BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2005) 33(6), 512 522

Innovation in construction: a sociology of

technology approach

Chris Harty

Department of Sociology, County South, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YD, UK

E-mail: c.harty@lancaster.ac.uk

An alternative approach to understanding innovation is made using two intersecting ideas. The first is that successful
innovation requires consideration of the social and organizational contexts in which it is located. The complex context
of construction work is characterized by inter-organizational collaboration, a project-based approach and power
distributed amongst collaborating organizations. The second is that innovations can be divided into two modes:
bounded, where the implications of innovation are restricted within a single, coherent sphere of influence, and
unbounded, where the effects of implementation spill over beyond this. Bounded innovations are adequately
explained within the construction literature. However, less discussed are unbounded innovations, where many firms
collaboration is required for successful implementation, even though many innovations can be considered
unbounded within constructions inter-organizational context. It is argued that unbounded innovations require an
approach to understand and facilitate the interactions both within a range of actors and between the actors and
technological artefacts. The insights from a sociology of technology approach can be applied to the multiplicity of
negotiations and alignments that constitute the implementation of unbounded innovation. The utility of concepts
from the sociology of technology, including system building and heterogeneous engineering, is demonstrated by
applying them to an empirical study of an unbounded innovation on a major construction project (the new
terminal at Heathrow Airport, London, UK). This study suggests that system building contains outcomes that are
not only transformations of practices, processes and systems, but also the potential transformation of technologies
themselves.

Keywords: collaboration, innovation management, innovation, interaction, project management, project organization,
system building, three-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD)

Comment comprendre linnovation ? Lauteur propose une autre methode basee sur deux idees se recoupant. Selon la
premiere idee, linnovation necessite que lon prenne en compte les contextes sociaux et organisationnels dans
lesquels elle se situe. La complexite du contexte des travaux de construction tient a la collaboration
interorganisationnelle, a une approche basee sur les projets et la repartition du pouvoir entre ces organisations.
Dapres la seconde idee, on peut distinguer deux modes dinnovation: linnovation limitee, ou les implications de
linnovation sont limitees a une seule sphere dinfluence coherente, et linnovation illimitee, ou les effets de sa
mise en oeuvre vont au-dela de cette sphere. Linnovation limitee est bien expliquee dans la litterature relative au
secteur de la construction. En revanche, linnovation illimitee ne beneficie pas du meme traitement, lorsque
plusieurs entreprises doivent collaborer pour une application reussie de linnovation, meme si de nombreuses
innovations peuvent etre considerees comme illimitees dans le contexte interorganisationnel de la construction. On
pretend que les innovations illimitees necessitent une approche permettant de comprendre et de faciliter les
interactions dune part, au sein dun groupe dacteurs et, dautre part, entre les acteurs et les artefacts
technologiques. Les idees issues dune approche sociologique de la technologie peuvent etre appliquees a la
multiplicite des negociations et des alignements qui contribuent a la mise en oeuvre dinnovations illimitees. On
demontre lutilite de concepts appartenant a la sociologie de la technologie, y compris la construction
industrialisee et lingenierie heterogene, lorsquon les applique a letude empirique dune innovation illimitee
dans le cadre dun grand projet de construction (par exemple, le nouveau terminal de laeroport de Heathrow a
Londres). Cette etude suggere que la construction industrialisee apporte des resultats qui sont non seulement des

Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis
http: www.tandf.co.uk journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613210500288605

transformations des pratiques, des processus et des systemes mais qui ont egalement le potentiel de transformer les
technologies elles-memes.
Mots cles: collaboration, gestion de linnovation, innovation, interaction, gestion de projets, organisation de projet,
construction industrialisee, conception assistee par ordinateur (CAO) en trois dimensions (3D)
Introduction
Construction, like football, is a funny old game. It gen-
erates a large amount of academic research, much of
which is directed towards developing new models for
managing aspects of the construction process (e.g.
Love et al., 1998; Practice, 1998; Nicolini et al.,
2001). Other research concerns the transfer of organiz-
ational and management techniques developed in other
sectors, such as partnering or supply chain management
(e.g. Akintola et al., 2000; Dubois and Gadde, 2000).
Government spokespersons also call for innovative tech-
nologies and processes from elsewhere to be adopted in
construction work (Egan, 1998). But often research
finds that attempts to implement innovative techniques
suggest potential benefits, but also throw up problems
regarding the existing and entrenched ways of
working and collaborating within construction. In prac-
tice, real-life contingencies and multiple interdependen-
cies complicate the adoption of new tools and processes
and there is little to guide the practitioner through the
messy and contingent process of adoption and diffusion.
This paper has three main aims. First, to set out the key
characteristics of construction work, based on its colla-
borative and inter-organizational nature, and the dis-
tribution of power within it. Second, to distinguish
between two different types, or modes, of innovation,
which are given here the terms bounded and
unbounded. This distinction is used here to differen-
tiate between innovations that are relatively contained
in their effects and consequences within a single organiz-
ation or coherent sphere of influence, and those which
have widely felt inter-organizational repercussions and
affect a number of such spheres of influence. Third, to
outline an alternative way to understand unbounded
innovations within construction using concepts from
the sociology of technology, and to use these to frame
a discussion of empirical material detailing the
implementation of three-dimensional (3D) computer-
aided design (CAD) technologies and processes on the
construction of a new, fifth terminal (T5) at Heathrow
Airport, London, UK.
