Chapter One Introduction 1 1 Background

Innovative Structural Design and barriers to design and construction Innovation
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1. Background of the Study
In a rapidly changing world of engineering, the imperative for innovation is always

increasing. Innovation is common to all organizations, no matter how large a company
is. “Innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product or
process, a new marketing, or organizational method in business practices” (OCED,
2005:46). Innovation is widely regarded as the most important competitive advantage
that enables a firm or company to thrive in today's dynamic environment. It is
undoubtable that innovation derives prosperity for organizations and nations.
Nowadays, it is commonly agreed that innovation is the critical path towards growth and
prosperity for countries as well as for individual firms and companies. It is the key to
design, construction, as well as technology adoption or creation globally.
Based on Global Innovation Index (GII) ranking of countries by region, Sub-Saharan

Africa (including Ethiopia) is low on the list. Rating figures were computed on average
of the following factors for each region: institutions, human capital & research,
infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication, input, scientific outputs,
creative outputs, output; and efficiency. On the other hand, Ethiopia ranked low on
innovation indicating factors: gross expenditure on R&D, university or industry
collaboration on R&D, regulatory quality index, domestic credit to private sector, number
of scientific and technical journal articles; and ICT use index (Dutta, 2011:50).
With increasing global competition and quickly spreading of knowledge, the future of
many engineering firms and construction companies depend upon their ability to
innovate. Castells (2010) and Huang & Tsai (2011) argued that most modern
economies pursue progressive strategies and policies to develop a responsive and
dynamic sector. This is done with potential to innovate, capability to respond rapidly to
evolving economic environments. Emerging opportunities and threats forced companies
to investigate and invest more on innovation to decrease risk of becoming
uncompetitive. Organization use innovation to confirm critical decision in responding to
technological or market challenges (Brenner, 1987; Gomes, 1996).
1
The studies conducted by Freel (2005), Allocca and Kessler (2006), and Dibrell et al.
(2008) as cited in Ilker and Baki (2011) show the increasing importance role of
innovation and in the world. Currently the Ethiopian government uses objectives as
strategies towards development of the construction and design sector. specific
objectives such “facilitate economic growth, bring equitable development, create long-
term jobs, strengthen cooperation, provide the basis for medium and large-scale firms
and companies, balance preferential treatment between companies” (CSAE, 2004).
Hence, the role of innovation as a crucial driving force of design, construction as well as
economic development is widely acknowledged. In particular, within the business
setting, innovation is often considered to be a vital source of strategic change, by which
firm and companies generates positive outcomes including sustained competitive
advantage.
However, if countries are not in a position to engage effectively in innovation activities,

inevitably they are going to be dependent on other countries innovated products and
methodologies, imported by hard currency from developed and other developing
countries. This typically holds true for countries like Ethiopia. Likewise, firm’s
engagement in such activities is becoming mandatory, unless they lose their markets
share and customers in the future, as a result of shift in demand of existing customers
for new technology and methodology.
Thus, this study focused on generating relevant information to understand limitations

and barriers for design and construction innovation of engineering firms and
construction companies based on a review of the relevant literature and empirical study
of a representative samples.
2
1.2. Statement of the Problem
The major problem statement is there are barriers and limitations to design and
construction innovation in Ethiopia’s construction sector
Ethiopia, being amongst the fastest growing economies in the world, sees substantial
growth in most aspects of its economy. One of the fields that is seeing development, is
the construction sector. Like other fields, the construction sector faces many challenges.
One of these current challenges is integrating excellent innovation concept and
innovative technologies.
Engineering firms and construction companies in developing countries such as Ethiopia

are important in the global engineering society. They play crucial roles in the
development of design and construction innovation just as the developed world. The
ongoing globalization process also highlights the importance of innovation in all firms
and companies (O’Regan et al., 2006) as cited in Xin et al., (2010).
Innovation is an area that has expanded dramatically in recent years. Particularly,

technological innovation is vital to the competitive performance of companies and of
nations, and for the sustained growth of the world economy. Innovation in all fields of
the engineering sector provides the most obvious means for generating revenues,
safeguarding and improving quality & saving costs.
So, innovation is used as a bridge and link between technology and competitive
advantage. It is the quest for competitive advantage that causes firms and companies to
invest in innovation. Studying the connection of firms and companies design and
construction innovation and factors adversely affecting innovation is important to to
increase innovativeness and competitiveness. In this regard, Roper (1997) pointed that
“technological innovation is a key factor in firms’ competitiveness”.
Xie et al.,(2010) stated that “many failure stories of firms in technology innovation reveal
that there are various factors hindering their innovation process” (O’Regan et al., 2006).
Although the phenomenon on innovation factors has captured the interest of many
3
scholars, less studies focus on the issue from developing countries, especially in Africa.
Ethiopia is located near the bottom in technology production and absorption in WEF
rankings based on traditional innovation output indicators. The low standings reflect
several problems in Ethiopia.
The evidence from the environmental scanning, literature review and empirical works
shows that low innovativeness of engineering firms and companies is due to many
adversely affecting factors as Tahi (2011), Silva et al., (2007), Lim and Shyamala
(2007), Mohen and Roller (2005), and Baldwin and Lin(2002) stated.
Therefore, this thesis research paper focuses on conducting an investigation to describe

factors that obstacle engineering firms and Construction Companies’ innovation or
expansion in Addis Ababa.
1.3. Research Questions
In accordance to the empirical literature review, the following research questions were
proposed:
 Did your firms and companies introduce design or construction innovation?

 What type of design or construction innovation did firms and companies
introduce?
 Why are firms or companies not introducing and/or expand innovation?
 What is the effect of design and construction innovation barriers on firms and
companies in the construction sector?
 What are the major important barriers to design and construction innovation?
 What are the main innovation barriers (internal and external)?
4
1.4. Objective of the Study
1.4.1. General objective
This study is conducted with the overall objective of identifying various barriers of
design and construction innovation and comparing these innovation barriers.
1.4.2. Specific objectives
In addition to the general objective, the specific objectives of the study include:
 Identify barriers that limit innovative building design and construction in Ethiopia,
particularly in Addis Ababa
 Analyze causes for the barriers on innovation in design and construction of
buildings.
 Assess the impact of these barriers and limitations
 Propose attainable measures and goals by which innovative methods of building
design and construction can be approached while considering safety, economy
and environmental factors
1.5. Significance of the Study
The study was significant because it is expected to provide knowledge on the factors
negatively affecting design and construction innovations in Ethiopia’s engineering and
construction sector, specifically it is useful to: help establish the factors that are
consistent in the success of firms and companies innovation, identify and remind
owners of the internal factors which are directly controllable by the managers or owners,
identify and remind owners about the external factors which are uncontrollable by the
managers or owners, help as a base for other researches to do research on the topic
under study by filling the literature gap in the area and help the policy makers to assess
factors hindering innovativeness and to take corrective measure if it is mandatory.
5
1.6. Limitation of the Study
In addition to the common limitation such as time and resource constraints, the study
had the following limitation:
 Lack of up-to-date information about each sector of SMEs.

 Lack of cooperation to provide extra information from particular firms and
companies
 Absence of empirical evidence, particularly in Ethiopian and African context
 All sectors were not included in the study since; some firms or companies do not
fulfill the adopted framework or definition. Therefore, the study is not in a position
to generalize to all sectors of the construction industry in Addis Ababa.
1.7. Scope of the Study
The unit of analysis for this study was owners and/or managers of engineering,
consultancy and architectural firms, as well as construction and real estate companies
who are currently actively engaged in the construction sector of Addis Ababa. This
research was a cross-sectional study, as this research problem, that is limitation and
barriers to design and construction innovation, was studied at a given time (Saunders et
al., 2007). This research study didn’t compare and contrast with firms and companies
outside Addis Ababa. The study is only inclusive of sectors directly involved with design
or construction which are large-scale.
1.8. Organization of the Paper
Generally the paper is organized into five chapters. The first chapter presents background which
continued statement of the problem and continued with the research questions, objective of the
study, significance of the study, limitation of the study, scope of the study and organization of
the paper. The second chapter deals with the literature review and conceptual framework of the
study. The third chapter is research methods, sample size and sampling methods, method of
6
data collection, data quality assurance and etc. The fourth chapter handles data presentation,
analysis and interpretation. The fifth chapter wind ups the paper by summary of major findings,
conclusion and recommendation.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Overview of innovation in structural building design

2.1.1.History of the construction industry
The history of construction overlaps with many other fields like structural engineering
and relies on other branches of science like archeology, history and architecture to
investigate how the builders lived and recorded their accomplishments. Those fields
allow us to analyze constructed buildings and other structures built since prehistory, the
tools used and the different uses of building materials. History of building is evolving by
different trends in time and market by few key principles: durability of the materials
used, the increasing of height and span, the degree of control exercised over the
environment and finally the energy available to the construction process (Alfred
Swenson and Pao-Chi Chang)
2.1.2. History of structural engineering
The history of structural engineering dates back to about 2700 BC when the step
pyramid for Pharaoh Djoser was built by Imhotep,(the first engineer in history known by
name). Pyramids were the most common major structures built by ancient civilizations
because it is a structural form which is stable and can be almost infinitely scaled. ( Victor
E. Saouma)
Throughout ancient and medieval history most architectural design and construction
was carried out by artisans, such as stone masons and carpenters which gave rise to
masterbuilders. No theory of structures existed and understanding of how structures
stood up was extremely limited, and based almost entirely on past experiences.
7
Knowledge was gained by societies and seldom replaced by advances. Structures were
repetitive, and increases in scale were incremental. (Victor E. Saouma)
No record exists of the first calculations of the strength of structural members or the
behavior of structural material, but the profession of structural engineer only really took
shape with the industrial revolution and the re-invention of concrete. The physical
sciences underlying structural engineering began to be understood in the Renaissance
and have been developing ever since.
2.1.3. Early structural engineering developments
The recorded history of structural engineering starts with the ancient Egyptians. In the
26th century BC, the Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed in Egypt. It remained the
largest man-made structure for millennia and was considered an unsurpassed feat in
architecture until the 19th century AD.
3rd century BC, the physical laws that underpin structural engineering in the Western
world was understood when Archimedes published his work On the Equilibrium of
Planes in two volumes, in which he sets out the Law of the Lever, stating:
Equal weights at equal distances are in equilibrium, and equal weights at

