
explicitly integrated to obtain the expected levels
of performance; for example, the erection se-
quence of the structural steel members had to be
modi® ed to accommodate the timing of the move-
ment of the self-jacking platform.
The actual use of the system innovation garnered
a lot of publicity, not only in the construction in-
dustry but also in the general media. The con-
struction site became a destination for project and
industry-related tours, as well as a public specta-
cle. The whole project team, as well as researchers
from universities and research organizations, were
involved in signi® cant preparation activities, in-
cluding the testing and trials of the combination
of the innovations (Kangari and Miyatake, 1997).
The post-use assessment of this system innovation
has most often been with respect to the demon-
stration of feasibility of automated equipment for
construction tasks (as an industry and social bene-
® t) and as a signi® cant reputation enhancement
for the primary companies who were involved.
Implementation of radical innovations
Because a radical innovation involves a signi® cant
new concept or approach, the sources of these
innovations tend to be institutions involved in
scienti® c or engineering research. In addition, the
potential for a radical innovation to make current
products, processes and=or systems obsolete often
means that a radical innovation is introduced by a
new entrant to an industry, who does not have a
vested interest in preserving current competencies
(Nelson and Winter, 1977; Foster, 1988). The high
technical uncertainty associated with the imple-
mentation of a radical innovation may require that
the innovation itself is identi® ed before a project
IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATIONS
is actually being designed and indeed, the evalua-
tion of the innovation may proceed independent
of a speci® c project and commitment can be made
when an appropriate project is identi® ed, during
its feasibility analysis and conceptual design
phases.
The evaluation of the radical innovation can be
complicated by the emergence of a new way of
thinking about how to achieve an objective, that
is, a new `technological paradigm’ (Dosi, 1982),
where the attributes of performance are not yet
agreed upon and the direction of improvement
has yet to emerge. In these cases, because the po-
tential bene® ts are unknown, the evaluation may
be primarily concerned with strategic and=or so-
cial goals and may be with respect to a whole
class of facilities (e.g. power generation). An addi-
tional expected bene® t from the implementation is
the opportunity to learn more about the nature of
the new technology for future applications. Com-
mitting to implement a radical innovation may in-
volve the highest authorities within the involved
organizations and will often be highly visible,
within the scienti® c and engineering communities
and the industry and to the general public. The
champion for this innovation must have credibil-
ity across multiple organizations and have high
technical competence to effectively present the
arguments for the implementation activities. Be-
cause of the high technical uncertainty and the
objective to learn over time, the commitment will
also have to extend over a reasonable time period,
with the assignment of relevant resources at
appropriate levels to further the development and
implementation of the radical innovation for other
applications. Organizations that are willing and
able to commit high competency resources to the
implementation activities are the most likely to
obtain the bene® ts from the radical innovation,
both within the realm of technical and project
performance, as well as the company-wide bene-
® ts (such as reputation) and the long-term strate-
gic bene® ts.
During the preparation stage, extensive testing
and prototype trials will often be performed, with
direct participation and coordination among the
involved organizations. This organizational invol-
vement must explicitly include the technical com-
petence, with access to special resources (e.g.
large-scale testing facilities), to examine the tech-
nical feasibility of the radical innovation before it
is used in the speci® c project. This competency
13
SLAUGHTER
may also need to extend to multiple systems with-
in a facility, to understand the full rami® cations of
the radical innovation on the project as a whole.
For the initial application, the risks associated
with the implementation can be somewhat re-
duced by selecting a project that provides non-
vital services, such as a redundant or secondary
facility.
The actual use of the innovation will require ac-
tive multi-organizational participation to collect
critical data, analyse it and adjust the innovation
or the context to achieve the expected perform-
ance. This strong inter-® rm coordination, coupled
with the publicly identi® ed social and industry
bene® ts can make it dif® cult for the radical inno-
vation to be effectively analysed with respect to
the speci® c project because the bene® ts are by de-
® nition long term and may threaten the existence
of the ® rms involved or their competitors. The
post-use evaluation phase may include the identi-
® cation of the critical characteristics, especially on
the expected bene® ts and levels of performance,
which may only be possible after the radical inno-
vation has actually been used, and appears to be a
key stage in the further development and re-use
of the innovation (Abernathy and Utterback,
1978).
