thousands of people and supporting many millions of users each
year. These types of facilities and infrastructures did not exist 20
years ago. In many construction markets there is increasing demand for flexible, lightweight, multi-function spaces that can be reconfigured for different uses quickly and cheaply. Users prefer engineered solutions that offer greater choice of layout, finish and aesthetic quality. A direct relationship exists between performance in design and construction and efficient and effective operation of these facilities. Comprehension of userproducer relations has never been easy, particularly because of the involvement of so many organizations and interests in convoluted demand and supply chains. Yet rapid shifts in patterns of demand emphasize the need for closer links between producers and users than has hitherto been the case. This is particularly so if user needs are to be properly articulated and fulfilled. In addition, knowledge required for design and construction is expanding because the operation of new facilities often involves their management as part of larger and older technical systems and infrastructures. Thus individual projects must be designed and built within constraints defined by existing systems and the legacies of the technologies they embody (David 1985). Products whose operating requirements and long-term costs are considered in the design process and are planned and built to cope with change may therefore offer greater utility. Pressures on design and construction companies to innovate and develop new products are likely to continue in the future, with the need to produce facilities for creating and working with biochemical, pharmaceutical and genetically modified substances, as well as new nanotechnology materials produced through manipulation at the molecular scale. Failure on the part of design, engineering, construction and related supply industries to develop these new products could constrain economic investment and growth, diminishing potential benefits accruing from a modern infrastructure. New product development may be the principal spur to innovation during particular periods of widespread technical, economic and social transformation, but it is not the only driving force of change. Others include new ways of financing projects; the need to comply with evolving international, regional and local regulatory frameworks particularly concerning health and safety, sustainability and the environment; and issues concerning social exclusion, inclusion and acceptability. Moreover, construction processes themselves have internal dynamics that drive change, as well as those that constrain and retard performance improvements. Construction is often thought of and excused as a traditional, mature industry that is slow to change. But as Steven Grok argued, it is wrong to see construction as a failed form of manufacturing. It has its own dynamics of industrial development and these are explained in the next chapter. Efficiency, responsiveness and capability to innovate depend to a large extent on the structure of firms, the types of skills employed, management capabilities and relationships with other firms with relevant technical expertise. Not all construction organizations are passive recipients of changes emanating from other sectors. Whilst many innovations in materials and components are made prior to their installation in the construction process, construction firms nevertheless function as systems integrators and intermediaries in the transformation of technologies from their point of origin to end users. They can play an important part in modifying and developing new technologies, conveying vital feedback from upstream producers to downstream clients and eventual users, and vice versa. The organization of these processes differs according to the types of projects and firms business strategies. Different ways of organizing production processes in turn create dynamics within the construction system itself, resulting in incentives as well as inhibitors to innovation. In this projectbased environment, the capability for innovation in the ways in which projects are organized is often as important as that of managing new technologies. Forces for technical change are particularly strong among materials and components manufacturers who are often able to invest in long-term research and product development. Many major technological changes aimed at improving construction processes take place away from construction sites and seek to reduce skill requirements on-site. Value-added in construction is increasingly being produced upstream in the supply chain, by component manufacturers. Customers of large projects may also feed the innovation process by funding and participating in research and development activities. Construction firms have always displayed a peculiar capability for innovation. The site-based nature of production, increasing numbers of different specialisms, relative uniqueness and the changing use of final products and variety of production processes, constantly throw up problems which firms have to solve in a variety of ways. But in spite of an innate ability to deal with change, construction is not generally viewed as an innovative sector, either by those working within it or by outside observers. Innovation prompted by the need to solve problems, often needlessly created elsewhere in the production process, generally lacks direction and can result in further problems which others have to rectify. Hence the paradox of change: construction has internal dynamics that generate innovation, but not necessarily of the type that leads to lasting improvements in