“
”
unequal distances are not in equilibrium but incline towards the weight which is
at the greater distance.
Archimedes used the principles derived to calculate the areas and centers of gravity of
various geometric figures including triangles, paraboloids, and hemispheres
(Heath,T.L). Archimedes's work on this and his work on calculus and geometry, together
with Euclidean geometry, underpin much of the mathematics and understanding of
structures in modern structural engineering.
The ancient Romans made great innovative bounds in structural engineering,

pioneering large structures in masonry and concrete, many of which are still standing
today. They include aqueducts, thermae, columns, lighthouses, defensive walls and
8
harbors. Their methods are recorded by Vitruvius in his De Architectura, 25 BC. It’s a
manual of civil and structural engineering with extensive sections on materials and
machines used in construction.
Then in the 15th and 16th centuries, Leonardo da Vinci produced many engineering
designs based on scientific observations and rigor despite lacking beam theory and
calculus. Though dismissed at the time, the design has since been judged to be both
feasible and structurally valid ("Renaissance Man".)
Galileo Galilei, Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton laid the foundation for modern
structural engineering in the 17th century with the publication of three great scientific
works. In 1638 Galileo published Dialogues Relating to Two New Sciences, (Galileo, G.
(Crew, H & de Salvio, A. (1954)) outlining the sciences of the strength of materials and
the motion of objects. It was the first establishment of a scientific approach to structural
engineering, including the first attempts to develop a theory for beams. This is also
regarded as the beginning of structural analysis, the mathematical representation and
design of building structures.
This was followed in 1676 by Robert Hooke's first statement of Hooke's Law, providing
a scientific understanding of elasticity of materials and their behavior under load.
(Chapman, Allan. (2005))
Eleven years later, in 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Mathematica, setting out his Laws of Motion, providing for the first time an
understanding of the fundamental laws governing structures. (Newton, Isaac;Leseur,
Thomas; Jacquier, François. (1822))
Also in the 17th century, Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both independently
developed the Fundamental theorem of calculus, providing one of the most important
mathematical tools in engineering. (Heyman, Jacques (1999))
In the 18th century when Leonhard Euler pioneered much of the mathematics and many
of the methods which allow structural engineers to model and analyze structures. He
9
developed the Euler-Bernoulli beam equation with Daniel Bernoulli (1700–1782) circa
1750 - the fundamental theory underlying most structural engineering design.
( Heyman, Jacques (1999), Bradley, Robert E.; Sandifer, Charles Edward (2007)).
Daniel Bernoulli, with Johann (Jean) Bernoulli (1667–1748), is also credited with
formulating the theory of virtual work, providing a tool using equilibrium of forces and
compatibility of geometry to solve structural problems. In 1717 Jean Bernoulli wrote to
Pierre Varignon explaining the principle of virtual work, while in 1726 Daniel Bernoulli
wrote of the "composition of forces" (Dugas, René (1988)).
In 1757 Leonhard Euler went on to derive the Euler buckling formula, greatly advancing
the ability of engineers to design compression elements (Bradley, Robert E.; Sandifer,
Charles Edward (2007)).
2.1.4. Modern developments in structural engineering
Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, materials science and structural
analysis underwent development at a tremendous pace.
Though elasticity was understood in theory before the 19th century, it was not until 1821
that Claude-Louis Navier formulated the general theory of elasticity in a mathematically
usable form. In his book, leçons (1826), he explored a great range of different
structural theory, and was the first to highlight that the role of a structural engineer is not
to understand the final, failed state of a structure, but to prevent that failure in the first
place (Heyman, Jacques (1999)).
In 1826 he also established the elastic modulus as a property of materials independent

of the second moment of area, allowing engineers understand structural behaviour and
structural materials (Hosford, W.F. (2005))
In 1824, Portland cement was patented by the engineer Joseph Aspdin as "a superior
cement resembling Portland Stone". Although different forms of cement already existed,
Pozzolanic cement was used by the Romans around 100 B.C. and even earlier by the
10
ancient Greek and Chinese civilizations and were in common usage in Europe from the
1750s. Aspdin’s discovery used commonly available, cheap materials, making concrete
construction an economical possibility (Prentice, J.E. (1990))
In 1848, Developments in concrete continued with the construction of a rowing boat built
of ferrocement, which is the forerunner of modern reinforced concrete, by Joseph-Louis
Lambot. He patented his system of mesh reinforcement and concrete in 1855, one year
after W.B. Wilkinson also patented a similar system (Nedwell,P.J.; Swamy,R.N.(ed)).
This was followed in 1867 when a reinforced concrete planting tub was patented by
Joseph Monier in Paris, using steel mesh reinforcement. Monier took the idea forward,
filing several patents for tubs, slabs and beams, leading eventually to the Monier system
of reinforced structures, the first use of steel reinforcement bars located in areas of
tension in the structure (Kirby, R.S. (1990)).
Steel construction was first made possible in the 1850s when Henry Bessemer
developed the Bessemer process to produce steel. He gained patents for the process in
1855 and 1856 and successfully completed the conversion of cast iron into cast steel in
1858 (Swank, J.M. (1965)). Eventually mild steel would replace both wrought iron and
cast iron as the preferred metal for construction.
During the late 19th century, great advancements were made in the use of cast iron,
gradually replacing wrought iron as a material of choice. Ditherington Flax Mill in
Shrewsbury, designed by Charles Bage, was the first building in the world with an
interior iron frame. It was built in 1797. It was an attempt to build a fireproof building,
and is the first example of fire engineering. This was later improved upon with the
construction of Belper North Mill, by Strutt and Bage, which by using a full cast iron
frame represented the world's first "fire proofed" building (Blank, A.; McEvoy, M.; Plank,
R. (1993), Labrum, E.A. (1994)).
In 1889, the wrought-iron Eiffel Tower was built by Gustave Eiffel and Maurice Koechlin,
demonstrating the potential of construction using iron, despite the fact that steel
construction was already being used elsewhere.
11
From 1892 onwards François Hennebique's firm used his patented reinforced concrete
system to build thousands of structures throughout Europe. Thaddeus Hyatt in the US
and Wayss & Freitag in Germany also patented systems. The firm AG für Monierbauten
constructed 200 reinforced concrete bridges in Germany between 1890 and 1897
(Leonhardt).
Robert Maillart furthered the understanding of reinforced concrete behavior. Maillart

noticed that many concrete structures were significantly cracked, and as a result left the
cracked areas out of his next design - correctly believing that if the concrete was
cracked, it was not contributing to the strength (Mörsch).
Wilhelm Ritter formulated the truss theory for the shear design of reinforced concrete
beams in 1899, and Emil Mörsch improved this in 1902. He went on to demonstrate that
treating concrete in compression as a linear-elastic material was a conservative
approximation of its behavior (Mörsch).
Concrete design and analysis has been progressing ever since, with the development of
analysis methods such as yield line theory, based on plastic analysis of concrete, and
many different variations on the model for stress distributions in concrete in
compression (Hognestad, E., Hoogenboom P.C.J (1998)).
Prestressed concrete, pioneered by Eugène Freyssinet with a patent in 1928, gave a

novel approach in overcoming the weakness of concrete structures in tension.
Freyssinet constructed an experimental prestressed arch in 1908 and later used the
technology in a limited form in the Plougastel Bridge in France in 1930 (Hewson, N.R.
(2003)).
Structural engineering theory was again advanced in 1930 when Professor Hardy Cross
developed his Moment distribution method, allowing the real stresses of many complex
structures to be approximated quickly and accurately (Heyman, J. (1998)).
12
In the mid-20th century John Fleetwood Baker went on to develop the plasticity theory
of structures, providing a powerful tool for the safe design of steel structures (Heyman,
J. (1998), Turner, J.; Clough, R.W.; Martin, H.C.; Topp, L.J. (1956)).
In the mid-20th century, designers specified the use of what are now known to be
hazardous building materials, such as asbestos flooring, pipe wrap and shingles, lead
paint and pipes for as fire prevention and durability of materials. Those decisions have
led to risks to people inhabiting these buildings.
High-rise construction, though possible from the late 19th century onwards, was greatly
advanced during the second half of the 20th century. Fazlur Khan designed structural
systems that remain fundamental to many modern high rise constructions and which he
employed in his structural designs for the John Hancock Center in 1969 and Sears
Tower in 1973 (Mir, A. (2001)). Khan's central innovation in skyscraper design and
construction was the idea of the "tube" and "bundled tube" structural systems for tall
buildings (Chris H. Luebkeman (1996)).
He defined the framed tube structure as "a three dimensional space structure
composed of three, four, or possibly more frames, braced frames, or shear walls, joined
at or near their edges to form a vertical tube-like structural system capable of resisting
lateral forces in any direction by cantilevering from the foundation." ("Evolution of
Concrete Skyscrapers", 2007).
Another innovation that Fazlur Khan developed was the concept of X-bracing, which
reduced the lateral load on the building by transferring the load into the exterior
columns. This allowed for a reduced need for interior columns thus creating more floor
space, and can be seen in the John Hancock Center. The first sky lobby was also
designed by Khan for the John Hancock Center in 1969. Later buildings with sky lobbies
include the World Trade Center, Petronas Twin Towers and Taipei 101.
In 1987 Jörg Schlaich and Kurt Schafer published the culmination of almost ten years of
work on the strut and tie method for concrete analysis - a tool to design structures with
13
discontinuities such as corners and joints, providing another powerful tool for the
analysis of complex concrete geometries (Schlaich, J., K. Schäfer, M. Jennewein).
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries the development of powerful computers has
allowed finite element analysis to become a significant tool for structural analysis and
design. With detailed understanding being developed of topics such as fracture
mechanics, earthquake engineering, composite materials, temperature effects on
materials, dynamics and vibration control, fatigue, creep and others, the development of
finite element programs has led to the ability to accurately predict the stresses in
complex structures, and allowed great advances in structural engineering design and
architecture.
2.2. Innovation in the construction industry
Innovation in construction is a subject being discussed during a considerable period of