The argument made here is that understanding
unbounded innovations such as 3D CAD within the
particular embedded characteristics of construction
work requires an approach that accounts for inter-
actions between a range of actors and technological
artefacts. Although existing construction research
addresses a range of innovative activity within the
sector, a good case can be made for applying insights
Innovation in construction: a sociology of technology approach
from the sociology of technology to unpack the multi-
plicity of negotiations and alignments that constitute
the implementation of innovative technologies such
as 3D CAD and the new practices that use it.
Contexts of construction work
Innovation, whether product or process based, cannot be
understood outside the contexts of its creation and
implementation. Construction has some particular
characteristics based on long-standing ways of working,
and which together make it unique from other areas of
industry. Five features are central to understanding the
construction contexts into which innovations such as
3D CAD are introduced: the collaboration upon which
construction work is based, its organization around par-
ticular projects, the centrality of communication to its
performance, the importance of inter-organizational
relations, and the way power is distributed.
Construction work as collaborative
Extensive collaboration is required to build more or less
anything, from the simplest house to the most high-tech-
nology corporate headquarters. Construction work is
constituted from the efforts of manifold organizations,
each with their own resources, practices and aims. At
an organizational level they carry out activities recogniz-
able in a traditional sense as a single firm acting in its own
interests at the expense of others. For instance, competing
for work through tendering, or developing competitive
edge through using new practices and new tools to
improve upon existing methods in terms of speed or
cost. However, actually to undertake work requires the
collaboration of a number of different firms and a wide
range of skills and specialisms: architectural and design
practices, general contractors, specialized subcontrac-
tors, fabricators, manufacturers, and suppliers.
Construction work as project-based
In order to satisfy the requirement for collaboration and
the geographical centring of activity around a particular
site, construction work is organized as project based,
where a diverse range of firms, with different parts to
play, all have to be coordinated. It is within project and
inter-organizational contexts that innovations such as
3D CAD have to function. Project organization and
project management have become of great interest
across many different areas of industry, generating
513
Harty
research into alternative forms of organization that move
away from traditional firm-based models of activity.
Much of this work concentrates on aligning older, less
flexible hierarchical models with long-term mass pro-
duction; and associating new, project-oriented organiz-
ation with contemporary consumer demand for
innovation, newness and change, with corresponding
low volume production, and with the expansion of new
markets such as mobile telecommunications and software
development. Although the maturity of construction as a
project-based industry questions this tradition versus
novelty opposition, it is certainly the case that traditional
models of the firm as a discrete entity fighting within a
particular environment do not easily map onto the activi-
ties of construction firms.
In light of this recognition, project organization has
received considerable attention. A growing literature
on complex products and systems (Davies and Brady,
2000; Gann and Salter, 2000; Hobday, 2000; Hobday
et al., 2000; Prencipe et al., 2003) initially looks interest-
ing for those interested in construction organization, and
it reveals a mismatch between a high amount of inno-
vation and learning at the project level, where many
novel problems are encountered and solved, and the
capture and translation of this into a reusable organiz-
ational resource. It is a problem that has been high-
lighted within construction activity (Dubois and
Gadde, 2000). However, quite how to bridge this
projectfirm gap is a more difficult challenge. Also
from a construction point of view, most complex pro-
ducts and systems cases are confined within a single
organization, and do not engage with the extra require-
ment of inter-firm collaboration where ownership and
control of activities are not necessarily clearly delineated.
Construction work as communication based
The challenges of managing the inter-organizational
collaboration and project basis of construction work
bring this paper to the third key feature: the role of
communication and information transfer within
construction projects. Efficient collaboration (whether
intra- or inter-organizational) relies on effective
diffusion of information throughout a project, an area
which has been considered problematic in construction
for some time (e.g. Higgin and Jessop, 1965). Design
details, work schedules, materials purchasing, and
supply and resource allocation need to be coordinated
across the project and, therefore, and crucially, across
multiple firms. It is vital to ensure effective collaboration
and the minimum of delays. In construction work, com-
munication must hold together complex sequences of
activity extending across organizational boundaries.
Construction work as inter-organizational
A common theme across these features is the central
importance of inter-organizational relations. These
514
relations within construction have become a subject
of scrutiny from a number of perspectives, but often
the specificities of construction contexts complicate
matters. The benefits of supply chain management
(SCM) as a way to improve inter-firm coordination in
construction have been delineated by Vrijhoef and
Koskela (2000), but they point out that practical
ways to implement SCM need to be developed to
account for constructions specific situation and
characteristics. Partnering has also generated interest,
but much research has overly focused on strategic
and best-practice approaches at the expense of the
detail on how actually to implement and sustain
inter-organizational relations within construction
contexts (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000; Bresnen et al.,
2005). These cases point to a need to ground any inno-
vation within the specific contexts of construction
work. The benefits of modular architectures have
been shown to be useful in some areas such as elevator
design (Mikkola, 2000), and manufacturing techniques
have been used to provide insights into managing an
industrialized construction process as a holistic
system (Gann, 1996), but neither of these offers a
way of conceptualizing the fabric of existing construc-
tion practices and interactions.
Power and control in construction
The final and possibly most important feature in giving
construction its particular character is the distribution
of power. Construction work may be coordinated by
one main contractor, but each organization involved
has its own influence on a project and brings its own
expectations and working methods. Even contractual
obligations, which are the mainstay of the formal
coordination of construction work, are in reality hard
to enforce, especially once work is underway (Earl,
1996). In construction, the implementation of inno-
vations located at this inter-organizational or project-
wide level is placed beyond the control of a single
sphere of influence. But surprisingly, there has been
little attention paid to the distributed nature of power
within construction. Walker and Newcombe (2000)
discuss the mismatch between the autonomy of
construction organizations and the interdependencies
inherent in construction work, and they outline a
typology of power as expertise-, reward- (i.e. exercised
through the allocation of work) prestige or reputation-
based, and coercive, but they stop short of unpacking
the mechanisms through which these are accepted or
resisted, central to Foucaults (1991) conception of
power as reciprocal, where power can only be exer-
cised if others accept it.
