Great post Neil. I recall you mentioning world models before and this has given me a better insight into what they are. Running simulations and scenario planning is where we need to go as an industry. I've referred to this as similar to an F1 strategist who is trying to get the best outcome for the team, based on real time developments in the race. We're focused on too much 'what happened and why', rather than focusing on what could happen and how to exploit opportunities that deliver better projects.
Love the F1 analogy. Of course the difference there is they are more obviously incentivised for change, where construction is almost structurally set against it. It is changing though, and there is hope.
I don't think construction is against change per se but margins are notoriously low and it's 'easier' or less risky to do things the way they have always been done. Taking big risks on a project could lead to failure of the business that's why I think it takes so long for change to take effect in the industry.
It is changing though but it's going to take time. Obviously F1 is the pinnacle of what's possible, with massive budgets/ resource/ R&D departments, where taking risks often leads to rewards. We can use this as a beacon of what's possible rather than copy it completely as we don't need split second decisions to have a positive effect on the project.
It's good engaging with others who are thinking differently so I enjoy the conversation.
Margins are thin, risk starts high - agree. It’s the structural hurdles that concern me. How projects are procured and governed give very little room for individual teams to innovate.
Unlike manufacturing where companies have significant control over the end product - in construction that is often outside the control of those making it happen.
Thank you Neil, you have taught me something today!
My pleasure Mr. Griffiths.
Great post Neil. I recall you mentioning world models before and this has given me a better insight into what they are. Running simulations and scenario planning is where we need to go as an industry. I've referred to this as similar to an F1 strategist who is trying to get the best outcome for the team, based on real time developments in the race. We're focused on too much 'what happened and why', rather than focusing on what could happen and how to exploit opportunities that deliver better projects.
Love the F1 analogy. Of course the difference there is they are more obviously incentivised for change, where construction is almost structurally set against it. It is changing though, and there is hope.
Really appreciate the comment.
I don't think construction is against change per se but margins are notoriously low and it's 'easier' or less risky to do things the way they have always been done. Taking big risks on a project could lead to failure of the business that's why I think it takes so long for change to take effect in the industry.
It is changing though but it's going to take time. Obviously F1 is the pinnacle of what's possible, with massive budgets/ resource/ R&D departments, where taking risks often leads to rewards. We can use this as a beacon of what's possible rather than copy it completely as we don't need split second decisions to have a positive effect on the project.
It's good engaging with others who are thinking differently so I enjoy the conversation.
Margins are thin, risk starts high - agree. It’s the structural hurdles that concern me. How projects are procured and governed give very little room for individual teams to innovate.
Unlike manufacturing where companies have significant control over the end product - in construction that is often outside the control of those making it happen.