WHY DOES CONSTRUCTION LAG TECHNOLOGICALLY?
It's well-documented that almost every other industry leads construction in the adoption of technology (see, e.g., JBKnowledge, Gartner, the chart leading my blog What is Construction Technology?, etc.). There are many reasons for this. One is functional: the core work of construction is more "hands-on" than mental, while technology is more mental than "hands-on". Call it right brain vs. left brain, kinetic vs. mental, worker vs. pencil pusher, or whatever. Bottom line -- there's a barrier between these types of work, and it's the rare individual who is good at both. Many construction folks just aren't 'wired' for technology, so to speak.
Another reason technology lags in the construction industry is that down-to-earth people can actually dislike technology (construction people often being quite down-to-earth). Truth be told, and despite its benefits, technology can be dehumanizing. Telephone technology has reduced the face-to-face contact we have with people who are otherwise geographically nearby. Email in turn has reduced telephone contact. I've worked for more than one construction executive who exhorted their people to stop sending so many emails and just talk to people. I get it.
On top of that, technology is a tool (or a class of tools). Tools improve business performance by reducing errors, minimizing monotonous repetitive tasks, and by enabling accomplishments otherwise impossible (e.g., space flight). A workforce of a given size will produce better output (more, faster, cheaper) using tools. Or if the amount of work is fixed, tools will reduce the time or amount of people required to do the work. It's this latter aspect that's the problem. And the people problem is aggravated by the fact that the ones who were making the errors, or the ones who were performing the monotonous repetitive work, are generally not the ones who can or will easily learn a new skill set. So tools can and do put people out of work.
Philosophically, the question becomes then: what is to be done about the problem of tools eliminating the need for people? You may have noticed that this topic has become active in the blogosphere lately, with themes centering around the danger of robots, and artificial intelligence taking over life as we know it. One recent blog headline I saw put it well: When robots do everything for people, what will the people do?
One approach is to resist the trend. Another tries to manage it for the benefit of, rather than negligently allowing it to harm humanity (e.g., Elon Musk). Another approach sees human nature for what it is, realizing that this (technology) train is leaving the station, and there's no stopping it. But I digress.
The point is that for these reasons construction types tend to be traditionalists, and as such may resist the technology trend. And that's not all bad -- there's a saying in IT that goes like this: We want to be leading edge, not bleeding edge. So moderation is a key. But we can be traditional to a fault, rather than moderate. In the end, a traditionalist mindset will not be competitive. And if we are not competitive, we will fail at some point -- if not sooner, then later.
So I'd say the best approach is to recognize that technology is not all good, but not all bad either. To recognize that technology is here to stay. To recognize that we need technology to remain competitive. And to develop a moderate, but leading edge strategy to make technology part of our businesses.
