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

Abstract

Long-established Schumpeterian theory on innovation assumes that significant innovations are generated by large companies with ample spare resources. The allocation of time and money to speculative endeavours with unclear outcomes has often been regarded as beyond the scope of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). As a result, authorities sometimes advise SMEs to concentrate on the adoption of existing innovative products and processes rather than the generation of new creative ideas. Despite this traditional wisdom, some very capable individuals actively choose to participate in the SME sector because the relative absence of internal bureaucratic processes and the capacity for agile response to changing circumstances. Ten case studies of significant technical innovations generated within construction SMEs were examined in the light of common themes identified through a literature review. The case studies were classified according to existing taxonomies of innovation. Content analysis was used to map the identified themes against the published material about the innovations from patent applications, company websites, trade literature and industry magazines. The findings indicate that SME innovation stems from several distinct motivations. These drivers of innovation can be described vectors. They inspire innovative solutions but the generated innovations also drive development towards solutions for other, quite different problems.

Capabilities-Based Forecasting Model for Innovation Development in Small-and-Medium Construction Firms (Smcfs)

“…The implementation of technological innovation by small firms not necessarily needed any on-going relationships with universities or research bodies (Hardie, Manley 2008). Furthermore, it was evident that the reports identifying the effect of network capability were subject to the biased preference towards qualitative-based analysis of innovative offerings Hardie, Manley 2008;Hardie et al 2013). Hence, the present study conjectured that inter-organizational networks permit SMCFs to draw on resources beyond the firms' boundaries to innovate across a wider range of activities.…”

“…The understanding on these types of innovations remained unclear. One notable exception was the work by Hardie and Manley (2008) who observed that both the technological and organizational innovations could be hardly isolated from each other and small construction business needed to undertake the two types of innovations concurrently and synergistically to succeed. Such finding was meritorious in revealing the potential complementary effect of both technological and organizational types of new deliveries.…”

“…Likewise, Manley (2008) found that small construction companies having network ties with both value chain partners and general industrial actors, including the R&D centres, were more likely to introduce new technologies on projects. The implementation of technological innovation by small firms not necessarily needed any on-going relationships with universities or research bodies (Hardie, Manley 2008). Furthermore, it was evident that the reports identifying the effect of network capability were subject to the biased preference towards qualitative-based analysis of innovative offerings Hardie, Manley 2008;Hardie et al 2013).…”

“…Even though some SME scholars viewed innovation as an approach that went beyond technologies -administrative innovations (Sexton, Barrett 2003; or organizational innovations Hardie, Manley 2008;Thorpe et al 2009). The understanding on these types of innovations remained unclear.…”

“…Additionally, research by Thorpe et al (2009) found that the desire of construction SMEs to differentiate itself from its competitors influenced their ability to engage in innovation. The small construction businesses would closely use their competitors as a frame of reference to adopt innovation Hardie, Manley 2008). According to Narver and Slater (1990), market orientation was a threedimensional construct that included customer orientation, competitor orientation, and inter-functional coordination.…”