Walzer, A N; Tan, T; Graser, K and Hall, D M (2025) Bug or feature? Institutional misalignments between construction technology and venture capital. Construction Management and Economics, 43(2), pp. 130-152. ISSN 0144-6193
Abstract
Despite substantial investments into new technologies, the adoption of systemic innovations such as construction robotics remains limited. Therefore, this study investigates the discrepancy between the assumed advantages of construction technologies and their actual performance during practical implementation, using construction robotics as the empirical case. Through an abductive thematic analysis of 127 interviews across Europe and North America, we identify six enablers of institutional misalignment: cognitive frame differences, divergent time horizons, conflicting market strategies, product versus revenue focus, varying risk tolerances, and information asymmetry. These misalignments between startup founders' technological logic and investors' economic logic constrain adoption, emphasizing the influence of institutional dynamics over technological feasibility. Our findings suggest these challenges are not unique to construction robotics but may extend to other emerging construction technologies. This highlights the critical need for aligning institutional logics to fully harness the potential of innovation in construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | AEC; construction robotics; entrepreneurship; institutional logic; new practice |
| Index terms: | institutional logic, revenue, misalignment, interview, advanced construction robotics, dynamics, implementation, systemic innovation, new technology, construction technology, entrepreneurship, thematic analysis, strategy, startup, information asymmetry, Europe, investor |
| Subjects: | methods and analysis, systems engineering, digital engineering, physical geography and landforms, sociology, innovation and technology management, management, building construction, contractual arrangements, engineering problems, business, theoretical framing, data collection methods, transaction economics, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Procurement, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here