Mirror-breaking strategies to enable digital manufacturing in Silicon Valley construction firms: a comparative case study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Structural barriers to innovation in construction (Sheffer 2011). ¹Nam and Tatum (1988); ²Maisel (1963); ³Gann (1996); ⁴Reichstein et al. (2005); ⁵Fergusson (1993); ⁶Henisz et al. (2012); ⁷Martishaw and Sathaye (2006); ⁸Tatum (1986); ⁹Darley and Latane (1968); ¹⁰Hall and Soskice (2001); ¹¹Taylor and Levitt (2004); ¹²Dubois and Gadde (2002a); ¹³Stinchcombe (1959); ¹⁴Sheffer (2011) defines the term integral innovations as inclusive of the definition of systemic innovations and radical innovations.

Table 1. Summary of data collection from Phase 1 and Phase 2.

	No.	Title	Phase 1 (2014)	Phase 2 (2019)
DPR and DBC	[1]	Senior Project Manager, DPR	x
	[2]	Project cluster lead, prefabrication, DPR	x
	[3]	Project Engineer, DPR	x
	[4]	Project site visits (×2), DPR	x
	[5]	Director for lean construction, DPR		x
	[6]	Technology and Innovation Lead, DPR		x
	[7]	Product Development Manager, DBC		x
	[8]	Software and integrations team*, DBC		x
RAD Urban	[9]	VP & Director of Operations	x
	[10]	Director of Production*	x
	[11]	Factory site visit	x
	[12]	Chief Executive Officer* (2018)		x
	[13]	Project Engineer		x
Project Frog	[14]	Product Development Engineer	x
	[15]	Director of Product Development	x
	[16]	Field Engineer Intern	x
	[17]	Chief Operating Officer	x
	[18]	Assembly site visit	x
	[19]	Chief Executive Officer		x
	[20]	VP of product and innovation		x

*indicates that the interview was not recorded.

Table 2. Summary of approaches by case firms.

	DPR construction	RAD Urban	Project Frog
Origin	General Contractor with BIM capabilities	Real estate development	Venture-funded start-up
Strategic approach	Relational, project-based spinoff	Vertical integration	Digital systems integration
Descriptive quote	“From broker to builder”	“Vertical integration to the core”	“Software development cycles in a physical goods environment”
Productization example	TEKWall	MegaWall	Frog Kit
New system architecture	–	Modular high-rise (volumetric steel stacked and tied to in situ concrete core)	New system rules embedded in myProjectFrog configurator
Form of mirror-breaking	Partial mirroring through informal practices (e.g. colocation) Relational project-based contracts (e.g. IPD) Strategic investment w/special relationship	Redefinition of systems architecture	Redefinition of systems architecture Core-periphery platform structure
Advantages	No change to business model Structured learning process	Speed	Capital-light Agile
Drawbacks	Slow Re-educate the supply chain Longitudinal fragmentation	Capital-intensive	Less control over product Supplier iterations take longer

Sheffer, D.A. 2011. Innovation in modular industries: Implementing energy-efficient innovations in US buildings. Dissertation. Stanford University.

 Google Scholar

Nam, C. and Tatum, C., 1988. Major characteristics of constructed products and resulting limitations of construction technology. Construction management and economics, 6(2), 133–147.

 Google Scholar

Maisel, S., 1963. A theory of fluctuations in residential construction starts. The American economic review, 53(3), 359–‐383.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gann, D.M., 1996. Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences between industrialized housing and car production in Japan. Construction management and economics, 14(5), 437–450, Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Reichstein, T., Salter, A.J., and Gann, D.M., 2005. Last among equals: a comparison of innovation in construction, services and manufacturing in the UK. Construction management and economics, 23(6), 631–644.

 Google Scholar

Fergusson, K.J. 1993. Impact of integration on industrial facility quality. Unpublished dissertation. Stanford University.

 Google Scholar

Henisz, W.J., Levitt, R.E., and Scott, W.R., 2012. Toward a unified theory of project governance: economic, sociological and psychological supports for relational contracting. Engineering project organization journal, 2(1–2), 37–55.

 Google Scholar

Martishaw, S. and Sathaye, J., 2006. Quantifying the effect of the principal-agent problem in US residential energy use. Berkeley, California: Environmental Energy Technologies Division, University of California.

 Google Scholar

Tatum, C.B., 1986. Potential mechanisms for construction innovation. Journal of construction engineering and management, 112(2), 178–191.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Darley, J.M., and Latane, B., 1968. Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 8(4p1), 377.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hall, P. and Soskice, D., 2001. Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.

 Google Scholar

Taylor, J.E. and Levitt, R. E., 2004. Understanding and managing systemic innovation in project-based industries. Innovations: project management research. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

 Google Scholar

Dubois, A. and Gadde, L., 2002a. The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: implications for productivity and innovation. Construction management and economics, 20(7), 621–631.

 Google Scholar

Stinchcombe, A., 1959. Bureaucratic and craft administration of production: a comparative study. Administrative science quarterly, 4(2), 168–187.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar