Welcome to our weblog on innovative materials in the construction industry. This blog is created so that anyone interested in this subject can comment on our ideas, and add their own ideas. Through such an active discussion and posts from our side, we will be able to come up with the most relevant, creative and realistic policy changes that should take place in the Netherlands.

This project is part of our MSc course for the subject ‘technology policy‘ at the Eindhoven University of Technology.

Use the categories to browse through the information on this blog. Only the most recent additions are visible below.

Thanks for visiting, feel free to comment!
Alexander, Eric and Robbert
newmaterials@gmail.com

New, innovative materials are available for the construction industry, but applications are relatively scarce. So, creative, innovative solutions are needed to implement these materials and hence to exploit the potential benefits. Nowadays large companies lag behind in R&D investments and innovative activities, compared to other industries, due to their focus on price competition and the dominating ‘wait and see’ approach, instead of a quality driven competition where to-wait means to-fall-behind. Cooperation of small companies will lead to the necessary changes in the construction industry structure.

A recent development is the strong rise of the number of small companies, which have shown to focus on innovative solutions. However, some obstacles hamper the growth of these companies and innovation: their lack of scale, the needed investment costs, the complexity of regulations and the insufficient knowledge and skills. These small, fast growing companies need to combine their efforts. They need to share their knowledge, experiences, and R&D activities. Only then they will be able to use innovative solutions as a competitive tool (e.g. the use of new materials) and thereby providing competition to the incumbent larger companies.

So, the fast growing creative small companies can compete with the large price-competing companies when policies are directed at cooperation between these small companies. This should therefore become one of the major policies of both the government and the small companies.

The use of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam has changed over time. For decades, it has been used mainly as an insulating material in walls. More recently, it is being combined with other materials (concrete, polymers) to build in organic shapes. Another new use of the materials is by using the flotation characteristics of the material. Though the material itself has not changed considerable, the combination with other materials and the use of it did change… more

The use of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam has changed over time. For decades, it has been used mainly as an insulating material in walls. More recently, it is being combined with other materials (concrete, polymers) to build in organic shapes. Another new use of the materials is by using the flotation characteristics of the material. Though the material itself has not changed considerable, the combination with other materials and the use of it did change. It is only over the last couple of years that EPS is considered to be a serious construction material, with a wide variety of uses (video).

The case of the floating buildings is particularly interesting. In this case, the material itself did change in the sense that EPS was combined with concrete, to create a floating foundation. Though EPS existed for over 50 years, this use was developed only recently; Dutch architects developed the idea and the first floating houses have been built recently.

Any form can be made out of EPS, which is a rather strong and light material. When this characteristic is combined enforcement on the outside, to prevent breaking off of pieces, new designs are possible. One example of this is the earlier mentioned Rabin Centre, but merely any design is possible.

In these cases, it is not necessarily the regulation that has been hampering innovation. Much rather did architects not fully develop their ideas into products. Changes have been made in the regulation, and more will be needed to exploit the possibilities offered (living along the rivers, etc). Furthermore, research and development is needed to increase the possibilities to build in organic shapes and decrease environmental impact. Such research is carried out in multi-organizational settings (click here for an example).

The structure-conduct-performance approach has been a very influential approach in industry studies, as well as the formation of (technology) policy for these industries. On this weblog, we have paid attention to many of the elements of this model; the market structure has been a key element of our research, whilst also the behavior of firms (especially concerning innovation) and their performance have been evaluated.

The approach mentioned above has mainly evolved in the years after WWII, with Joe Bain as the main contributor. The earlier models are rather linear, where structure defines conduct and …more

The structure-conduct-performance approach has been a very influential approach in industry studies, as well as the formation of (technology) policy for these industries. On this weblog, we have paid attention to many of the elements of this model; the market structure has been a key element of our research, whilst also the behavior of firms (especially concerning innovation) and their performance have been evaluated.

The approach mentioned above has mainly evolved in the years after WWII, with Joe Bain as the main contributor. The earlier models are rather linear, where structure defines conduct and conduct defines performance. Under this assumption, the structure is thus given as something external to the firms, and thereby not influenced by the conduct of firms.