time. However current research and statistical data shows that construction is lagging
behind other sectors in the aspects of productivity and efficiency for which lack of
innovation is blamed. This literature review is an effort to illustrate present status of
construction innovation research and perceptions of researchers and practitioners
based on a review of current literature. Emphasis was placed on identifying the
prevailing nature of construction innovation with reference to enabling and disabling
factors and ways to improve the performance of construction to address the
construction society.
The construction industry is being increasingly challenged to successfully innovate in

order to satisfy the aspirations and needs of society and clients, and to improve the
competitiveness (Latham, 1994). Number of definitions is given for innovation within the
literature. Dulaimi (2005) identifies innovation as the generation, development and
implementation of ideas that are new to an organization and that has practical or
commercial benefits.
It is generally accepted that innovation is the implementation of significantly new

processes, products or management approaches in order to increase efficiency of an
14
organization (Seaden, 2003). The work of Sexton and Barrett (2003) emphasizes that
for an innovation to be successful, new ideas should be followed by effective
implementation and must improve overall organizational performance. Further it was
agreed among researchers (Dulaimi, 2005, Seaden, 2003, Sexton and Barrett, 2003)
that ideas should not necessarily be new to the world, but to the organizational context
under concern to generate innovation.
2.3. NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION
This topic discusses the general definition and current state of innovation in the
construction sector. There are literatures to state that construction lags behind the
innovativeness of the manufacturing and services sectors. Productivity growth in
construction is far below the national average (Nam and Tatum, 1997).
The project based nature of construction industry makes every project unique
(Veshoskey, 1998), thus there is significant opportunity and tendency for new
approaches. Building practitioners and their clients have often interpreted these new
approaches as innovative behavior (Seaden and Manseau, 2001).
On the other hand, uniqueness was criticized as a hindrance for construction

innovation. Due to the unique conditions a contractor has little to gain from being
innovative, other than optimization of their own process. There are observations to
suggest the effect of uniqueness on innovation depends on the nature of the projects.
When the company is small and work is repetitive it is possible to harvest higher return
with comparatively smaller investment on technology.
On the other hand, large complex projects make room for innovation to overcome the
associated practical problems. Regardless whether the construction industry is
15
innovative or not; there are concerns over the lack of systematic diffusion of innovation
through the industry.
The Business Roundtable (1982, cited in Nan and Tatum, 1997) attributes lack of
innovation not to the lack of capability, but to the absence of a coordinated effort to link
market needs and inventive capacity in spite of adequate demand pull as well as supply
of promising technologies, such as computers, robotics and advance materials that are
standing ready till being utilized through coordinated system.
Further, innovations developed to solve problems at project levels are not effectively
documented or communicated to others for future reference (Veshosky, 1998) and are
rarely commercialized by manufactures (Slaughter, 1991). Empirical study conducted
by Reichstein et al, (2005) using the data form ‘UK innovation survey’ found out that
number of firms engaged in product and/or process innovation in construction sector is
lesser than other sectors. Further it was found out that construction firms are less open
to the external environment and they tend to have poorly developed research and
development (R&D), with low capacity to absorb ideas from the external.
However, some researchers are skeptical about so called conclusive evidence of the
poor performance of the construction industry compared with other industrial sectors.
Construction sector in SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) excludes Architectural
and Engineering Consultancy firms where large amount of innovative designs are
carried out. Further large proportion of value added in construction sector is repair and
maintenance work where room is limited for innovation and productivity is low due to the
nature of work.
Nevertheless, this is not the case in most of the other industries or not significant as
such. Thus it can be argued that construction sector under SIC is not comparable with
other industries. However, Winch (2003) admits that there is insufficient evidence to
state that the construction industry is any worse or better compared to other industries.
Unfortunately, official statistics are limited in measuring innovation and existing

measures are related to the R&D statistics. R&D (research and development)
expenditures, number of R&D personnel, number of patents, number of publications
16
and their citations, etc. are considered as indicators of measures of R&D performance,
thus for the innovation (Seaden and Manseau, 2001).
OECD (1996, 1997) has reported that innovation can emerge from various sources of
activities, and not only from R&D, although it constitutes an important part of innovation
activities. The study of Slaughter (1991), also prove to this statement where majority of
innovation was originated at sites by the builders. Kline (1985, cited in Seaden and
Manseau, 2001) states that research is not the direct source of innovations, and much
innovation proceeds with little or no input from current research.
Nevertheless, the level of R&D activity has been positively correlated with the relative
innovativeness of various industrial sectors, particularly high tech manufacturing
sectors, therefore considered as a valid indicator of innovation (Seaden and Manseau,
2001).
In recent era construction companies are keen on innovation. Due to the escalating
labor charges construction companies identify innovation as a means of being
competitive in the international markets (Nam and Tatum, 1997). This fact is reflected
by the use of “innovative”/ “innovation” words in the company brochures and other
marketing documents (Nam and Tatum, 1997).
2.4. Modern day innovations for Urban Development
Innovative structural materials are expected to improve urban landscape of long-term

value in everything from resource efficiency to neighborhood amenities and services,
safety and security, jobs and business opportunities, and improved education and,
social elements that are important to sustain, provide for and empower a better quality
of living (Habraken, N. John. 1998).
On the other hand, an aging society with a decreasing birthrate is redefining the
conventional perceptions of the way we live in the city. With very rapid changes in
economic and social paradigm, the 21st Modern day innovations for Urban
Development should highlight the importance of “lifestyle vision”, “social vision”, and
“industry vision” (Kendall, Stephen, 2002).
17
 Lifestyle vision:
o Green living to create a community that supports diverse lifestyles and
interacts with a natural environment.
 Social vision:
o Community livability to create a city as a place attractive to live and work.
 Industry vision:
o Market appeal to create business opportunities to maintain and sustain
social developments.
Innovative Requirements in building construction that need to be met
1. Robust building structure capable of making the public feel safe and secure in
the event of large-scale disasters (Habraken, N. John. 1998).
2. Adaptive building structure capable of making easy conversion of former use to
new use in a resource efficient manner (Habraken, N. John. 1998, Kendall,
Stephen, 2002).
3. Structural design capable of providing a better quality of living, and in turn,
leading to orderly urban development (Kendall, Stephen, 2002)
4. Resources recycling/reuse to reduce wastes generated from maintenance,
repair, and alternation of buildings and civil infrastructure (Habraken, N. John.
1998, Kendall, Stephen, 2002).
2.5. BARRIERS TO CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION
The identification of factors (Cause of the problem) measuring and influencing firms’
innovation is a popular topic in literature. As far as the factors influencing the innovation
output are concerned, various factors have been identified in literature, of both internal
and external nature.
A number of studies show that firm differences in barriers to innovation were related to
cost, institutional constraints, human resources, organizational culture, flow of
information, and government policy (Mohen and Roller 2005; Baldwin and Lin, 2002).
18
According to the Jaramillo et al., (2001) following are identified as factors affecting
innovation activities:
1. Economic: excessive perceived risks; cost too high; lack of appropriate sources
of finance; and pay-off period of innovation too long.
2. Business: insufficient innovation potential (R&D, design); shortage of skilled staff;
lack of information on technology and on markets; innovation expenditure hard to
control; resistance to change in the firm; deficiencies in the availability of external
services; and lack of opportunities for co-operation.
3. Other reasons: lack of technological opportunity; lack of infrastructure; no need to
innovate due to earlier innovations; weakness of property rights; legislation,
norms, regulations, standards, taxation; and customers unresponsive to new
technology.
2.6. Relation between innovation and barrier to innovation
The following identified barriers for innovation from literature are discussed.
2.6.1.Lack of Finance
Extensive investigation is made on the literature studying the importance of external

financial resources (Hewitt, 2006). Particularly, studies of Firms and Companies
consistently stress that the lack of finance is one of the most important constraint to
innovation (Silva et al., 2007; Lim and Shyamala 2007).
According to Hall (2002) financial problems are particularly acute in the case of
innovation activities due to:
 Innovation projects are riskier than physical investment projects and therefore
outside investors require a risk premium for the financing of innovation activities.
19
 Innovators are reluctant to share with outside investor’s information about their
innovations. This information problem hampers the financing of innovation.
 The difficulty of using intangible assets as collaterals also leads to increased
costs of external capital in the form of a risk premium. Some innovation projects
may not be started, delayed or abandoned because of the risk of bankruptcy and
the low value of intangibles in case of liquidation (Gomes et al., 2006).
2.6.2.High cost of innovation
The study made by Canepa and Stoneman (2008) find that cost of innovation was major
important barriers to innovation. Similarly, Tourigny and Le (2004) found that the high
cost of innovation is likely to be perceived as an important hampering factor by large
firms as compared to small ones.
Similarly, the study of Aminreza et al., (2011), Silva et al., (2007), and Lim and
Shyamala (2007) revealed that cost of innovation as restrain factors for innovation.
2.6.3. Lack of skill personnel
The lack of technically qualified personnel has been found to affect negatively the ability
to innovate by small firms (Galia and Legros (2004), Freel (2000)
Similarly, a study conducted by Vinnova (2007) and by Tourigny and Le (2004) noted
lack of skilled personnel as high impediments to develop or introduce new or
significantly improved technological innovation.
2.6.4. Inadequate Research & Development
Empirical evidence showed that, research and development as a proxy variable for
innovation. Investment in R&D is expected to be more financially constrained than
investment in physical capital. This results from the fact that R&D, in opposition to
physical capital is not only harder to use as collateral, but is also of a riskier nature and
entails significant information asymmetry problems (Hall, 2002).
The two roles for R&D are those stimulating innovation and enabling to understand and
imitate the discoveries which remain confidential by other originating firms (Griffith et al.,
20
2004). R&D therefore plays an important role for the development of an absorption
capacity and is equal criteria for technology transfer and innovation. Cohen and Levin
(1989) have provided a similar view about the importance of R&D in nurturing both
learning and innovation.
2.6.5.Size of Enterprise
A great deal of research has addressed the relationship between firm size and
innovation (Schumpeter, 1942) and he argued that large firms are more innovative than
small firms. Large firms are better placed to develop and exploit new technologies as a
result of larger availability of resources, better appropriable conditions and greater
ability to benefit from scale economies (Schumpeter, 1942). Likewise, others noted that,
larger firms are more likely to draw on an internal pool of financial and knowledge-
related resources, as well as benefiting from scale advantages to spread the fixed costs
of innovation over a larger volume of sales as a result they get advantage (Acs and
Audretsch, 1990).
Cohen and Levin (1989) summarize several arguments for such an effect occurring:
larger firms may have an advantage in securing finance for risky projects, and there
may be scale economies in technology of R&D. Likely, study made to know the
influence of firm size over degree of innovation in a service sector, indicate that firm
size, measured by turnover, is related positively with degree of innovation (Daniel et al.,
2001).
On the other hand, Mulu (2009:11) finding revealed that size of the firm is positive &
highly significant relation with firm innovativeness, hence large firms are more likely to
participate in innovation activities due to resources advantage over smaller one.
2.6.6.Government policy and regulation
The level of government support for innovation can be difficult to gauge especially since
there is limited information on R&D activity and there may be a number of policy options
(Scotchmer, 2004).
21
Regarding government respect to public financial support, it has been shown to