The context into which innovations such as 3D CAD
are introduced is one with multiple inter-
organizational relations, complex interdependencies
between firms and the lack of a single authoritative

driving force that can see through implementation
across a whole project.
Bounded and unbounded modes of
innovation
Given the inter-organizational contexts of construction
work and the distribution of power across multiple
organizations within construction projects, a distinc-
tion needs to be made between innovations that can
be contained within a single sphere of influence and
those that extend beyond this into the wider inter-
organizational landscape of construction work. These
are termed here bounded and unbounded modes of
innovation, respectively. The key to this differentiation
is not the inherent nature of the innovation itself, or the
particular strategy of implementation, but the context
into which it is introduced. The distinction between
bounded and unbounded rests on the (potentially
unforeseen) consequences of an innovation repercus-
sions beyond the control of its implementer.
There are several alternative ways of differentiating
between modes of innovation. For instance, as auton-
omous versus systemic (Teece, 1986); as linear versus
interactive (Rothwell, 1994); or as networked versus
firm-based (e.g. Powell, 1991; Powell et al., 1996).
However, although useful, none of these specifically
considers the scope or reach of an innovation alongside
the implementers ability to influence or direct its adop-
tion and use. The concept of bounded or unbounded
innovation does just this. It distinguishes between inno-
vations that can be contained within an implementers
control and those that spill beyond this into potentially
more contested domains. It adds a further way of dif-
ferentiating innovations in addition to those above.
For instance, a bounded innovation could be con-
sidered either systemic or autonomous in Teeces
terms. The introduction of electronic procurement
and leaner supply chains by Ford in the late 1980s
had considerable implications for component suppliers
(Hammer, 1990), but their dependence on Ford meant
they had to adapt to the new processes. In this way, a
systemic innovation was also a bounded one, as
Fords sphere of influence extended throughout the
system of component suppliers. Rothwell discusses
how interactive modes of product development use
inter-organizational collaboration and shared technol-
ogies, but does so in the context of novel research and
development and new ventures, with shared goals
based on mutual benefits, rather than innovation
emerging from existing contexts with multiple
engrained and potentially contesting positions. In this
sense, an interactive mode of innovation can also be
described as bounded, for although there are a
number of spheres of influence, they are all in accord.
In a similar way, the network organization as
opposed to hierarchical modes of operation also
Innovation in construction: a sociology of technology approach
relies on high levels of shared commitment among
parties, and to directing resources to a collective end,
as well as on long-term relations that are difficult to
sustain within the contexts of construction projects
ephemeral, shifting coalitions (Love et al., 1999).
What does this mean for the study of innovations in
construction? Within the construction literature,
although it has been argued by some that innovation
in construction is low (Winch, 1998; Koskela and
Vrijhoef, 2001), good cases have been made for a large
amount of innovative activity, such as that made by
Gann (2000), most notably within the research and
development activities of product suppliers and manu-
facturers. Often, these innovations take the form of
bounded substitutions of one product for something
else, what Bowley (1960) calls ersatz innovations,
but others can have wide-ranging or systemic effects,
such as the move from steam to electric power in indus-
try driving demand for new types of factory building,
or the development of the elevator as a response to
requirements of generating high rental incomes from
buildings within confined urban spaces (Gann, 2000).
In these cases, although the consequences of adoption
resonated across organizational boundaries, the
external pressures of client demand and expectation
acted as a single driving force, which led to the accom-
modation of innovations across the spectrum of
construction work.
Another example of a bounded innovation in construc-
tion is two-dimensional (2D) CAD. Although its
introduction instigated considerable changes in the
activities of drafters, it had little significance for the
rest of the actors and organizations in the overall
construction process. In terms of inputs, the design
information required to produce the drawings
remained the same, as did its output as paper-
based plans for use by contractors on site, irrespective
of their production on computer or drawing
board. Both the decision to adopt and the conse-
quences of adoption were contained within single
organizations.
With the present case of 3D CAD, things are somewhat
different. 3D CAD has been in use for some time in
construction as a visualization tool to produce
representations of designs to communicate ideas to
clients and other collaborators on a project.
However, it can also be put to a more ambitious use
as a coordination tool to combine all design infor-
mation from architects, designers and engineers,
effectively creating a virtual building through software
before on-site work commences. The model allows any
dimensional problems between disciplines such as
structural steel and building services to be discovered
at the design stage, a process known as clash detec-
tion, where problems can be rectified much more
cheaply and quickly than after fabrication of materials
515
Harty
and on-site work begins. An internal study conducted
by Laing in 2001 found that this method could
produce savings of more than 10% of the total project
cost. Also, the 3D model can be used as the source for
materials scheduling and time planning for the project,
and for facility management after construction.
Implementing 3D CAD in this way requires
adaptations far beyond its location within drafting
departments, creating repercussions throughout the
inter-organizational fabric of construction work. Full
specification of designs is needed in order to construct
the virtual building, rather than providing partial 2D
schematics which are fleshed out as on-site construc-
tion progresses, reconfiguring the sequences in which
construction work is undertaken. The physical build-
ing has to match the virtual model exactly, constrain-
ing the activities of on-site workers and leaving no
margins for alteration. 3D CAD is an unbounded
innovation, and to succeed it must gain support from
organizations located throughout the construction
process. It extends from its actual location within
CAD departments potentially to affect the coordi-
nation of the whole construction process.
