[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
If you read this newsletter, you probably plan or have tried implementing new technologies in your or your customer\u2019s organization, whether successfully or unsuccessfully. I\u2019ve been there, and it\u2019s not easy or fast.<\/p>\n
Sometimes, it takes three, five, or ten years for the momentum for a positive and rational change to emerge. Persistence and patience are needed, but those qualities are rare today.<\/p>\n
While preparing a podcast interview about implementing AI in construction companies, I discovered a research article<\/a> by professors Antti Ainamo<\/a> and Antti Peltokorpi<\/a> titled Innovation Meets Institutions: AI and the Finnish Construction Ecosystem.<\/em> The article uses cognitive science and psychology research to explain the resistance to implementing AI in construction.<\/p>\n The article refers to an institutionalist theory of three \u201cpillars\u201d to demonstrate your challenges when trying to innovate in the construction sector. The three pillars are regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive.<\/p>\n The regulative pillar<\/strong> is pretty straightforward. It defines what organizations are forbidden or must do within the existing rules and laws. Building codes regulate how and what can be built. For example, many innovators in prefab construction have struggled to get building permissions when introducing new technologies. I would include collective agreements and other rules in this pillar.<\/p>\n The normative pillar<\/strong> guides an organization\u2019s or industry\u2019s behavior and values. These unwritten norms and guiding principles define the industry\u2019s \u201ccommon sense\u201d and roles and responsibilities. Everyone who has tried to sell a new idea has undoubtedly heard the phrase, \u201cThis is how things have always been done and should be done.\u201d<\/p>\n The third pillar, the cultural-cognitive pillar<\/strong>, concerns how individuals and groups distinguish themselves. In the construction industry, architects, for example, have a different culture from contractors. Cultural clashes often create communication barriers that hinder positive change.<\/p>\n The pillars are a good framework for analyzing resistance to innovation. I would additionally consider economic factors, client demands, and market dynamics. For example, the company\u2019s business model is often a source of resistance. If your business model is to sell services by the hour, using automation to speed up your processes is not rational unless you change the revenue logic.<\/p>\n The article states that many will likely consider anything that changes more than one pillar radical, and it will likely meet heavy resistance. However, a person or team that can tolerate the institutional and psychological pressure may eventually succeed with a radical change.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve seen visionary leaders who have succeeded and those who have failed. Success or failure has been due to the leader\u2019s traits and relationship-building capabilities.<\/p>\n The article suggests that one way to fit radical innovation into an established environment is to protect it from competitive pressure. My experiences with this \u201cniche\u201d or \u201cpatch\u201d approach are also mixed.<\/p>\n Another strategy is to rely on the relentless work of \u201cdigital leaders,\u201d agents of change, or the industry\u2019s prime movers.<\/p>\n Despite all the resistance, I\u2019m seeing signs of change. This stems partly from regulatory pressure and partly because companies must solve critical business issues.<\/p>\n Trailblazing companies can only do so much but can set an example. Systemic changes require the involvement of several organizations in the supply chain, and that\u2019s also starting to happen.<\/p>\n AI\u2019s overall acceptance and implementation have been super-speedy. Will this phenomenon also expedite the change in the AEC sector? Or will the deeply rooted institutional barriers\u2014regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive\u2014force the industry to adapt at its own pace?<\/p>\n AI, as a technological breakthrough, is not enough on its own; it must deliver tangible value across the construction ecosystem to drive meaningful and accelerated innovation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nThe three pillars theory<\/h3>\n
How to fight resistance<\/h3>\n
Change is happening<\/h3>\n
Will AI accelerate innovation?<\/h3>\n