effectively reduce financial constraints of enterprises; it enhances innovation and
stimulates R&D investment (Bloom et al., 2002; Bérubé and Mohnen, 2009).
2.6.7.Lack of Cooperation
It is becoming more and more difficult to maintain a competitive advantage through

internal R&D because of the fast changing environment and the increase of knowledge
dissemination and expansion via www. Nowadays large multinational companies are
looking to generate knowledge externally through acquisitions, venture capital
investments, collaborations or knowledge spillovers (Kang & Kang, 2009).
Robson et al., (2009) found that contacts with other firms, either locally or in export
markets, appeared to stimulate innovation activity. Firms engage in collaboration in
order to complement their internal resources and accordingly team up with partners who
control the relevant complementary resources required (Miotti and Sachwald, 2003).
2.6.8. Lack of technological and market information
The presence of information technologies in organizations has expanded significantly to

a point where there is no organization that can function without these tools. With this
expansion, the success of every organization depends largely on how well it uses
information technology to manage its information and knowledge resources (Cascio,
2001). Technological or market information are important to Firms and Companies to
cope up and to overcome different restrain factors.
According to Assefa (1997), small scale enterprises have difficulties in gaining access to
appropriate technologies information on available techniques. Morikawa (2002) find a
positive and statistically significant relationship between information technology and
innovation for only small firms. However, ICT is a lower inhabiting factor on innovation
of Firms and Companies (Mohd and Syed, 2010).
2.6.9. Organizational Culture
The culture of enterprises might have influence on the innovation performance of the
firm. Tushman and O‟Reilly (1997) pointed out those successful organizations have the
22
capacity to absorb innovation into the organizational culture and management

processes and that organizational culture lies at the heart of organizational innovation.
On the other hand, Martins and Terblanche (2003) explain that, a culture supportive of
creativity encourages members of enterprises to think innovative ways of representing
problems and finding solutions.
To stimulate innovative effort it is also important to include the following points:
 quantifiable goals based on organizational standards

 innovation culture and programs
 supported education, knowledge, training and value teamwork
 constructing incentives
These objectives are important and have influence on the creativity of employees
(Carneiro, 2008).
The fragmented nature of the construction process is identified as the main barrier to
innovation (Pries and Janzen, 1995). Contractors and consultants are isolated from one
another and contractors are often of small size and fragmented (Gann 2000). Moreover,
construction projects also have a significant coordination and integration problems due
to extreme specialization of functions and/or involvement of various professions (Nam
and Tatum, 1992).
On the other hand, the fragmentation of the professional bodies in construction has
weaken their ability to act as honest brokers of innovation as they typically threaten the
interests of one or other amongst them (Winch, 1998). The particularly long life span of
the construction products are also viewed as a barrier to innovation as it compels the
client to stick to known methods rather than being radically innovative (Blayse and
Manley, 2004). Since risk of failure is higher in construction, trial- and-error approach is
not much acceptable (Nam and Tatum, 1997).
Due to technical regulations the room to be innovative is restricted (Blayse and Manley,
2004; Veshosky, 1998). The research of Bowle (1960, cited in Ling, 2003) provides
evidence to that restrictions imposed by regulations have been a hindrance to the
construction innovation for a long time.
23
The construction industry is also known for conservatism; professionals cling to an

accepted industry practice and norms in fulfilling client’s need; changes are taken as a
threat, and slack resources are rarely permitted (Nam and Tatum, 1997). These
statements were confirmed in the interviews conducted by Dulaimi (2005). In the
interviews some Project Managers had expressed concerns that innovators who may go
beyond established organizational policies and practices might trigger an increased risk
on the project objectives. In this context, securing the support of project parties may
become increasingly challenging.
Many Project Managers have also referred to the very tight schedules, undue emphasis
on cost-cutting measures, economic recession and lowest bidding practice that impeded
their actual ability to innovate. Veshosky (1998) also received similar comments from
the Project Managers.
Further he observed very diverse opinions about innovation. Some Project Managers
state that they don’t do innovation because it is against organizational and industrial
culture. Whereas some Project Managers considered innovation as “sustainable
competitive advantage” The commitment from top management and the level of
technical expertise have been evident as preconditions for successful innovation in
construction (Nam and Tatum, 1997).
Top executives in innovative organizations appear to assume responsibility actively for

technological decision making and have sufficient technical expertise to do so.
Nevertheless, many managers, in particular high level managers, in construction
industry appear to have a limited view concerning their roles in the innovation process.
They no longer see themselves as engineers who actively make technical decisions;
they claim that their roles as managers prevent them from being personally involved in
engineering. The belief in the supremacy of management (including marketing,
customer contact and management of R&D) over engineering appears common in
design and construction (Nam and Tatum, 1997).
However, the suggestion of Nam and Tatum (1997) that the construction should be
managed by technically competent people is not always supported. Pries and Janszen
(1995) identifies engineer’s paradigm’ or strict technical focus as a barrier to innovation.
24
Pries and Janszen (1995)’s study revealed that only 4% of the managers have a degree
in economics or management subjects, while 51% are engineers, 2% have law degrees
and the rest didn’t have any academic qualification at all. All of them were gradually
promoted to the top management position which is perceived to be superior as Nam
and Tatum (1997) implies.
In the authors’ opinion this pattern of promotion had resulted in placing engineers and
technicians in a dilemma between practicing their technical skills where they are good
at, and performing managerial tasks where they lack competence. Thus innovative
ideas may not be managed prudently to gain expected results. In the following section it
is further discussed how the innovation should be managed towards achieving the goals
of the construction industry.
2.7. Empirical Studies Related With Barriers to Innovation

2.7.1. Internal and External barriers
Barriers to innovation can be classified in different ways and different typologies e.g.
origin, source. A useful classification of barriers is made by Piatier (1984); he classifies
company’s internal and external barriers. Hadjimanolis (2003) admits that external
barriers have their origin in the surrounding environment and cannot be influenced.
However, a company can influence internal ones.
Government policies and regulations, is a frequent source of barriers to innovation (Poll

et al., 1999). He views barriers as a component of a national innovation climate in the
country. Bureaucratic procedures, lack of properly settled national strategy, problems in
policy communication and execution may cause abnormal external barriers for
25
innovation process. Regarding internal barriers Klein (2002) has classified five barriers
existing on, ‟ individual‟‟ or ‟organizational‟ level: ability barriers; knowledge barriers;
functional barriers; intentional barriers and affective barriers. He pointed internal barriers
have to be perceived to be more important than the external ones. They are easier to
identify and deal with.
2.8. FACILITIES TO ENHANCE CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION
One of the principal themes in the management of innovation is that, ‘innovativeness’ of

the organization and the extent to which the design of the organization facilitates or
inhibits innovation (Winch, 2000). According to Winch (2000), organization’s that are
relatively programmed and planned have more difficulties in innovation.
Tatum (1989) found out that to foster innovation, there must be implicit vertical
integration. This fact is confirmed by Dulaimi et al. (2002), who states that procuring
more contracts based on design–build method would enable companies to increase
their innovation, compared to design–bid–build, which is known to be one of the causes
of fragmentation (Ling, 2003). To increase the probability of successful innovation,
implementation should be preceded by searching for alternatives, evaluating them and
justifying the cost (Ling, 2003). Nevertheless, it should be noted that innovation does
not originate only from R&D or from manufacturing facilities; but from users as well
(Slaughter, 1991). Users innovate when the technology is easy to modify, specifically
when the cost for the user to innovate are decreased (Slaughter, 1991).
Kangari and Miyatake, (1997), identify four main factors that contribute to innovation in
Japanese construction industry as: strategic alliances; effective information gathering
capabilities; reputation through innovation and technology fusion. The link between
innovation and business strategy in a large construction firm in Japan was found to be
the long-range technology forecasting that integrates action of today with the vision of
tomorrow (Kangari and Miyatake, 1997).
Information plays a key role in innovation as in many other situations. Lack of

information regarding innovation is identified as a barrier by Project Managers
(Veshosky, 1998). However, there were companies that provide information sources but
26
their availability was not properly communicated to the Project Managers thus proper
utilization was not achieved. Further, lack of focus of innovation in external sources was
observed, which hinders the ability to learn from others experience and develop the
industry as a whole (Veshosky, 1998). Therefore, it can be said that accessibility to
information is essential to promote innovation. Veshosky (1998) have come across
positive actions which certain companies have taken to improve the information flow to
key personnel. They are:
• Assigning responsibility for managing innovation information to a specific