Useful concepts from the sociology of
technology
Existing models of innovation in construction rely on a
single, central driving force, whether a single organiz-
ation, external driver or a coordinated coalition, to
introduce innovation and manage them into good
currency (e.g. Winch 1998; also Van de Ven, 1986).
However, where there are conflicting interests, as is
the case within many construction projects, there is
little in the way of attempts actually to investigate
how they might be resolved, and the mechanisms by
which such negotiations might play out.
This is where a turn to the sociology of technology
can help in providing some concepts that account
for both multiple interactions and influences as inno-
vations are developed and implemented. Much of this
work is oriented around examining how a diverse
range of actors and material objects interact and
combine to produce new or reconfigure existing
socio-technical practices, processes and systems.
Although differences in approach exist, there are
common features, notably the grounding of concepts
within specific contexts, and a commitment to
detailed, qualitative and often ethnographic research.
Empirical settings and cases include laboratories and
the production of scientific knowledge (Latour and
Woolgar, 1979; Law, 1994), new technological inno-
vations including the bicycle (Bijker, 1995), the elec-
tric vehicle (Callon, 1986) and road-guidance
technologies (Mangematin and Callon, 1995), and
complex inter-organizational systems such as
516
electricity networks (Hughes, 1983), railways and
the Internet (Summerton, 1994).
Hughes (1983, 1998) is concerned with the production
of a functioning system through the interconnection of
its constituent parts from a heterogeneous network of
technologies, people and organizations. But this
system building is not just about selecting and connect-
ing the right components. More than just a jigsaw
puzzle, Hughes describes system building as born
from processes of alignment involving the selection,
adaptation, and even creation of necessary components
and their coordination to form a holistic system.
Although once up and running such large technical
systems gradually build up their own momentum, in
Hughess case of electrification, alignment activities
centred around a single figure. Thomas Edison stood
at the centre of the emerging electricity network in
the US, inventing artefacts and companies to manu-
facture and sell them, and cajoling institutions and
firms into supporting the new power source.
The idea of system building is appealing, but it does not
map onto the distribution of power and diversity of
existing practices and expectations within cons-
truction. However, Law (1986, 1994) provides the
concept of heterogeneous engineering to describe
the process of producing relatively stable socio-
technical entities through the interconnection and
aligning of diverse objects and actors. Suchman
(2000, p. 313) uses the concept to describe the
painstaking arrangement of myriad human and non-
human elements in a study of the design of a new
bridge, and discusses the interactions between multiple
and conflicting constituencies of interested actors,
including public agencies, local government depart-
ments, land owners, citizens groups and politicians.
Suchman goes on to describe alignment activities as
persuasive story telling where the different concerns
and views of involved parties intersect and are dis-
cussed and negotiated, although some voices are
more persuasive than others.
MacKenzie (1990), in a discussion of missile testing
and accuracy, also accounts for a plethora of different
perspectives, and argues that the technological charac-
teristics of an artefact are affected by a combination of
existing and emerging interests and stakes in possible
outcomes. Taking this further, Bijker (1992) shows
how the negotiations between different relevant
social groups can transform technological artefacts,
a process of invention through diffusion that serves
to highlight both the malleability of technologies and
the importance of their contexts of use in shaping
their characteristics and potential uses. It is not only
the outcomes of the implementation of innovation
that are affected by negotiations between different
actors and groups, but also the very technologies
around which negotiations are located.

Together, these ideas provide a framework with which
to approach the study of complex, unbounded inno-
vations such as 3D CAD. Successful system building
involves activities of the alignment of multiple actors
and artefacts towards a specific goal or vision. In the
context of construction, this alignment must account
for multiple constituencies and overlapping spheres
of influence. Heterogeneous engineering is the process
of producing and holding together specific orderings
and configurations of different actors and objects.
The outcomes of these orderings are not only just
new or transformed practices, processes or systems,
but also, potentially, a transformation of technologies.
Positioned in this way, a distributed system building
approach, looking at how attempts are made to put
together stable assemblies of people, technologies and
practices within specific contexts, has much to offer
in thinking about the dynamics of unbounded inno-
vation in construction.
System building in action: theTerminal 5
Project at Heathrow Airport, London
This paper will now use these concepts to discuss
empirical material taken from research on the design
of BAAs new fifth terminal (hereafter T5) at Heathrow
Airport, London, UK. T5 is one of the biggest construc-
tion projects currently underway in the world, creating
over 6000 construction jobs over its five-to-six-year
duration. BAA is a consistent purchaser of construction
work and as such has considerable financial leverage
and some understanding of the problems associated
with the sector. Using this leverage, for T5s design
and construction, BAA has implemented rolling frame-
work agreements with upwards of 50 construction
firms, rather than allocate work based on competitive
tendering. A condition of the agreements is that
firms staff working on T5 are co-located to offices at
Heathrow Airport, rather than work from their par-
ticular firms offices. BAA is also committed to imple-
menting 3D CAD as a method of coordinating both
the process of designing and building the terminal,
and the variety of information produced for it.
However, rather than force through implementation
as a condition of work allocation, they pursued an
integrated team approach to the project (BAA,
2003) involving all partners in consultations over the
introduction and use of the new technologies.
The analysis of the T5 project and the implementation
of 3D CAD there is based on research conducted by the
author at the co-located project offices at Heathrow
between October 2001 and April 2002. At the time
the project was moving from concept to detailed
design, and the coordinative issues of using 3D CAD
across the whole project were beginning to be appreci-
ated. The author spent several weeks in blocks of three
or four days observing staff at work, engaging in
Innovation in construction: a sociology of technology approach
informal discussions, and attending team and project
meetings. Towards the end of the period, the author
conducted 23 semi-structured, one-hour-long inter-
views with interviewees ranging from the head of
delivery for the whole project to agency-based CAD
drafters. The interviews were informed by what the
author had seen and participated in over the previous
months.
