Alcances y limitaciones:

The initial objective in this research was: Designing a procurement process for procuring one singular innovation in a construction project, being biocomposite bridge deck, and subsequently generalizing this for innovation in general.

The research results are processed into the diagram shown in chapter 6 which embodies the connection between the theoretical conceptual model and the practical execution of procurement of innovation. In this chapter, the research results are reflected upon from the point of view of the initial problem statement and literature.

Lately, the Dutch construction industry is discussing the increasing desire for more and improved innovation to tackle certain complex challenges (Koenen, 2018; Transitieteam Bouw, 2018), such as climate change and the threatening resource scarcity. However, innovations come with a degree of uncertainty regarding the end result because of their innovative nature. This uncertain character of innovations is often in conflict with the tendency of procurement processes to strive for maximum certainty regarding the final result of the procured project (Edquist & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, 2012). The results of this research present a procurement design which can support the construction industry in better facilitating the procurement of innovations. During the research, it was confirmed by multiple organizations from the industry (both clients and contractors) that they are looking for ways to better stimulate and facilitate innovation. Predominantly clients are actively engaged in looking for ways to improve the balance between certainty in procurement and the adoption of innovation. In doing so, several different approaches and projects have been proposed, tested and executed (appendices 3, 4, 7, 14). However, there was no clear overview of what specific aspects to consider when initiating the adoption of innovation in the procurement of projects and how these aspects should be treated for successful adoption of innovation. Thus, this research aimed to provide this overview in the design it presented in the diagram shown in chapter 6.

The results of this research are largely consistent with the scattered knowledge of previous findings. For example, Gambatese & Hallowel (2011) found that aversion to risk/change and strict regulations and codes are barriers for innovation. Uyarra et al. (2014) found that another main barrier is the lack of interaction with procuring organizations and Kulantunga et al. (2011) and Brockmann et al. (2016) concluded the importance of a leader/champion for with specific characteristics (such as being a team player and an effective communicator). In the interviews held in this research, various reasons for the lack of innovations in construction projects have been stated, showing once more the lack of overview regarding this subject. However, when approached from the categories of factors, retrieved from Rose & Manley (2014), the scattered knowledge becomes centered around these categories and more manageable for improving the situation at hand. Furthermore, the results are consistent in regard to the theory of control. The literature states that when both the knowledge of the transformation process and the ability to measure outcomes, due to high uncertainty, are low the best approach is social control (Eisenhardt, 1985; Eriksson, 2008). For innovations, and especially those of a low TRL, it has been confirmed in the interviews that a high uncertainty regarding the innovations performance leads to a need for general focus on social control by means of collaboration.

One aspect that was discussed in the workshop and interviews conducted for chapter 6, which has to be addressed is the fact that this research appears to neglect some nuances. During the discussions with experts, it was mentioned that this research, and especially the diagram, approaches the procurement of innovation over-simplified. For example, assigning an innovation to a specific TRL is not as simple in practice as this research appears to imply. The nuances of a development process of an innovation can make it hard to distinguish on a singular TRL. However, the counter argument to this statement is that by over-simplifying the situation this research creates an overseeable approach in which it can be seen clearly which and how the main aspects have to be managed. Thus, the statement that this interview simplifies certain aspects of the procurement of innovation in the construction industry is correct. However, this was done on purpose to make sure the research results are generally applicable.

Regarding the connection of this research to literature one situation was not optimal. This was the late discovery of the researches of Chen et al. (2018) and Lavikka et al. (2015) regarding the practical adoption of social control by the mechanisms of leadership, relationship manager and collocated working. These researches were found only after the conceptual model was already revised. Therefore, these researches could not be part of the revision of the conceptual model and are not part of chapter 4 because of it. Once found they were adopted and reflected upon in the interviews within the case study of chapter 5. Thus, the application of this input has been practically validated but this would have been done better if it was done in the correct phase of the research.

Important to consider is that this research focused on singular projects only. It can be argued that the stimulation and facilitation of innovation should be done in a program of multiple projects or projects with longer durations (e.g. DBFMO contracted projects) to enable continuous improvement of products during the longer duration (Lenderink, Voordijk, & Halman, 2019). These programs or projects with longer durations do have a potential to facilitate innovation in a different way in comparison with singular projects, predominantly the longer duration promotes collaboration because organizations and people initiate in relationships with more long term views. In addition, a longer duration also encourages organizations to invest because a longer duration gives more room for return on investment. However, because the construction industry is mainly project focused it is important to consider how innovation can be best integrated into single projects.

Another argument which can be made in regard to stimulating and facilitating innovation by public clients is that they could adopt a more laissez-faire policy. Meaning, they do not interfere in the development and adoption of innovation but just provide more freedom to private organizations for offering and implementing innovations (appendix 13). This approach is often referred to as ‘innovation-friendly procurement’ (Knutsson & Thomasson, 2014; Lenderink e.a., 2019). However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it does not guarantee the adoption of innovation in a project. Innovation will only occur when the contractor(s) offers it to the client and he accepts it. For this research the starting point was a strong desire of clients for (more) innovation, thus it opted for a more active stimulation and facilitation of innovation than the approach of innovation-friendly procurement offers.

7.1

Implications

The implications of this research are both practical and theoretical.

The practical value of this research comes from the general applicability of the research for innovation in general. The designed process offers a structured overview and approach on how a client’s ambition can be translated into a procurement process and what aspects should be considered when doing so. Important to note regarding this is the focus of this research on the Dutch construction industry and thus also considers the Dutch procurement law. This means that the last pillar of the diagram (Practical design procurement process) might not be suited for procurement processes in other countries and thus should carefully be reconsidered. The first three pillars are not bound to procurement law and their mechanisms will work similarly for other countries.

The theoretical value of this research is the connection it makes between several theories that have not been connected before. In this research, the theories of TRLs, adoption of innovation, control and procurement have been connected in one diagram. Furthermore, the research also adds value to each one of these theories individually; 1) the most suited categorization of TRLs for procurement of innovations, 2) the factors of influence on the adoption of innovation that are experienced as problematic for the procurement of innovation, 3) more elaboration on how to organize and facilitate social control in the procurement process and 4) which of the aspects of a design of a procurement process are most important to consider when procuring an innovation.