From ideas to construction innovations: firms and universities collaborating

Abstract

The purpose here is to study patterns of project collaboration found in one government supported programme for construction innovation. Preferred types of interaction were identified using data from two questionnaire surveys, one with experienced construction sector respondents and one aimed at construction researchers. All sixteen development projects within the Swedish Bygginnovationen programme were investigated, relying on documents and a survey of project managers. Important types of interaction, according to construction respondents, are informal contacts, joint research projects and staff mobility. For university respondents, informal contacts is also seen as the most important type of interaction, followed by MSc thesis work in firms and industrial PhD candidates. Grant applicants from manufacturing depended more on university laboratories and were less sensitive to firm/university distance. Laboratory use was also more frequent for projects relying on the field of materials engineering. In conclusion, there is a consensus about which types of collaboration are valuable. The broadness of participation in the programme, ranging over many industries, both as to origin of ideas and ultimate applications, reaches beyond narrow interpretations of the construction industry. Policy makers should recognize the innovation importance of university laboratory facilities and field testing, rather than seeing researchers as sources of ideas.

BIM adoption within Australian Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs): an innovation diffusion model

“…Yet, SMEs are limited in maintaining their competitive edge due to a lack of incentives in taking advantage from sufficient human resources; an element that is the key asset in the construction context (Saridakis, Muñoz Torres and Johnstone, 2013). It is widely believed in construction literature that SMEs are typically lagging behind large-sized firms in embracing innovation and technological advancements (Acar et al, 2005;Bröchner and Lagerqvist, 2016;Shelton, Martek and Chen, 2016). This is similarly the case for BIM (Forsythe, 2014;McGraw Hill, 2014;Poirier, Staub-French and Forgues, 2015a) due to a number of barriers as discussed next.…”

The research of global innovation capital: a review and analytical comparison

“…Issues related to global performance in the area of innovation activity, innovation management and intellectual pro perty have already been studied by distinguished scholars such as A. Bellucci [1], J. Brochner [2], J. Tidd [3], J. Frishammar [4], J. Rodriguez and M. Gomez [5], and others.…”

Vectors of technical innovation delivery by small and medium Australian construction firms

“…This provides insights as to how it may be possible for smaller firms to contribute to the innovation process without the spare capacity that Schumpeter considered axiomatic. Furthermore, Brochner and Lagerqvist (2016) have pointed out the potential that partnerships with universities have to enable innovation collaborations. Such collaborations may lessen the disadvantage of SMEs in the innovation process.…”