The commitment to project-wide implementation of
3D CAD as a way of coordinating construction
work, the scale of the T5 project, and the wide range
of organizations and individuals involved in it make
it an excellent case for thinking about innovation as
distributed system building. In this section, the
approach is used to frame and analyse some particular
cases from the authors research.
Visions of 3D CAD at T5
The official vision of 3D CAD at T5 rests on collabor-
ation and information sharing across the whole
project. This collaboration is enabled by shared and
intercompatible design and drafting software, and
mediated by a document management database. All
information created for the project is captured, and
all elements of the design of the terminal are integrated
into a single model environment (SME). This vision is
also informed by assumptions about the nature of 3D
CAD technologies. The T5 project managers spoken
to smooth out the transition of using 3D CAD as
part of an on-going process that started with the
introduction of 2D CAD systems in the early 1980s,
drawing a continuum from designing everything
using CAD (for the Terminal 4 project, which started
in 1980) to using compatible CAD systems that
allowed a limited combination of different design
elements on one 2D drawing, to T5 making the step
up to 3D modelling and virtual building, allowing all
design and construction information to be coordinated
and shared.
This vision of integrated 3D modelling held by BAA
and the projects management is one of a technology-
led construction process, with the potential of 3D
CAD as the avant-garde, inspiring a vision of new
ways of working, driving reconfigurations of practice.
On bringing the vision to fruition, one project
manager commented that:
Im not saying that were 100% there but we
know the technology will be there to enable us
to do it.
(interview, 13 February 2002)
and another stated that if I had a conclusion . . . its
that we need to train (interview, 14 February 2002).
This assumes that all project staff can be united
517
Harty
within this vision, but this does not account for the
different expectations and existing practices that are
brought into the project. Contrast the opinion of one
project manager with one of the drafters:
I had this far-out vision that a construction
worker doesnt need a drawing hed have a elements. Some of the group had already experienced
little camera, a little chip in it and boom
he can call up the document and use it . . ..
its only going to get worse as more construction
[rather than design] based people get on board
. . . when you come to it its some hairy arsed
steel fitter on site who wants a sheet of paper to
see where this re-bar goes.
(interviews)
The durability of existing ways of working, and expec-
tations about how project activities should be under-
taken, are not considered within the official vision,
but present a very real challenge to implementation.
On reflecting on the success of implementing 3D
CAD, one manager said that project staff from
different organizations:
all brought their own practices in. Weve had a
real struggle trying to set up standard processes
not set them up thats the easy part but to
get people to use them thats been out greatest
challenge and continues to be.
(interview)
Although particular technologies might inspire visions
and suggest new ways of working, actually realizing
them is another issue. At T5, 3D CAD was being intro-
duced into a project context of existing practices,
alternative visions and expectations that challenged
the official vision. Technological possibility was not
enough to drive implementation and there was much
work to do in heterogeneously engineering a coherent
and inclusive system of technologies and practices
from the diverse range of expectations and visions
present within the project.
Aligning visions and practice
Another implication of this grand vision was the inte-
gration of all the practices of design and drafting (as
well as construction and fabrication later on in the
project). In order to achieve this, and to consider the
different practices and expectations of project staff,
focus groups were initiated based on functional distinc-
tions and the division of activities across the project.
These were intended to involve project staff fully in
the implementing of 3D CAD technologies and prac-
tice. The aim was for different groups to outline their
specific requirements from the technology, and to
select software components that could fulfil those
requirements in a way that would also allow capture,
518
sharing and coordination with the rest of the project
within the SME.
One group with which the author was involved con-
cerned building services, a complex discipline including
electrical, plumbing, heating and air-conditioning
3D CAD software, using it as a solution to coordinate
complex services and several different 3D modelling
packages were available, all with their own merits and
drawbacks. At a series of meetings between project man-
agement, building services engineers and CAD drafters,
the relative advantages of each available package was
discussed. The chosen software would have to align
with engineers and drafters expectations and with the
requirements of working in 3D and within a coordinated
SME. However, no available products could fulfil all
these requirements. The intended outcome of these dis-
cussions was the selection of a technology, but the
actual outcome was a list, to be distributed to developers,
outlining necessary changes to transform existing soft-
ware products into something that would align the offi-
cial visions commitment to coordination through 3D
CAD with the working needs of engineers and drafters.
The focus group was a site of attempts at alignment.
Efforts were being made to engineer or build heteroge-
neously a system of 3D CAD software and practices,
but, crucially, with more than one system builder,
and with a number of ideas and visions informing its
assembly, none of which had the ability to overrule
others or persuade them to change. The negotiations
between them positioned the software packages as
the thread with which to stitch together the official
vision and the visions of services engineers and draf-
ters. But the software packages in their existing forms
could not do this, and so new requirements were fed
back to developers to transform the software into
something capable of enabling this alignment.
Transforming and aligning technologies
These new considerations, which included the require-
ment that fabrication, as well as modelling, could be
undertaken with the same software, hence integrating
the two processes in line with BAAs vision, extended
the project network beyond the staff located at the
shared offices to include software developers. Although
the idea of combining users insights in the develop-
ment of new products is not new (e.g. Von Hippel,
1986, 1988, 1989), in terms of system building this
introduced another set of negotiations. The developers
themselves had to become aligned in order to produce
new versions of their products that were compatible
not only with the requirements of users, but also with
BAAs vision. This in fact led to more difficulties,
especially as none of the developers had previously
considered adding functions such as fabrication to

their software, or thought about intercompatibility
with products that were seen as competitors:
weve had software Xs developers in, then weve
asked software X and software Y to write a link
[for file compatibility] between them. . . . Soft-
ware X come back with a 41 page document
saying we cant do this based on blah blah
blah . . ..