individual or group;
• Maintaining a file or database of innovation information;
• Conducting internal technical seminars;
• Producing internal technical reports;
• Providing library capabilities including electronic information services;
• Encouraging project managers and engineers to interact with windows to
external; and • Encouraging project managers and engineers to
participate in professional activities;
Early research has identified the importance of client to promote innovation. The
Business Roundtable (1981, 1982, cited in Nam and Tatum, 1997) claimed that
technological progress in construction requires the clients’ involvement and leadership.
In most cases, the willingness of client for risk sharing, commitment to innovation and
leadership in project planning and execution seemed to be critical for the success of the
innovation process (Nam and Tatum, 1997). The research suggests that there might be
a close relationship between the clients’ technical competence and their active
participation in the project or at least a better understanding of technical matters for
timely approval of innovative ideas. In addition, the clients’ important role as the leader
of the project appeared to influence the project environment by encouraging more
integration among project participants.
On the other hand, lack of above mentioned capabilities by the client may negatively
affect the innovation. Ivory (2005) studied three projects where the influence of client
had adversely affected innovations. In these particular cases, desire of clients to avoid
27
risk associated with the innovations was highlighted. In each case, it is clear that the
clients actively sought to control innovation and to ensure that it did not threaten the
project or the resulting buildings (Ivory, 2005).
However, the cases also provided some insight to the reasons behind the suppression
of innovation. The dangers to clients of innovation stem both from short-term
consequences, such as late or over-budget projects and from longer-term issues,
hidden amongst the ‘unknowns’, such as higher than expected running costs or
maintenance bills.
In other cases, it was noted that the benefits of innovations were targeted at the users,
but the paying client did not benefit from them. On the other hand, client was facing the
danger of criticism if the innovation failed. Further, in some instances clients simply
failed to see the benefits of the innovation.
Despite the arguments, the projects studied were highly client focused, but the criticism
is from the aspect of the encouragement to innovation. Ivory (2005) argues that the
clients’ intention of using established innovations rather than taking risks in new
innovations hinder the advancement of technological frontier which can cause adverse
effect to the industry in long term. This studies revealed how important the commitment
of client for construction innovation and how lack of client’s commitment to innovation
can become a barrier.
2.9. INNOVATION IMPLEMENTATION
The literature identifies two broad variables that govern the decision of innovation i.e.
business environment and business strategy. Further, size of firm and its specialization
is also to be considered. The study conducted by (Seaden, 2001) on Canadian
construction industry revealed that smaller firms being more risk averse, with lower
intensity of use of innovative practices, whereas a greater percentage of larger firms
reported adopting technological or business changes with significant impact on their
business.
28
However, Blayse and Manley (2004) contradict the lower intensity of innovation of
smaller firms as the research conducted suggest approximately 75% of innovations
emerged from smaller firms and companies. Nevertheless, they further state that
majority of innovations from the smaller firms and companies are process innovations.
Regardless to the intensity of innovation, smaller and particularly medium size firms and
companies indicated that such changes provided them with bigger competitive
advantage when compared to large firms.
(Pries and Janszen, 1995) suggested that the innovation can only create competitive
advantage when managed properly. (McElroy, 2002) takes the view that innovation is
unmanaged self-organized processes originating due to collective motivation of
individuals. However, the project based nature of construction industry and the
participation of number of organizations with varying competencies make implications
on both schools of thought.
Fragmentation make initiation and implementation of innovation difficult and challenging

(Kangari and Miyatake, 1997), therefore the management of innovation as well. The
fragmentation gives rise to separate managerial roles from each participant who tries to
integrate effort of the project toward innovation. Under this fragmentation, success in
innovation relies on two major aspects: high intra-organization motivation and good
inter-organizational interaction (Dulaimi et al 2003).
Construction typically has two separate systems integrators: one at the design stage
and the other at the construction stage (Winch, 1998) which generally hinders the ability
to innovate. Therefore, need for the compatible management systems among
stakeholders is emphasized to reinforce integration across construction value chain
(Dulaimi, 2002). For an innovation to be successful, it would be necessary for firms to
work together, erode boundaries between professions and for project-based firms to
embrace new roles and develop new capabilities (Gann, 2000). However, there is
literature to show how these different integrators can facilitate innovation.
Many researchers have stressed the importance of key individuals in the innovation
process (Nam and Tatum, 1997). The Project Manager is often identified as a person
who can focus the fragmented effort towards common goal. Dulaimi (2005) argues that
29
the innovation at site is positively related to the championing behavior of the Project
Manager. Thus, Project Managers need to exhibit commitment in the innovation process
by expending their energy, taking responsibility and reasonable amount of risk. Further
positive relationships are established between Project Manager’s level of education,
size of project and innovativeness of Project Manager’s problem solving style to the
level of innovation at site (Dulaimi, 2005). Studies of Ling (2003) conducted on
construction industry of Singapore shows that interest level of the main consultant when
the innovation is being implemented plays a major role in convincing team members of
the benefits of innovation.
Identification of key factors is important to manage innovation towards expected goals.

Ling (2003) states that to improve the possibility of innovation, expected goals of the
innovations should be clearly laid out to the team members, further maximization of
capabilities and commitment exerted at the management and project levels and
minimization of constraints and challenges are also important. Dulaimi et al (2003)
agrees with Ling (2003) stating that an innovation may be successfully implemented in
the project if effort is put into carrying the innovation through, and there are high
expected goals, favorable results and high commitment. Dulaimi et al (2003)
emphasizes the need of proper plan to implement innovation with regard to other
participants.
Organizations that are in pursuit of innovation can derive their plans based on existing
models of innovation such as Incremental innovation, Modular innovation, Architectural
innovation, System innovation and radical innovation (Slaughter, 1998).
CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology
This research methodology deals with
 research methods
 materials and procedures
 sample size and sampling methods
 method of data collection
30
 sources and research instruments
 description of variables
 data quality assurance
 Method of data analysis
3.1. Research Methods, Materials and Procedures

3.1.1. Study area and subject
The study is conducted within Addis Ababa in four selected areas of the construction
sector i.e. architectural firm, contractor, consultancy firm and the client.
3.1.2.Research design
Sequential explanatory mixed method approach was designed to investigate the

problem under study. “Employing mixed approach used to neutralize the biases of
applying any of a single approach“(Creswell, 2003).
The data gathered by using Likert scale from managers and/or owners was analyzed by
using quantitative methods, while data gathered through interview was analyzed
qualitatively to cross check the finding. The purpose of this thesis was to describe
factors and conditions adversely affecting building innovation (structural, architectural,
material) and helps to better understand and clarify the problem.
This was a cross-sectional study. The selected approach was based on research
problem and research question. The research problem is on limitation and barriers to
building innovation which must be studied at a given time (Saunders et al., 2007).
A cross sectional study was chosen, first due to time restrictions and because collecting
primary data is difficult. Also, a cross-sectional study is a suitable alternative when
conducting a survey (Saunders et al., 2007; Zikmund, 2000).
3.1.3.Research participants
Information gathered from the companies and firms provided the opportunity to assess
the perceptions of the owners or managers toward barriers to building innovation. To
31
finalize the research, data was collected from each owners and/or managers of
architectural firms, building contractors, consultancy firms and clients in Addis Ababa.
The reason why owners and/or managers of each firm and company were chosen as
suitable candidates for the questionnaire is because the owners or managers make
most of the decisions with regard to the firms or companies.
The questionnaires were moreover distributed among the managers because previous
studies reported that managers' perception significantly impacted enterprises innovation
climate (Storey, 2000; Lefebvre et al, 1997 and Aminreza et al., 2011).
Interview was conducted in addition to data gathered by using survey from owners
and/or managers, with people directly involved in the design process.
3.2. Sample Size and Sampling Methods
The target populations were a selected group of organizations, i.e. architectural firms,
consultancy firms and construction companies.
Architectural firms, consultancy firms and construction companies are selected out of
the available firms and companies from Addis Ababa based on their number of
completed projects and advancement in the building construction sector in Addis
Ababa. Clients were selected based on their current status and future plans. Amongst
selected clients is a government bureau (Ministry of Urban Development and Works).
The sampling frame was stratified purposive. The frame was stratified by grade and
sector experience. Stratified Purposive sampling across sectors was made based on
the intensity of the sector activities such as design sector, management sector and
construction sector.
3.2.1.Sample size determination
The following formula developed by Watson Jeff (2001), was applied to determine
appropriate sample of population for the study:
32
P (1−P ) 0.5 ( 1−0.5 )

n= n=
A ² P(1−P) 0.05² 0.5(1−0.5)
+ +
Z² N 1.96² 48
R 0.95
n=40
Where: n= Sample size required
N=Number of firms and companies in the population (total population) =48
P=Estimated variance in population, as decimal (0.5 for 50-50 or unknown)
A=Precision desired (5%)
Z= Z-values, most researchers use based on the 95% confidence level (1.96 → 95%)
R=Estimated response rate, as decimal (95% →0.95)
There are a total of 40 firms and companies considered for this research. Out of that; 10
are Architectural and consultancy firms, 8 are General contractors, 6 are engineering
firms, 8 are real estates and 8 are building contractors in Ethiopia as of April, 2017
(Conlink catalogue, 2016 and addisbiz.com, 2017). All sample frames were inserted to
computer by assigning serial number for each firm and company in the frame. Finally,
the firms and companies from Addis Ababa are randomly selected in line with their
sectors to fill the questionnaires.
3.3. Method of Data Collection, Sources and Research Instruments
Survey method was used to collect information from managers or owners of the firms
and companies selected in Addis Ababa. Primary data was gathered by using
questionnaires. Interviews were held to support data gathered using survey. As
secondary sources of data, Journals, articles, books and agency reports were used for
the study. The primary data is collected using interview and open & close ended
questionnaires and this was personally administered. We developed our questionnaire
33
based on The Likert type questionnaire which adopted the Canada innovation survey of
2005.
The questionnaire was distributed to selected firms and companies in Addis Ababa.
Semi-structured interview was conducted with two managers and/or owners in their
respective architectural, consultancy and construction companies from the selected.
Respondents were asked to indicate degree of importance, using four Likert scale, the
extent to which they found limitations or barriers {(High (3), Medium (2), Low (1), and
Not experienced (0)} of those statements on progress of firms and companies regarding
building design and construction innovation. The scaling was taken from Canada
innovation survey 2005. Likert questions were asked positively to managers or owners
on the scale. They were asked to give their opinion regarding their companies’
technological innovation barriers using a four valued scale ranging from high importance
medium to low importance and not relevant.
3.3.1.Choice of survey approach
There are two approaches for collecting data on innovations according to OECD (2005):
 The “subject” approach start from the innovative behavior and activities of the
firm. The approach deals the factors influencing the innovative behavior of the
firm (strategies, incentives and barriers to innovation).
 The “object” approach involves the collection of data about specific innovations
(a “significant innovation” of some kind or a firm’s or company’s main innovation).
For this study the “subject approach” was used to collect the needed data.
3.4. Description of Variables
The study attempts to investigate the relationship between factors negatively affecting
innovation and the building design and construction sector members’ current innovation.
The independent variables include internal and external factors affecting innovation are
studied using:
34
 high cost of innovation (HCI)
 lack of availability of finance(LF)
 government policy and regulation(GPR)
 organizational culture(OC)
 lack of skilled personnel(LSP)
 Size of enterprise(SE)
 Inadequate R&D(IRD)
 Lack of cooperation(LC)
 lack of technological and market information(LTMI)
The dependent variables are “technological innovativeness” of the firms and companies.
Each variable is measured using information collected through appropriately designed
questionnaires and by interview made with managers, owners and officials of the stated
building design and construction sector members of Addis Ababa.
3.5. Method of Data Analysis
To analyze the findings from the questionnaire results, descriptive and inferential
statistics like percentage, mean, mode and tables presentation analysis was applied.
CHAPTER FOUR: Data Presentation, Analysis and Discussion

