“ALL INDUSTRIES COMBINED, INCLUDING RETAIL, FOOD, ETC., INVEST ON AVERAGE ABOUT 3.5% OF THEIR TOTAL SALES BACK INTO HIGH TECH IN SOME FORM. THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, INCLUDING THE CRANE AND RIGGING SECTOR, INVESTS ONLY ABOUT 1% OF TOTAL SALES IN NEW TECHNOLOGY.”
One major reason is that historically the construction
industry has adopted a low-margin culture, which doesn’t lend itself well to innovation, says strategic consultant and JBKnowledge (
jbknowledge.com) CEO, James Benham. And, in his opinion, the industry has accepted its plight as a low-efficiency, low-margin business—a condition of its own making. He believes it’s time for the construction industry to change its technology mentality, and the good news is it’s not that steep a climb to a new mindset. Benham spoke
in March at ConExpo/CON-AGG’s inaugural Tech Experience, an immersive showcase that allowed participants to get a futuristic glimpse into tomorrow’s technology innovations. He also live-broadcasted his weekly construction tech podcast, ConTechTrio, live from the AEM booth throughout the event. “A real deep-seated issue at the heart of this is we’re
in a low-margin business that we’ve created. Te average construction worker only spends about 30% of his time working,” says Benham. “It’s an inefficient industry, and many people have come to accept the inefficiency.” Adding to that inefficiency, he says, is a strategic disconnect between investment and ROI in technology within the industry, including the crane and rigging sector. Many tools could be easily integrated into daily operations, but contractors fail to recognize the return on investment, says Benham. As an example, he sites robotic total station (RTS), “a small laser on a tripod that will paint a dot.” Te modern surveying instrument is integrated with an electronic distance measurement (EDM) to read slope distances. RTSs allow the operator to control the instrument from a distance via remote control. Traditionally, this work is done with tape measure and string, but RTS technology can triple the ROI of traditional methods, says Benham. “If used over a seven-project lifecycle, it can produce all
Samsung Gear VR headsets at the JBKnowledge office.
the layout work for 15% of the cost of traditional layout. It’s that much more efficient. A huge percentage of companies don’t use it because they say it costs too much money. Te reality is, you get all your money back in the first couple of weeks of use,” he explains. Contractors “mentally refuse to accept they can make money back. We have a major adoption issue” because designers and contractors have surveyed construction sites with tape measure and string for so long that when you hand them a tool, many won’t use it properly, he believes.
“Tey buy an RTS, but don’t follow up with an investment in training, ongoing support, etc. So the tool goes on a shelf, nobody uses it, and next time somebody asks why they don’t invest in new technology, (management says) ‘You didn’t use what we invested in before this.’ Tey didn’t use it because they didn’t have an implementation or adoption plan in place,” says Benham. Another reason the crane and rigging industry in particular
Entrance to the Tech Experience at CONEXPO-CON/AGG 2017
30 MAY–JUNE 2017 WIRE ROPE EXCHANGE
isn’t quick to adopt new technology is that contractors often feel overwhelmed by both the myriad products on the market and the complications they envision with the implementation process. Benham calls it a case of “paralysis by analysis.” Concerns about investing in the wrong technology, which may become obsolete before their crews have mastered the use
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