An emerging example of a radical innovation is
the fuel cell, which uses a chemical reaction to pro-
duce electrical energy (Fig. 7). Fuel cells use natur-
al gas or propane, which is reformed by steam to
produce hydrogen gas, used in the chemical reac-
tion, producing electricity, with heat and water as
the waste by-products. The fuel cell constitutes a
signi® cantly new concept for electrical power gen-
eration, competing with conventional technologies
using fossil fuels in a combustion reaction, which
Anode Cathode
Input:
Air
Natural
Gas Fuel OUTPUT:
ELECTRICITY
WATER
HEAT
Electrolyte
Fig. 7. Proton exchange membrane fuel cell (Interna-
tional Fuel Cells).
14
may in the future make current power generation
technologies obsolete. In addition, the fuel cell can
be used for local power generation, close to the
point of usage, thereby changing the links among
power-using and power-generating nodes in the
power grid. The innovation was initially devel-
oped for the US space programme, after 22 years
of further development and technical changes, it is
being installed into buildings through a joint ven-
ture between United Technologies Corporation
and Toshiba Corporation (Semlies, 1998). A recent
high visibility project that uses fuel cells is Four
Times Square (the Durst Tower) in New York City,
which is advertised as an `environmentally
friendly’ of® ce tower (Holusha, 1997). The two fuel
cells will provide approximately 15% of the base
electrical load of the building (Semlies, 1998). The
reputation of the companies involved, with the ex-
plicit support of the USA federal government and
the signi® cant previous testing and demonstration
of performance, were necessary to consider includ-
ing the fuel cells in the building. In addition, the
overall objectives of the building, to be a leading
example of a new breed of `green’ of® ce buildings,
were congruent with the performance character-
istics of the innovation. However, to reduce the
overall risks associated with using this radical in-
novation, the building did not install the fuel cells
as the only or even major source of electricity for
the building, but instead used it as a supplemen-
tary power source, primarily used for operating
the electronic billboards on the building facade.
The project team has received signi® cant publicity
from their association with the speci® c technolo-
gies, including the fuel cells incorporated into the
building.
Summary and conclusions
The effective implementation of construction in-
novations requires an appropriate commitment of
resources and an understanding of the nature of
the activities required. This research presents a
detailed framework in which the six stages of
implementation activity: identi® cation; evaluation;
commitment; preparation; use; and post-use eva-
luation are mapped to the ® ve different types of
innovation: incremental; architectural; modular;
system; and radical. The objective of this paper is
to increase the capacity of construction-related
organizations to develop and implement product,
process and system innovations in the built envir-
onment.

Speci® cally, the activities of different organ-
izations within the construction industry can
in¯ uence the supply and utilization of construc-
tion innovations. Manufacturers and suppliers
who are unaware of the changes required to
implement their innovations, either in the links to
other components, processes, or systems or in the
product itself are likely to meet resistance in the
spread of their products. While these companies
may prefer to consider their products indepen-
dently of the use environment, explicit considera-
tion of the implementation activities can
signi® cantly improve both their products and the
degree to which they can be used effectively
within the industry (Slaughter, 1993a).
Owners can consider the potential bene® ts in the
improvement of both the construction process and
the completed facility through the clearer speci® -
cation of desired objectives, rather than a simple
acceptance of the standard available designs or
technologies. These strong owner objectives can
be a signi® cant catalyst for the development, con-
sideration and use of construction-related innova-
tions. In the same way, speciality and general
contractors can plan their innovation utilization
activities with respect to the ful® lment of speci® c
project objectives as well as the achievement of
their strategic objectives over the long term. For
example, developing a reputation for being wil-
ling to try new products, processes and systems
can increase the potential market for a construc-
tion company, particularly in the higher value or
performance projects. Finally, government organi-
zations who wish to encourage further the
development and use of construction-related inno-
vations can acknowledge the dif® culties inherent
in the implementation process and the need for
learning with respect to the innovation both with-
in speci® c ® rms and across the industry. These in-
novations are not homogeneous units that can be
legislated, but rather differ signi® cantly in the nat-
ure of the innovations themselves and the activ-
ities required to effectively use them. Increasing
the capacity of construction-related ® rms to iden-
tify appropriate innovations and to evaluate their
potential costs and bene® ts with respect to speci® c
projects could be an important area for govern-
ment organizations to undertake.
Current research is developing a methodology
and set of tools to analyse the impact that innova-
tions have on the construction process (Slaughter,
1999). Further research is needed to fully assess
IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATIONS
the performance of innovations within their oper-
ating context, particularly in the secondary and
tertiary system impacts of these innovations. For
instance, the dynamic system performance of
structural frames under extreme loads (e.g. seis-
mic and high wind) needs to be better understood
to effectively utilize new load damping and other
innovative systems (Sandia National Laboratory,
1997; Slaughter and Settlemyre, 1998). Additional
research is also needed on the means through
which construction-related organizations can
more effectively re-use innovations in future pro-
jects. Several publicly funded programmes to
demonstrate new construction designs and tech-
nologies have been disappointed with the lack of
widespread use and acceptance of the innova-
tions. Extending the analysis of the implementa-
tion stages by type of innovation into the re-use of
these innovations may prove to be a rich area to
pursue.