(interview)
Accommodating the projects requirements also meant
that some software had to transform from something
intended as a design tool into something that was not
only about spatial representation, but also about a
manufacturing tool (i.e. it could control the fabrication
of components). This represented a substantial trans-
formation of a piece of softwares functions, showing
how fluid such technologies can be within contexts of
use, and the extent to which system-building activities
can impact on technological artefacts. In this case, the
innovative software does not drive the implementation
of new practices to support it, but is itself being defined
and redefined within the network of visions and nego-
tiations surrounding it. Even though BAAs vision is
understood to derive from technological possibility,
here the technology did not exist in a form that was
capable of enabling the vision within the context of
the project and the needs of the building services
teams. Eventually, although various developers
accommodated several changes, the plan to link
drafting and fabrication had to be dropped.
Competing and parallel systems
These events are difficult to explain within a frame-
work of bounded innovation, as offered by much of
the organizing and innovation literature. But when
viewed as a competitive system-building endeavour,
the interplay between different (and heterogeneous)
components in the network shows how potential out-
comes can be altered, both for the innovation itself
and for the system into which it is placed. There is com-
petition over the shaping of both the innovation and
the system. However, this does not necessarily lead to
a single, unified system.
The negotiations within the building services group
went on for several weeks, during which the project,
in terms of designing the services, was at a standstill.
Because of the commitment to integrating all design
work into the 3D model, there was little point in
doing design work as it would have to be repeated
using whatever set of software tools were eventually
implemented. In addition, and partly due to the size
of the project, the process of installing and licensing
software on the projects network was complicated
and very rigorous. One team of building service engin-
eers suggestion to use a particular piece of software as
Innovation in construction: a sociology of technology approach
a temporary stop-gap was rejected. However, rather
than wait while the negotiations continued, they took
alternative action:
we wanted to get on everyone was talking
about 3D, but the only way we could see 3D
going was to start it . . . through the back door
[we brought] in a stand alone machine thats
not connected to the network and that has got
CADduct [a 3D ductwork CAD package] on it
. . . weve pushed it, otherwise . . . we still
wouldnt have CADduct in here.
(interview, 12 February 2002)
Here the system-building efforts of project manage-
ment could satisfy neither the official vision nor the
desires of the staff actually to do some work. These
engineers smuggled in their own computer complete
with modelling software, and unofficially did some
design work. In fact, they built their own competing
system, albeit one of limited size compared with
BAAs vision, based on existing individuals, skills and
software. They even aligned the developers of
CADduct to their system, convincing them to spend
some time at the T5 office and make changes to the
software specifically for them. Within the negotiations
between project managers and staff there is more than
one system builder, and here there is more than one
system being built. Links between bits of technology,
users and visions of what they are aiming to achieve
are dynamic, with alignment being undertaken
potentially by many different builders, including, in
this case, our engineers above.
The problems encountered in attempts to set up one
all-inclusive, unified system at T5 stem from the
diversity of different skills, practices and conventions
across construction work as a whole, which have to
be made in some way commensurable. This was
attempted by using shared technologies and impos-
ing standards for their use, including specific ways
of layering and formatting CAD drawings. The
strategy was supported through a CAD test to
ensure that all users, including engineers and archi-
tects as well as drafters, could use the software in
the specified way:
every user that walks through this door has to be
trained up dedicated to this particular functional-
ity before he can get onto the [IT] system.
(interview)
The means by which diverse activities are made com-
mensurable and coordinated is through standard,
shared ways of using compatible CAD software and
with collaboration and information sharing mediated
through electronic document management. However,
not all activities that are important for the project
revolve around the actual use of CAD. One individual,
519
Harty
a temporary works engineer, had 30 years of experi-
ence of construction and especially of heavy lifting
work. He possessed a vast knowledge of complex
construction techniques and of suppliers and fabrica-
tors of lifting machinery, and these qualities were the
reason for his secondment to the T5 project.
However, he failed the CAD test, and so could not
access any of the CAD software or document
management tools on the project network. But he
also needed to be producing designs for temporary
works structures quickly to be sent out to fabricators
and manufacturers. Delays in temporary works could
potentially set back the whole project. This resulted
in a rather circuitous workaround. He had to draw
the design using his own CAD software on his own
old laptop, which sat on the desk next to his idling
and much newer networked computer with a 21-inch
screen. He then e-mailed the files to himself at his T5
computer through a consumer dial-up account on the
laptop plugged into a telephone line. He then opened
the drawings on a read-only version of AutoCAD and
could then print them out. If there were any changes
or errors to rectify, he had to go back to the original
on his laptop and repeat the process.
This case, like that of the services engineers, is another
of assembling an alternative, if again rather ad hoc
system to enable work to get done. In both cases the
alignment of existing skills and practices within an
integrated, project-wide system failed, and in both
cases this triggered alternative assemblies to be put
together, which avoided the official system, and
which relied on different visions about how project
work could be carried out.
So what was wrong with the methods of alignment
employed to build the official T5 system? In order to
support the official vision, the conditions of entry
onto the projects system for both technologies and
people were extremely strict. Only totally intercompa-
tible software was approved, and once installed, it was
subject to finely specified and detailed rules governing
ways of use the document outlining these standard
practices runs to nearly two hundred pages. But this
only acted on one specific part of the practices of
design CAD and did not consider other areas of
expertise. As one engineer said:
I can only assume I am not required here, a
draughtsman is whats needed? My engineering
skills are obviously of no use to the project.