The analysis and discussion part is organized as follows:
 section 4.1: introduction,
 section 4.2: demographic profile of respondents
35
 section 4.3: cross tabulation of construction sector and design innovation

performance
 section 4.4: presents barriers and limitations of design and construction
innovation in the construction sector and comparative effect
on Firms and Companies specific innovativeness
 Section 4.5: ranking of design and construction innovation barriers and
limitations in the Construction sector
 Section 4.6: ranking of internal & external design and construction innovation
barriers and limitations in the construction sector
 Section 4.7: correlation analysis
 Section 4.8: chapters summary
4.1. Introduction
The study is intended to describe the status of Ethiopia’s progress in innovative building
structure design and construction along with the factors negatively affecting innovation
by taking 40 different architectural firms, consultancy firms, construction companies and
36
construction clients. The previous chapter dealt with detailed methodology, which shows
the research methods, materials and procedures, method of data collection and
analysis, whereas, this chapter presents the analysis and discussion of the data
collected through the stated methodologies.
The result of survey study was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics like
frequency, percentage, and mean, mode and cross tabulation analysis. Likert scale,
ranging from 3 to 0 expressed as ‘Not relevant (experienced)-(0), Low-(1), Medium-(2),
& High importance-(3), was used to gather data, that is of importance for limitations on
Firms and Companies’ innovation in structural design and construction of buildings.
Then the scales (two on the left side “not experienced and low importance” and two on
right side “medium and high degree of importance”) are summed together to indicate
whether the limitations are important or not for Firms and Companies’ innovation.
Finally, if most respondents responded to the right side scale, the factor is an important
limitation or barrier for the Firm or Company’s design and construction innovation.
Otherwise, the factor is not as an important limitation or barrier for the Firms and
Companies.
4.2. Demographic Profile of Respondents

Firms and Companies are classified based on Grade level and work experience in line
with the framework set by Ministry of Works and Urban Development. Further, Firms
and Companies are classified into four sectors: design firm, consultancy firm,
37
Construction Company and clients. Finally, from the distributed questionnaires, 40

usable questionnaires were obtained.
Classification of Frequency Percentag

Variables
variables e
Male 34 85
Gender
Female 6 15
Ph.D./ Doctorate 3 7.5
Masters 18 45
Education background Diploma & Degree 19 47.5
Secondary School 0 0
Managers 16 40
Position in the Firm or Owners 7 17.5
company Both 11 27.5
Non-descript 6 15
Sole Proprietorship 15 37.5
Firm or Company Partnership 10 25
established as Co-operative 5 12.5
P.L.C 10 25
General Contractor 8 20
Building Contractor 8 20
Firm or company category Consultancy/Architectural 10 25
Engineering 6 15
Real estate 8 20
Design 10 25
Construction 12 30
sector engaged in Both 10 25
Client 8 20
Years of operation 0-5 Years 2 5
5-7 Years 5 12.5
7-10 Years 8 20
Above 10 Years 25 62.5
Table 4.2: General background information of Firms and Companies Managers

and/or Owners
Firms and Companies’ managers or owners were asked their sex, education, position
as well as their firm or company’s form, scale, sector and years of operation as shown
in Table 4.2.
38
In terms of sex of respondents, 85% were males while 15% were females, whereas
7.5% had Ph.D. / Doctorate education, 45% had masters’ education and 47.5% had
diploma and degree education background.
Concerning the position of respondents in the Firms and Companies, 40% are
managers, 17.5% are owners, 27.5% were both while 15% where employees.
The establishment of the firms companies as sole ownership, partnership, cooperative

and P.L.C are 37.5%, 12.5% & 25%, respectively.
Regarding the Firms and Companies included on the study 20% are General
Contractors, 20% are Building contractors, 25% are Consultancy/Architectural firms,
12.5% are engineering firms and 20% are real estate companies.
On the other hand, enterprises are engaged solely in design account for 25% of the
respondents while those engaged in construction only make up 30 percent of the
respondents. A further 25% of the Firms and Companies are engaged in both design
and construction while clients round up the remaining 20%.
Regarding years of operation, Firms and Companies that have been operating between
 0-5 years are 5%,

 5-7 years are 12.5%,
 7-10 years are 20% and
 Above 10 years are 62.5%.
The majority of the respondents considered on study are Firms and Companies with
more than 10 years of operation within the construction sector. In addition, interviews
were conducted with owners, managers and sub city construction officials. Hence, the
next section deals about the result obtained from the survey.
4.3. Cross Tabulation between firms and companies design and

construction innovation Performance
39
The cross tabulation was made between enterprises scale with enterprises sector, scale
with their innovation performance, scale with the type of innovation they introduced and
finally enterprise scale with reasons, why they didn’t introduced or expand innovation.
The results obtained from respondent regarding this issue were presented in the table
GC BC Consultanc Engineeri Real Tot.
y/ ng estate
Architectur
al
Co % Co % Co. % Co. % Co % Co %
. . .
Firm or Yes 4 10 4 10 6 15 2 5 3 7.5 1 47.
company 9 5
introduced No 4 10 4 10 4 10 4 10 5 12. 2 52.
innovation 5 1 5
Total 8 20 8 20 10 25 6 15 8 20 4 100
0
If “Yes” what Design 2 5 1 2.5 6 15 3 7.5 3 7.5
type of innovation
innovation Constructi 3 7.5 5 12. 1 2.5 3 7.5 3 7.5
on 5
innovation
Process 1 2.5 3 7.5 1 2.5 2 5 3 7.5
innovation
Total 6 15 9 22. 8 20 8 20 9 22.
5 5
If “No” reason Prior 2 5 0 0 1 2.5 2 5 2 5
for not innovation
introducing or Market 2 5 2 5 3 7.5 2 5 3 7.5
expanding conditions
Constraini 5 12. 4 5 6 15 4 10 5 12.
ng factors 5 5
total 9 22. 6 10 10 25 8 20 10 25
5
Table 4.3: Cross tabulation between firms and companies innovation performance
As is presented above in Table 4.3, respondents were asked if they introduced any type
of innovation to the construction sector. According to their response, they were asked
whether if they introduced any type of innovation or didn’t introduce or expand along
with their reasons in relation to their firm or company.
Table 4.2 depicts 40 Firms and Companies engaged in the design and construction
sector. Regarding their innovation performance, 19 Firms and Companies have
introduced some form of innovation while 21 have not. From total number of Firms and
Companies included and returned for the study (40), all had different responses.
40
Out of 8 (20%) GC’s, 4; out of 8 (20%) BC’s, 4; Out of 10 (25%) consultancy/

Architectural firms, 6; out of 6 (15%) engineering firms, 2; out of 8 (20%) real estate
companies, 3 said they were engaged in design and/or construction innovation.
5% of GC’s, 2.5% of BC’s, 15% of Consultancy/Architectural firms, 7.5% of engineering

firms and 7.5% of real estate companies have introduced some form of design
innovation.
7.5% of GC’s, 12.5% of BC’s, 2.5% of Consultancy/Architectural firms, 5% of

engineering firms and 7.5% of real estate companies have introduced some form of
construction innovation
2.5% of GC’s, 7.5% of BC’s, 2.5% of Consultancy/Architectural firms, 5% of engineering

firms and 7.5% of real estate companies have introduced some form of process
innovation.
Consultancy/Architectural firms are fairly better engaged in the innovation of new

designs. Building contractors (BC) and general contractors (GC) are better engaged in
innovation of new construction methods, while real estate companies are the leaders in
process innovation.
Regarding reason for not introducing or expanding innovation, the majority (12.5% of
GC’s, 5% of BC’s, 15% of consultancies, 10 % of engineering firms and 12.5% of real
estate) have stated “constraining factor” as a major barrier to innovation. Barriers due to
market conditions represented 12.5%, 5%, 15%, 10% and 12.5%, respectively. Prior
innovation contributed the least to the limitations and barriers.
Moreover, an interview script taken from the respondents indicated that, geographic
conditions and lack of raw materials for innovation are also other key factors. Likewise,
they stated that lack of time, fund allocation for innovative designs or construction
process, machinery, equipment and construction material as other impediments to
engaging in innovation. Firms and Companies capital is more or less fully engaged in
feasible and current methods.
41
Hence, innovation is the result of collected efforts made by individuals and organization,
because it’s a process by which innovators are faced with barriers and limitations in
developing new ways of design and construction. Thus, the efforts to introduce or
expand innovation were affected by positive or negative factors. Those positive factors
encourage enhanced engagement in their area of expertise, whereas negative factors
are hindering Firms and Companies engagement on such activities.
4.4. Innovation Limitations and Barriers to Firms and Companies in

the Construction Sector
A barrier to innovation was studied by various researchers to establish linkage and

attempt to show that the barrier to innovation causes a great impact on the performance
of Firms and Companies in Ethiopia’s construction sector. Silva et al.,(2007) and Lim
and Shyamala (2007) noted that high cost of innovation, lack of finance, high economic
risk, organizational rigidities, lack of skilled personnel, lack of information about
technology and market, lack of customer responsiveness and government regulations
were considered as important obstacles to innovation. In similar way, the following
section deals with, presentation and discussion of survey finding on limitations and
barriers to design and construction innovation regarding the variables considered in the
study.
4.4.1.Government Policy and Regulation
Firms that operate in a country are always regulated under the laws of that country,
which is why government policy and regulation is considered in this study as a factor
that affects the innovation in design and construction. Government policy can be seen in
two dimensions for the firms to engage in technological innovation (i.e. it can encourage
them to rely on innovation or it can discourage them to innovate new technology).
According to Samad (2007) government policy encourage Firms and Companies to
move to higher levels and gain competitive advantage. In the contrary, the study of Lim
and Shyamala (2007) identified government policy and regulation as an inhibiting factor.
Moreover, the result obtained from the respondents regarding government policy and
regulations were shown on Table 4.4, as follows:
42
H M L NE TOTAL MEAN MODE