References
Abernathy, W.J. and Utterback, J.M. (1978) Patterns of
industrial innovation. Technology Review, pp. 40± 7.
Afuah, A.N. and Bahram, N. (1995) The hypercube of
innovation. Research Policy, 24, 51± 76.
Allen, T.J. (1984) Managing the Flow of Technology, MIT
Press, Cambridge.
Buijs, A. and Silvester, S. (1996) Demonstration projects
and sustainable housing. Building Research and
Information, 24(4), 195± 202.
Cainarca, G.C., Colombo, M.G. and Mariotti, S. (1989)
An evolutionary pattern of innovation diffusion: the
case of ¯ exible automation. Research Policy, 18,
59± 86.
Christensen, C.M. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (1995) Explain-
ing the attacker’s advantage: technological para-
digms, organizational dynamics, and the value
network. Research Policy, 24, 233± 57.
Civil Engineering (1997) West Virginia bridge con-
structed with plastic rebar. Civil Engineering, pp.
11± 12.
Cross, M. (1983) Technical Change, the Supply of New
Skills and Product Diffusion, in A. Gillspie (ed.):
Technological Change and Regional Development, Pion
Limited, London, pp. 54± 67.
Dosi, G. (1982) Technological paradigms and techno-
logical trajectories. Research Policy, 11, 147± 62.
Duke, R. (1988) Local Building Codes and the Use of Cost-
Saving Methods, U.S. Federal Trade Commission,
Bureau of Economics, Washington, DC.
Engineering News Record (1993) Building-by-Numbers
in Japan. Engineering News Record, pp. 22± 4.
Fleck, J. (1994) Learning By trying: the implementation
of con® gurational technology. Research Policy, 23,
637± 52.
Foster, R.N. (1988) Timing of Technological Transitions,
in M.L. Tushman and W.L. Moore, (eds): Readings
15
SLAUGHTER
in the Management of Innovation, Ballinger Publishing
Co., Boston, MA, pp. 215± 28.
Goodman, P.S. and Grif® th, T.L. (1991) A process
approach to the implementation of new technology.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8,
261± 85.
Halpin, D.W. (1992) The International Challenge in De-
sign and Construction. Construction Business Review,
2(1), 40± 5.
Hampson, K. and Tatum, C.B. (1997) Technology strat-
egy and competitive performance in bridge con-
struction. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 123(2), 153 ± 61.
Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B. (1990) Architectural in-
novation: the recon® guration of existing product
technologies and the failure of established ® rms.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9± 30.
Holusha, J. (1997) 42nd Street and Broadway: Technol-
ogy in the Front Seat at 4 Times Square. The New
York Times, New York, USA.
Hutcheson, P., Pearson, A.W. and Ball, D.F. (1996)
Sources of technical innovation in the network of
companies providing chemical process plant and
equipment. Research Policy, 25, 25± 41.
Hwang, A. (1997) CYRAX as a Construction Innovation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA.
Johnson, K.D. and Tatum, C.B. (1993) Technology in
marine construction ® rms. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 119(1), 148± 62.
Kangari, R. and Miyatake, Y. (1997) Developing and
managing innovative construction technologies in
Japan. Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement, 123(1), 72± 8.
Laborde, M. and Sanvido, V. (1994) Introducing new
process technologies into construction companies.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
120(3), 488± 509.
Mans® eld, E. (1988) The speed and cost of industrial inno-
vation in Japan and the United States: external vs.
internal technology. Management Science, 34(10),
1157± 68.
Marquis, D.G. (1988) Anatomy of Successful Innova-
tions, in M. L. Tushman and W. L. Moore, (eds):
Readings in the Management of Innovation, Ballinger
Publishing Company, Boston, MA, pp. 79± 87.
Meyer, A.D. and Goes, J.B. (1988) Organizational assimi-
lation of innovations: a multilevel contextual
analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4),
897± 923.
Murray, J. (1999) Simulation to Assess Innovations in the
Installation of Plumbing and Fire Protection Systems.
Master of Science, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Cambridge, MA.
Myers, S. and Marquis, D.G. (1969) Successful Industrial
Innovations: A Study of Factors Underlying Innovation
in Selected Firms, Government Printing Of® ce,
Washington, DC.
Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B. (1997) Leaders and cham-
pions for construction innovation. Construction Man-
agement and Economics, 15, 259± 70.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1977) In search of a useful
theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6, 36± 76.
Okamura, H., Ozawa, K. and Ouchi, M. (1995) Self-
16
compacting high performance concrete. Journal of
the Korea Concrete Institute, 7(5), 33± 41.
Phair, M. (1997) Lasers and satellites streamline project
plans. Engineering News Record, pp. 54± 7.
Pries, F. and Janszen, F. (1995) Innovation in the con-
struction industry: the dominant role of the environ-
ment. Construction Management and Economics, 13,
43± 51.
Quigley, J.M. (1982) Residential Construction, in R.R.
Nelson (ed.): Government and Technical Progress: A
Cross-Industry Analysis, Pergamon Press, New York,
pp. 361± 410.
Ramcharan, R. (1997) Strategic Impact of Innovations in
Information Technology in Construction. Master of
Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA.
Ramirez, A. (1998) Diffusion of Residential Construction
Innovations in Columbia, Master of Science,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA.
Roberts, E.B. (1982) Generating effective corporate inno-
vation. Innovation=Technology Review, pp. 2± 9.
Roberts, E.B. and Fusfeld, A.R. (1988) Staf® ng the Inno-
vative Technology-Based Organization, in M.L.
Tushman and W.L. Moore (eds): Readings in the
Management of Innovation, Ballinger Publishing Co.,
Boston, MA, 310± 26.
Rogers, R. S. III. (1998) Diffusion Strategy for Residential
Solar Hot Water Systems in the U.S.: Technical, Eco-
nomic, and Stakeholder Analyses, Master of Science,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA.
Rubenstein, A.H., Chakrabarti, A.K., O’Keefe, R.D.,
Souder, W.E. and Young, H.C. (1976) Factors in¯ u-
encing innovation success at the project level.
Research Management (May), pp. 15± 20.
Sandia National Laboratory (1997) Proceedings: Assuring
the Performance of Buildings and Infrastructures,
Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM,
USA.
Schmookler, J. (1952) The changing de® ciency of the
American economy, 1869-1938. Review of Economics
and Statistics, 34(August), 214.
Seaden, G. (1996) Economics of innovation in the con-
struction industry. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,
2(3), 103± 7.
Semlies, C. (1998) Construction Innovation: Fuel Cells for
Building Electrical Supply. Construction Engineering
and Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy, Cambridge, MA.
Semlies, C. (1999) Inter-Firm Collaboration in the Implemen-
tation of Structural Innovations in Building Construc-
tion, Master of Science, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Shimizu, H. (1997) Recent Technology Developments for
Long-Span Bridges, Master of Science, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Slaughter, E.S. (1993a) Builders as sources of construc-
tion innovation. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 119(3), 532± 49.
Slaughter, E.S. (1993b) Innovation and learning during
implementation: a comparison of user and manufac-
turer innovations. Research Policy, 22, 81± 95.
Slaughter, E.S. (1998) Models of construction innovation.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
124(2).
Slaughter, E.S. (1999) Assessment of construction pro-
cesses and innovations through simulation. Con-
struction Management and Economics, 17(3), 341± 50.
Slaughter, E.S. and Eraso, M. (1997) Simulation of struc-
tural steel erection to assess innovations. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(2),
196± 207.
Slaughter, E.S. and Settlemyre, K. (1998) Application Sce-
narios of Sandia National Laboratory Structural Health
Monitoring Program to Residential Construction, Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA,
USA.
Stewart, W.S. and Tatum, C.B. (1988) Segmental place-
ment of renton outfall: construction innovation.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
114(3), 390± 407.
Tatum, C.B. (1987) Process of innovation in construction
IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATIONS
® rms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement, 113(4), 648 ± 63.
Teece, D.J. (1988) Pro® ting from Technological Innova-
tion: Implications for Integration, Collaboration,
Licensing, and Public Policy, in M.L. Tushman and
W.L. Moore (eds): Readings in the Management of In-
novation, Ballinger Publishing Co., Boston, MA, pp.
621± 47.
Thomson, E. (1998) Device Makes Surveys Faster, Cheaper,
MIT Tech Talk, Cambridge, MA, p. 5.
von Hippel, E. and Tyre, M.J. (1995) How learning by
doing is done: problem identi® cation in novel pro-
cess equipment. Research Policy, 24, 1± 12.
Voss, C.A. (1988) Implementation: a key issue in manu-
facturing technology. Research Policy, 17, 55± 63.
Winch, G. (1998) Zephyrs of creative destruction: under-
standing the management of innovation in con-
struction. Building Research & Information, 26(5),
268± 79.
17