Innovation in construction – before the curtain goes up
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to present an overview of innovation in the construction sector, its forms, its inherent pitfalls and difficulties, and some underlying reasons for them. The familiar distinction between technical and organisational innovation is inapplicable in the fragmented construction industry. Design/methodology/approach – This paper is based on systematic observation, accompanying many years' hands-on experience. Findings – The processes of innovation in construction require that the innovator (possibly starting from a narrow idea or opportunity) broaden his/her view to take into account the impacts of the intended innovation on the priorities of other stakeholders, in an iterative process. In other words, orchestrated organisational changes must accompany – if not precede – technical innovation. Research limitations/implications – This paper specifically describes the processes and constraints of innovation in the context of the construction sector. Practical implications – Failure to take into account the dual obligation to innovate simultaneously on the organisational and technical fronts will lead to yet one more failed attempt. Such a failure represents a waste of time and effort, and a missed opportunity to contribute to improved construction. Originality/value – This paper is based on a uniquely broad experience-based view of innovation, covering a period of more than five decades; this feedback from experience can help innovators directly and provide evidence for subsequent research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it