Q1 9 12 1 6 40 1.6 1
1 3
Q1 6 15 1 5 40 1.55 2
2 4
Q1 8 11 1 7 40 1.5 1
3 4
Q1 5 11 1 8 40 1.325 1
4 6
Q1 4 7 1 10 40 1.125 1
5 9
Q1 5 6 2 6 40 1.25 1
6 3
Q1 5 9 1 9 40 1.25 1
7 7
Q1 3 7 1 17 40 0.9 0
8 3
Q1 5 7 2 8 40 1.225 1
9 0
Q2 5 14 1 8 40 1.4 2
0 3
Grand Total 1.1875
NE- (Not Experienced) - 0, L- (Low) - 1, M- (Medium) - 2, H - (High)-3
Table 4.4: The effect of government policy and regulation on Firms and Companies design and
Information reported on the above table was interpreted in the following way. The
computation was made regarding scales of the response by categorizing into two sides:
not important and important barriers to design and construction innovation. The
responses given on the scale as “0” and “1” fall to factors as important limitations and
barriers for Firms and Companies innovation. On other hand response given “2” and “3”
on the scale fall on the not important limitations and barriers to Firms and Companies
innovation. The mean value is thus used to divide total responses to total observation
then the responses of each question might be between 0 and 3.The mean value
43
between 0 and 1.5 are “important barriers” and mean value between 1.5 and 3 are
“not important barrier” for Firms and Companies design and construction innovation.
4.4.1.1. Effect of government policy and regulation on Firms and

Companies design and construction innovation
According to Table 4.4, government policy and regulation is considered an obstacle for
Firms and Companies design and construction innovation where the grand mean value
is 1.1875. Moreover, absence of government R&D funding (Q14), low financial
regulation assurance (Q15), sharing of new technology experience with the help of
government, low support for doing & expanding innovation (Q17), low access & usage
of government loan (Q18), no modification of tax system to encourage innovators (Q19)
and unequal support for all Firms and Companies (Q20) are important barriers which
hinder Firms and Companies design and construction innovation with mean values of
1.325, 1.125, 1.25, 1.25, 0.9, 1.225, 1.4 respectively
However, fair government strategy (Q11), fair government policy (Q12) and low patent
protection (Q13) are not important barriers for Firms and Companies design and
construction innovation with mean values of 1.6, 1.55 and 1.5 respectively. Moreover,
interview script showed that government policies and regulations aren’t attractive as
such: they lack consistency in which regulation and strategies are changed from time to
time, absence of government R&D funding which help Firms and Companies innovation
activities, absence of regulatory measure to encourage innovators are important
obstacles for Firms and Companies innovation. However, Firms and Companies are
encouraged by government policy to engaged on innovation despite, weak patent
protection for innovators, and equal support is given for Firms and Companies in line
with their operating scale, even though owners and managers response weren’t
consistent.
4.4.1.2. Government policy and regulation and its comparative effect on Firms
and Companies design and construction innovation
Firms and Companies owners and/or managers were asked whether government policy
and regulation was taken as a limitation or barrier for design and construction innovation
44
or not. The extent by which government policy and regulation affects design and
construction innovation of Firms and Companies were compared based on the mean
value obtained from the survey response, as described on Table 4.4, and the grand
mean value of 1.1875. This result shows that, the large number of Firms and
Companies agreed that government policy and regulation is an important barrier to
innovation.
Hence, government policy and regulation is an important barrier for the construction
sector. In line with this result, Silva et al., (2007) and Lim and Shyamala (2007) noted
that a government regulation is important barrier to innovation. Similarly, government
policies and regulations are a frequent source of barriers to innovation (Poll et al., 1999)
and this, supported by uncertainty about government policy also became a significant
barrier to innovation.
Government policy and regulation may have a positive and negative effect on firm and
companies performance. This is the fact that every organization is governed under the
umbrella of state government policy and regulation. As a result, innovation performance
might be also encouraged or discouraged by policy and regulation of countries
government.
Firms and Companies will engage on innovation for different reasons, may be for
maintaining market share & existing customer, to have an edge on competitors, to lower
costs, etc. To do so, their ownership for newly developed technology should be
maintained; otherwise they are de motivated to engage on such activities. As far as
Firms and Companies striving for the development of design and construction in the
country do not get much needed support, it will deter them from playing their roles in the
development of new design and construction technologies in the country.
45
4.4.2. Lack of Technological and Market Information
The other factors considered as barriers for Firms and Companies to engage in
technological innovation in this study were, technological and market information.
Regarding this issue result obtained from survey were presented in the following Table
4.5.

Q21 7 17 12 4 40 1.425 2
Q22 6 16 15 3 40 1.625 2
Q23 4 13 17 6 40 1.375 1
Q24 14 13 8 5 40 1.9 3
Q25 8 12 17 3 40 1.625 1
Q26 10 14 12 4 40 1.75 2
Q27 12 13 10 5 40 1.675 2
Grand total 1.6392
NE (Not Experienced) – 0-L (Low) - 1, M (Medium) - 2, H (High)–3
Table 4.5: Effect of lack of technological and market information on Firms and
Companies industry level and enterprises specific technological innovation
4.4.2.1. Effect of lack of technological and market information on

Firms and Companies design and construction innovation
As shown above on the Table 4.5, the grand total mean value for lack of technological &
market information is 1.6392, which implies that it’s not an important obstacle to Firms
and Companies design and construction innovation. Likewise, low access & utilization
of new technological information (Q21) and lack of technological transfer institution
(Q23), are important barriers to Firms and Companies design and construction
innovation with mean value of 1.425 and 1.375 respectively, as indicated in Table 4.5.
However, Firms and Companies low access & utilization of new technological materials
(Q22), no access & usage of internet service (Q24); inadequate knowledge of market &
46
their demand(Q25) & low effort for serving new markets (Q26) and participation in
conference and exhibition (Q27) are not important barriers for innovation with mean
values of 1.625, 1.9, 1.625, 1.75, 1.675 respectively.
Interview scripts admit information is important and base for making technological
innovation. This is because Firms and Companies are in a position to update
themselves by reading new scientific journals and accessing internet service around
working place.
4.4.2.2. Lack of technological and market information and its

comparative effect on Firms and Companies design and
According to the survey shown on the above Table 4.5, some of the factors considered
under lack of technological and market information limit or barrier Firms and
Companies’ specific design or construction innovation in similar ways, while the other
factors affect in different ways. Moreover, the grand mean value is 1.6392 indicate that
Firms and Companies design and construction innovation is not that limited by lack of
technological and market information. However, utilization of new technological
information (Q21) and lack of available technological transfer institution (Q23) are
important impediments for introducing innovation as indicated above on Table 4.5.
Interview script from respondents, support survey finding that most of the factors listed
under technological and market information, didn’t affect their respective Firms and
Companies due to the global communication development and globalization in general.
Information about technology and markets can underpin the importance and potential
advantage of becoming more innovative (Galia and Legros, 2004). These findings are
similar with Jaramillo et al., (2001) and Silva et al., (2007) who identified them as
barriers for innovation. In addition Asseffa (1997) confirmed that there is a problem of
information in private sectors even if information is power to every organizations. Be it
technological and market information is important for Firms and Companies to cope up
in this dynamic environment and to overcome competitive restraining factors.
47
Information technology is crucial because it is the means to develop or modify

technological innovation. However, if Firms and Companies had a shortage in this
regard like access of new technological findings from electronic and print journals,
technological materials, technology transfer institution, it’s difficult to them to engage in
on new technology introduction or expansion.
Moreover, to imitate or radically introduce technological innovation, the access for and
utilization of up-to-date information and materials are critical for Firms and Companies
otherwise; their new technological innovation role is restrained.
4.4.3. Inadequate Research and Development
Research and development (R&D) are usually used as a proxy variables for measuring
innovation performance in many empirical studies. This study also considers R&D as
one of the factor which can affect design and construction innovation in the construction
sector. Table 4.6 deals with the effect of inadequate R&D in the construction sector as a
whole and particularly in Firms and Companies design department as follows.

Q28 5 11 17 7 40 1.35 1
Q29 6 12 17 5 40 1.475 1
Q30 9 17 9 5 40 1.75 2
Q31 6 11 19 4 40 1.475 1
Grand total 1.5125
NE (Not Experienced) - 0, L (Low) - 1, M (Medium) - 2, H (High) – 3
Table 4.6: Inadequate Research and Development effect on Firms and Companies
industry, and Firms and Companies specific technological innovation
48
4.4.3.1. Effect of inadequate R&D on Firms and Companies design

and construction innovation
Table 4.6, reveals managers or owners’ response regarding whether inadequate R&D is
an important barrier for Firms and Companies design and construction innovation. As it
is depicted above on Table 4.6, the grand mean value for inadequate R&D is 1.5125.
This shows that, inadequate R&D is fairly not an important barrier to Firms and
Companies design and construction innovation. However, they are fairly unable to have
organized R&D office & equipped staffs (Q28), inadequate engagement of R&D towards
innovation (29) and being unable to purchase and use new technology investigation on
R&D in private organizations (31) are considered important barriers with mean values of
1.35, 1.475 and 1.475 respectively. Moreover, the interview results also ensured that
Firms and Companies have been only moderately engaged in such activity so far. This
is as a result of cost to conduct research and development; and lack of equipped R&D
staff.
4.4.3.2. Inadequate R&D and its comparative effect on Firms and

The moderate engagement of Firms and Companies in R&D is considered a barrier to

Firms and Companies design and construction innovation. Lack of R&D office &
equipped staffs (Q28) & absence to use R&D finding of private organization (Q31) are
important barriers to innovation. However, Firms and Companies believe active
involvement on R&D enables innovation (Q30).
Inadequate R&D is important barrier to industry and specific level technological

innovation. This findings are in line with Decker et al.,(2006); Jaramillo et al.,(2001);
IKED(2006) which conform technological innovations are hurdled by inadequate
research and development.
It is undeniable that R&D is important for Firms and Companies to introduce new
technologies and gain competitive advantage. However, if those Firms and Companies
don’t have adequate engagement in R&D, it can be difficult to perform well in the
introduction of new technology or adding values on existing design and construction
49
process of Works. As a result, R&D is critical to understand needs and requirements of

new design and construction methods ahead and helps develop new technology in line
with the demand.
4.4.4. High Cost of Innovation
High cost of innovation is one of the least obvious barrier to innovation as empirical
evidence shows. Likewise, this study considered this variable to measure whether Firms
and Companies design and construction innovation or specific level is affected by this
variable, the survey result obtained from the respondents were shown on the following
Table 4.7.