In our case, we did not follow this model in the strictest sense; the role of the government (via regulation) was considered, and the existence of loops back from performance to conduct and structure were not rejected from the start. Nevertheless, our findings lead to interesting results when comparing those with the structure-conduct-performance approach. More info on these results will be posted soon.

For construction-elements, CE-markings are needed when you want to put a product on the European market. CE-markings can be obtained when products fulfill the norms put up by the European Normalization Committee (CEN). These norms dictate what kinds of product-properties are needed and how these properties should be tested. (…)
Regulations become problematic when the norms are too vague and leave too much room for interpretation. This is especially the case for new, innovative products….more

comments

Within the construction sector, all sorts of regulations and norms, for different purposes, can be found.
For example, the Dutch ‘Bouwbesluit’ (= building construction-resolution) generally dictates several performance-requirements for (parts of) construction-works. (see:www.bouwbesluitonline.nl)
For construction-elements, CE-markings are needed when you want to put a product on the European market. CE-markings can be obtained when products fulfill the norms put up by the European Normalization Committee (CEN). These norms dictate what kinds of product-properties are needed and how these properties should be tested. Actually, not only the construction-elements who are meant to be put on the European market need these CE-markings; the Dutch ‘Richtlijn Bouwproducten’ (= guideline for construction-elements) sets the application of harmonized European product-norms as obligatory.

New products
Now, on itself these regulations and norms are not at all problematic, far from it actually because they help to ensure good quality, sustainable, safe buildings. However, these regulations do become problematic when the norms are too vague and leave too much room for interpretation. This is especially the case for new, innovative products. Namely, for these products harmonized norms are often absent. To overcome the problem of the absence of harmonized norms, new products can obtain a ‘European Technical Approval’ (ETA), which are coordinated by the ‘European Organization of Technical Approvals’ (EOTA). Generally these approvals have requirements regarding mechanical properties, fire-resistance, health, environment, etc. So, these ETA’s provide some opportunities for the introduction of new products.
However, according to the ‘Nederlands Verbond Toelevering Bouw’ and the ‘Regieraad Bouw’1 these regulations are too vague and non-uniform at local levels, which lead to legal inequalities. This in turn leads to complications in fulfilling the requirements and regulations…

In summary, one can say harmonized (European) norms, standard and regulations are much needed to safe-guard the quality of construction-products. However, in practice the regulations and norms have to become more transparent and univocal. Only then, the realization, implementation and adoption of new construction products/materials can be stimulated.

———————————

1 The ‘Regieraad Bouw’ has been established in 2004 by different Dutch ministries. Its objective is to realize a cultural change in the construction sector, to make it more transparent, innovative and market-directed. For further info see: www.regieraadbouw.nl
For information about regulations and policies regarding the (Dutch) construction sector see: VROM International

For further information on CE-markings follow this link or click here.

For further information on harmonized standards click here.

To give a brief insight of the profitability of the Dutch construction sector and a brief overview of the leading companies some additional data is presented. In general, it can be concluded that four companies are considerably bigger. These large companies have a large share of the market, but collectively still not a majority. The turnover by the Dutch building concerns in the construction sector was in total more than 35 milliard, from which 16,4 milliard was earned by the 14 largest companies. A remark must be made here; a part of the turnover of the big companies was made abroad.… more

To give a brief insight of the profitability of the Dutch construction sector and a brief overview of the leading companies some additional data is presented. In general, it can be concluded that four companies are considerably bigger. These large companies have a large share of the market, but collectively still not a majority. The turnover by the Dutch building concerns in the construction sector was in total more than 35 milliard, from which 16,4 milliard was earned by the 14 largest companies. A remark must be made here; a part of the turnover of the big companies was made abroad.

Almost al companies made a profit over the year 2002 except Ballast Nedam, which made a loss because of bad forreign results. Overall the average profit made was 2,9 percent.

The Dutch construction companies are just slightly positive over the economic growth in the coming years, 60 percent of the entrepreneurs in the B&U sector (private and utility building) is positive and only 49 percent of the entrepreneurs in the GWW sector (civil engineering)is positive about their future prospective. The turnover development is quite good over 2006 and the expected trend is the same for the near future.

The profit margins are slightly increased compared to the year 2005. The greatest increase was in the GWW sector, 1,6 – 2,3 percent for medium sized business. In the B&U sector the biggest increase was in the small scale business, the large scale enterprises showed no change.