(e-mail)
From the project managements point of view, the
methods they hoped would integrate a wide range of
skills and practices within one system had the unex-
pected effect of actually excluding useful and necessary
skills from it. Aligning all of the projects staff through
the imposition of rigorous CAD standards had the
520
opposite effect of actually barring some individuals
and technologies from being aligned at all.
Making 3D CAD work
The above examples show some of the failures experi-
enced as the technologies and practices that should
make up an integrated 3D CAD system were negotiated
and argued over. It can also be suggested that the misdir-
ected alignment efforts can in fact inhibit the building of
some systems and exclude people and artefacts from
being aligned. However, in other areas, negotiations
were more successful. For the structural steel work in
the project, the project managers were able gradually
to persuade engineers of the usefulness of 3D CAD.
Initial scepticism based on engineers own understand-
ings of what 3D CAD means and what it should do:
I used to argue with him [one of the project man-
agers] at the beginning I say no you just cant
do it it wont work wed have real argument
sessions.
(interview)
turned to acceptance as they were won over by the
benefits of adjusting their practices to accommodate
3D CAD coordination:
at the beginning I was shying away from 3D stuff
I couldnt see it working, but more and more
you get into it theres a certain logic there
and it does make sense for everybody to be
working in 3D . . ..
(structural drafter 1, interview)
when I first joined . . . I wasnt sure what they
mean [by 3D model]. . . . Now Ive been here
two years and Ive changed my thinking and
the way I worked previously . . ..
(CAD drafter 2, interview)
As the project has progressed you can see why we
did it . . . the system is working . . . if you can
understand the actual system it becomes a lot
easier . . ..
(structural engineer 1, interview)
The benefits of the coordination of the steel work with
other disciplines, and the integration of its design and
fabrication, was enough to convince these engineers
and drafters to change their practices. There was no
coercion, but the story of coordinated 3D CAD was
powerful enough to align them within the T5 system.
Contribution of a system building approach
The above cases demonstrate how attempts to build
systems of practices, people and technologies revolve
around the interactions between a wide range of

actors and technologies, and, like Suchmans case of
bridge-building, reveals their practical, political, tech-
nical, contested, negotiated and situationally specific
character (Suchman, 2000, p. 322). They also rep-
resent an extension of Hughess work into a domain
where multiple interests and visions intersect, and it
shows how the process of implementing 3D CAD
challenged and transformed these positions, and even
the technologies themselves. To use Bijkers term, 3D
CAD was being invented through diffusion.
But the presented empirical material is based on a
specific case, where many conflicting interests intersect
and where power can be resisted as well as exerted.
Also, the specific nature of 3D CAD as an innovation
to coordinate disparate parts of the construction
process means its implementation cuts across these
multiple spheres of influence. At T5, 3D CAD can be
described as a systemic innovation, as its consequences
spread right across the fragmented landscape of
construction work. It also shows many of the charac-
teristics of Rothwells fifth generation innovation.
However, neither definition gives much of an indi-
cation of the contests and negotiations that character-
ized 3D CADs on-going development at T5. By also
positioning 3D CAD as an unbounded innovation, it
is differentiated from other forms of systemic or inter-
active innovation, which have more consistent and
unified distributions of influence and expectation.
In construction work, a context with multiple interests
and influences is by no means unusual, and the pro-
blems this situation can generate when implementing
inter-organizational and project-wide strategies are
often acknowledged in construction research. Return-
ing to the studies cited above, the same challenges
and potential problems are revealed. Nicolini et al.
(2001, pp. 44 45) found that their advocated
approach of clustering:
necessarily produces a certain breaking away
from the established practices of the UK
construction industry . . . and posed major chal-
lenges to established roles, not only for the
main contractor and the designers, but also for
the suppliers and specialist contractors.
Similarly, Love et al. (1998, p. 381) comment that:
each discipline has become dedicated to the
optimisation of its own function, with little
regard, or understanding of, its effect on the . . .
construction process.
And Akintola et al. (2000, p. 167), when discussing
SCM, comment that:
the problems of implementing. . . are at present
associated with an inappropriate traditional
Innovation in construction: a sociology of technology approach
culture and the unique features of the organis-
ational structure.
Each of these suggests that the particular configur-
ations of construction work, with long-standing div-
isions between disciplines and organizations and
accepted ways of working, obstructs attempts to intro-
duce new innovations and initiatives. The approach
used in the current study provides an alternative to
the view that innovating across projects and between
firms is about system integration through a single
driving force, an alternative that focuses on the mech-
anisms through which established roles, distinct
disciplines, and traditional cultures contest and nego-
tiate with and over new technologies or new ways of
working. The notion of unbounded innovations offers
a way to conceptualize innovation in construction
which is grounded in its particular existing character-
istics and practices. Power is considered not only as
distributed, but also as reciprocal, and something
which can be accepted or resisted. Technologies are
not finalized, fixed objects that can be imposed and
to which people must adapt, but are malleable and
can be transformed through contests over the building
of systems. Unforeseen consequences are also con-
sidered, where attempts at alignment can result in the
exclusion of necessary actors from the system, and
trigger the assembly of alternate, parallel systems.
This multi-centred system building approach enables
the researcher to recognize the complexity of the con-
texts of construction and is oriented towards inclu-
siveness rather than simplification. It accounts for
the visions and expectations that mobilize system
building activity, but also their malleability and trans-
formability as these activities occur. But perhaps
more importantly it goes beyond the identification
of barriers to innovation by focusing on the actual
processes by which existing positions and expec-
tations interact with novel technologies and new
ways of working.
