Factors influencing technical innovation in construction SMEs: an Australian perspective

Abstract

PurposeThe intent of this research is to determine whether any common lessons can be drawn from the experience of individuals who have gone against the trend and delivered successful technical innovations in construction small and medium enterprises (SMEs).Design/methodology/approachA value tree of contributing factors to technical innovation was developed from the literature and tested by surveying established technical innovators using analytic hierarchy process methodology. This approach aimed at capturing the experience of company decision makers who manage to deliver successful change with limited resources.FindingsThe results reveal the importance of supportive clients and performance‐based building standards for innovative practice in construction. Significant differences were observed between small and medium‐sized companies and between product and process innovators.Research limitations/implicationsIn order to avoid a skewed sample, considerable effort was made to ensure that all survey participants had significant peer recognition as innovators. A high response rate (75 percent) from the target group also contributed to the reliability of the sample.Social implicationsIndustry employment rates and profitability are both positively correlated with high rates of innovation in many industries. Innovative solutions to environmental and social problems have potential benefits for the future direction of the construction industry, which is perceived as lagging somewhat in these areas.Originality/valueThe paper provides suggestions for managers of construction firms who wish to improve innovation performance rates by studying the insights of successful innovators in their field.

Financial and Non-Financial Key Competitiveness Indicators (KCIs) for New Small-Medium Private Housing Development Firms from the Malaysian Perspective

“…However, many scholars reported that the characteristics of the construction industry worldwide, as well as Malaysia, are dominated by small-medium firms and, thus, it should be well sustained. Furthermore, Hardie (2010) along Hardie and Newell (2011) believe that if sufficient support and encouragement are provided to the small-medium construction businesses, they would be able to deliver a potentially significant contribution to the economic and environmental performance of the construction industry.…”

Novel product innovation in project-based firms: explaining innovation where interdependent firms deliver complex system-level outcomes

“…A potential reason why customer embeddedness does not relate to novel products is that customers are often risk-averse toward novel innovation. In construction industries in particular, customers are strongly reputed for seeking low-risk solutions (Barrett & Sexton, 2006;Daneshy & Donnelly, 2004;Hardie & Newell, 2011) and often view novel innovation as a risk factor to be avoided (Keegan & Turner, 2002). If these assertions hold true in this research setting, it is not surprising then that customers are not (either positively or negatively) related to novel product innovations because they simply do not influence these outcomes.…”

“…On the negative side of the argument, in CoPS industries like construction and oil and gas, customers have distinct reputations for being incrementally innovative (Barrett & Sexton, 2006;Daneshy & Donnelly, 2004;Hardie & Newell, 2011;Keegan & Turner, 2002;Manley, 2008;Reichstein & Salter, 2006). In these environments, customers may view innovation as costly, risky and even dangerous (Keegan & Turner, 2002).…”

“…This is because in CoPS projects, customers may tend to seek out tried-and-true technologies that have been used successfully in other projects to minimise costs and risks, therefore putting pressure toward incremental (instead of novel) improvements in technologies (Barrett & Sexton, 2006;Daneshy & Donnelly, 2004;Hardie & Newell, 2011;Keegan & Turner, 2002;Manley, 2008;Reichstein & Salter, 2006).…”

“…In these environments, customers may view innovation as costly, risky and even dangerous (Keegan & Turner, 2002). In construction in particular, customers have strong reputations for disfavouring novelty, instead placing preference upon tried and true technologies (Barrett & Sexton, 2006;Daneshy & Donnelly, 2004;Hardie & Newell, 2011) that have clearly demonstrated cost savings in other projects (Manley, 2008).…”