References
Akintola, A., McIntosh, G. and Fitzgerald, E. (2000) A survey of
supply chain collaboration and management in the UK
construction industry. European Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, 6, 159168.
BAA (2003) Terminal 5 Website (available at: http://www.baa.
co.uk).
Bijker, W. (1992) The social construction of fluorescent lighting,
or how an artefact was invented in its diffusion stage, in
W. Bijker and J. Law (eds): Shaping Technology/Building
Society Studies in Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 75102.
Bijker, W. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs: Towards a
Theory of Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Bowley, M. (1960) Innovation in Building Materials, Gerald
Duckworth, London.
521
Harty
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A. and Swan, J. (2005) Implementing
change in construction project organizations: exploring the
interplay between structure and agency. Building Research
& Information, 33(6), 547 560.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000) Partnering in construction:
a critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas.
Construction Management and Economics, 18, 229 237.
Callon, M. (1986) The sociology of an actor-network: the case of
the electric vehicle, in M. Callon, J. Law and A. Rip (eds):
Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology,
Macmillan, London, pp. 1934.
Davies, A. and Brady, T. (2000) Organisational capabilities and
learning in complex product systems: towards repeatable
solutions. Research Policy, 29, 931953.
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L. (2000) Supply strategy and network
effects purchasing behaviour in the construction industry.
European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 6,
207 215.
Earl, P. (1996) Contracts, coordination and the construction
industry, in P. Earl (ed.): Management, Marketing and the
Competitive Process, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction: Report of the Construc-
tion Task Force, HMSO, London.
Foucault, M. (1991) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison, Penguin, London.
Gann, D. (1996) Construction as a manufacturing process?
Similarities and differences between industrialized housing
and car production in Japan. Construction Management
and Economics, 14(5), 437 450.
Gann, D. (2000) Building Innovation Complex Constructs in a
Changing World, Thomas Telford, London.
Gann, D. and Salter, A.J. (2000) Innovation in project-based
service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex pro-
ducts and systems. Research Policy, 29, 955972.
Hammer, M. (1990) Reengineering work: dont automate,
obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), pp. 104112.
Higgin, G. and Jessop, N. (1965) Communication in the Building
Industry, Tavistock, London.
Hobday, M. (2000) The project-based organisation: an ideal
form for managing complex products and systems? Research
Policy, 29, 871 893.
Hobday, M., Rush, H. and Tidd, J. (2000) Innovation in complex
products and systems. Research Policy, 29, 793804.
Hughes, T. (1983) Networks of Power Electrification in Western
Society 18801930, John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, MD.
Hughes, T.P. (1998) Rescuing Prometheus, Pantheon, New York,
NY.
Koskela, L. and Vrijhoef, R. (2001) Is the current theory of con-
struction a hindrance to innovation? Building Research &
Information, 29(3), 197 207.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Con-
struction of Scientific Facts, Sage, London.
Law, J. (1986) On methods of long distance control: vessels, navi-
gation and the Portuguese route to India, in J. Law (ed.):
Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 234 263.
Law, J. (1994) Organising Modernity, Blackwell, Oxford.
522
Love, P., Gunasekaran, A. and Li, H. (1998) Concurrent engin-
eering: a strategy for procuring construction projects. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 16(6), 375383.
Love, P., Li, H. and Mandal, P. (1999) Rework: a symptom of a
dysfunctional supply chain. European Journal of Purchasing
and Supply Management, 5(1), 111.
MacKenzie, D. (1990) Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Soci-
ology of Nuclear Missile Guidance, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Mangematin, V. and Callon, M. (1995) Technological compe-
tition strategies of the firms and choice of the first users:
the case of road guidance technologies. Research Policy,
24, 441 458.
Mikkola, J.H. (2000) Modularity and Interface Management:
The Case of Schindler Elevators, LINK. Copenhagen.
Nicolini, N., Holti, R. and Smalley, M. (2001) Integrating project
activities: the theory and practice of managing the supply
chain through clusters. Construction Management and
Economics, 19, 37 47.
Powell, W.W. (1991) Neither market nor hierarchy: network
forms of organisation, in G. Thompson, J. Frances,
R. Levacic and J. Mitchell (eds): Markets, Hierarchies and
Networks the Coordination of Social Life, Sage,
London, pp. 265 276.
Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) Inter-
organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:
networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(March), 116145.
Practice, C.B. (1998) A New Initiative to Benchamark UK
Construction, CBP, Watford.
Prencipe, A., Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (eds): (2003) The Business
of Systems Integration, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Rothwell, R. (1994) Towards the fifth-generation innovation
process. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 7 31.
Suchman, L. (2000) Organizing alignment: a case of bridge-
building. Organization, 7(2), 311327.
Summerton, J. (ed.): (1994) Changing Large Technical Systems,
Westview, Boulder, CO.
Teece, D.J. (1986) Profiting from technological innovation
implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and
public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285305.
Van de Ven, A. (1986) Central problems in the management of
innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 570607.
Von Hippel, E. (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product
concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791805.
Von Hippel, E. (1988) The Sources of Innovation, Oxford
University Press, London.
Von Hippel, E. (1989) New product ideas from lead users.
Research Management, 32(3), 2427.
Vrijhoef, R. and Koskela, L. (2000) The four roles of supply
chain management in construction. European Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 6, 169178.
Walker, A. and Newcombe, R. (2000) The positive uses of power
on a major construction project. Construction Management
and Economics, 18, 37 44.
Winch, G. (1998) Zephyrs of creative destruction: understanding
the management of innovation in construction. Building
Research & Information, 26(4), 268 279.