Q32 11 10 16 3 40 1.725 1
Q33 9 13 11 7 40 1.6 2
Q34 7 14 14 5 40 1.575 1&2
Q35 8 11 16 5 40 1.55 1
Q36 7 9 16 8 40 1.375 1
Q37 10 11 16 3 40 1.7 1
Q38 6 14 14 6 40 1.5 1&2
Grand Total 1.575
NE (Not Experienced)-0, L (Low) - 1, M (Medium) - 2, H (High) – 3
Table 4.7: the effect of high cost of innovation on Firms and Companies design and
4.4.4.1. Effect of high cost of innovation on Firms and Companies

design and construction innovation
50
Table 4.7, reveals managers or owners’ response whether high cost of innovation
affects design and construction innovation. High cost of innovation is not an important
obstacle to Firms and Companies design and construction innovation where the grand
mean value is 1.575 as shown on Table 4.7. Firms and Companies; encourage staff to
devote time & resources for innovation (Q35), hire or purchase necessary skill or
equipment(Q32), tolerate cost of innovation (Q33), acquire external competence (Q34),
and innovation is ongoing bases (Q37), are not important barriers to Firms and
Companies design and construction innovation. However, inadequate amount of budget
assignment to innovation and failure risk unacceptability (Q38) are important barriers to
Firms and Companies design and construction innovation.
Interview response with engineers and architects states that high cost of innovation
does minimally impede Firms and Companies design and construction innovation. Most
Firms and Companies are working on having the skills and time to introduce
technological innovation. Nevertheless, they already have the awareness to practice
already developed innovative ideas. Accordingly, the cost of already developed
innovation idea are practiced and kept on hand.
4.4.4.2. High cost of innovation and its comparative effect on Firms

Respondents were asked whether high cost of innovation is important barrier for
technological innovation in the design and construction sector or not. The result
obtained from the survey indicate that high cost of innovation is not an important barrier
for Firms and Companies design and construction innovation, were the grand mean
value is 1.575.
Likewise, Firms and Companies adequately hire or purchase skill or equipment for
innovation (Q32), capability to admit cost of innovation (Q33), ability to acquire external
competence (Q34), ability to make innovation ongoing bases (Q37), and also low risk
bearing while failure is possible (Q38) are not important barriers Firms and Companies
design and construction innovation with mean values of 1.725, 1.6, 1.575, 1.55, 1.7 and
1.5 respectively.
51
On contrary to this, Firms and Companies are hurdled by low budgeted money for
innovation activities (Q36) with a mean of 1.375.
This findings were inconsistent with findings of Lim and Shyamala, (2007); Silva et al.,
(2007) and Canepa and Stoneman (2008) as identified cost as restrain factor for new
technology introduction or expansion.
To engage in innovation, Firms and Companies should be able to have necessary

resources and capabilities. To own those capabilities Firms and Companies incur huge
money. As a result of asking huge money to own those resources and capabilities,
Firms and Companies might fail to own and engage on design and construction
innovation. Hence, owning those hardware and software may become a major
restraining factor for Firms and Companies with low financial performance and
capability. As a result, Firms and Companies are not in a position to acquire external
competence, innovation isn’t ongoing, failure in innovation isn’t acceptable and
innovation might be considered as a trial and error process. Due to those reasons Firms
and Companies’ introduction or expansion activities are deterred by cost.
4.4.5. Organizational Culture
52
Organization culture usually cited as factors affecting innovation of Firms and

Companies as far as literatures are concerned. Table 4.8, depicts organization culture
effect on Firms and Companies design and construction innovation

Q39 11 15 8 5 40 2.025 2
Q40 11 16 9 4 40 1.85 2
Q41 14 12 10 4 40 1.9 3
Q42 10 10 15 5 40 1.625 1
Q43 12 10 14 4 40 1.75 1
Q44 8 12 15 5 40 1.572 1
Q45 8 12 13 6 40 1.525 1
Q46 9 16 10 5 40 1.725 2
Grand total 1.7465
NE - (Not Experienced)-0, L - (Low)-1, M - (Medium)-2, H - (High)-3
Table 4.8: Organization culture effect on Firms and Companies design and construction
innovation
4.4.5.1. Effect of High cost of Innovation on Firms and companies deign and
Table 4.8, reveals that firms and company managers and/or owners responses
regarding whether organization culture obstacles design and construction innovation or
not. As it is shown in Table 4.8, the mean grand value for organizational culture is
1.7465. This indicates that organization culture is not an important barrier to Firms and
Companies design and construction innovation.
Likewise, (Q39) enterprises believe fairly on anybody could create & innovate, (Q40)
Firms and Companies empowerment of employee to come with new ideas, (Q41) Firms
and Companies fairly believe innovation as key to growth in changing environment,
(Q42) Firms and Companies encourage synergies of different resources to innovation,
(Q43) firm and company managers and/or owners play significant role in promoting
innovation, (Q44) supervisors spend time listening to employee ideas, (Q45) Firms and
Companies update staff with best practice learning and (Q46) Firms and Companies
see opportunities for innovation are not considered important barriers to Firms and
53
Companies design and construction innovation with respective mean values of 2.025,
1.85, 1.9, 1.625, 1.75, 1.572, 1.525 and 1.725 as the above Table 4.8 shows.
Even if, Firms and Companies managers or owners responded that organization
culture as the least important barriers to design and construction innovation, interview
script from employee engineers confirmed that organization culture is somewhat
hindering to Firms and Companies design and construction innovation performance so
far. They noted that Firms and Companies don’t have a unified goal which governs the
entire construction sector and also mistrusted each other. As a result they are not
motivated to engage in activities related to sharing design and construction innovation.
4.4.5.2. Organization culture and its comparative effect on Firms and

The result obtained from the survey indicated that organization culture is not an
important barrier for Firms and Companies with a grand mean value of 1.7465. Firms
and Companies were not restrained by their organizational culture as depicted in Table
4.8.
Moreover, trust on anyone could be creative & innovative (Q39), employee

empowerment(Q40), synergies of resources (Q42), manager or owner playing
significant roles (Q43), supervisor taking time to listen to employee’s ideas (Q44),
renewing employees best practice learning (Q45), and seeing opportunity for innovation
(Q46) are not considered as important barriers for on Firms and Companies design and
These findings are incoherent with the study of Aminreza et al., (2011), Silva et al.,
(2007) and Lim and Shyamala (2007) as they identified organization culture as
restraining factors for firms’ innovation.
Organizational culture is one of the factors that dictate success in innovation however,
creating a culture that supports creativity and innovation is a challenging one.
Firms and Companies rate of innovation may be influenced by different factors. Among
these factors, organization culture has often been recognized among the most important
54
factors. Usually innovation idea are created from peoples minds and those
organizations govern the collection of peoples, resources and values they have. The
culture a firm or company has can limit performance of innovation. Organizational
culture may become a key obstacle for design and construction innovation. Hence,
organization must empower employees to spend time on new design and construction
innovation or expansion. As a result, it increases the confidence level of employees.
This, in turn, motivates employees to engage in such activates as; evoking
entrepreneurial spirit, innovation creativity and rewarding philosophy.
4.4.6.Size of Enterprise
Size of enterprises is usually a factor considered that influence innovation capacity of

Firms and Companies (Avermaete et al., 2003), however, various results are noted as
mixed effect on enterprises innovation. Regarding this, Table 4.9, depicts responses on
the effect of size on enterprises technological innovation in design and construction.

Q47 7 14 9 10 40 1.45 2
Q48 6 9 15 10 40 1.275 1
Q49 7 10 14 9 40 1.375 1
Grand Total 1.367
NE - (Not Experienced)-0, L - (Low)-1, M - (Medium)-2, H-(High)–3
Table 4.9: Size of enterprise effect on Firms and Companies specific technological
innovation.
4.4.6.1. Effect of size of enterprise on design and construction

innovation
55
Table 4.9, represents firm and company managers or owners responses on whether
size of firm or company obstacles design and construction innovation or not. Size of firm
or company is an important barrier to design and construction innovation, where the
grand mean value is 1.367.
Likewise, Firms and Companies face problems of innovation due to being small or
medium (Q47), Firms and Companies size impedes internal funds assigned for
innovation (Q48) and the size of firm or company matters when it comes to engagement
in innovation with help of R&D (Q49) are important barriers to Firms and Companies
design and construction innovation with mean values of 1.45, 1.275 and 1.375
respectively.
4.4.6.2. Size of enterprise and its comparative effect on design and

construction innovation.
Factors like, facing problems related to innovation due to being small (Q47), low
assignment of internal funds for innovation as a result of size (Q48) and low
engagement in innovation with help of R&D is restricted by size (Q49) are important
barriers to Firms and Companies design and construction innovation were 1.45, 1.275 &
1.375 mean value, respectively.
The finding of Mulu (2009), Cohen and Klepper, (1996); and Concepcio´n et al., (2008)
identify size of enterprise as barrier to innovation, which are consistent with the finding
of this study.
Size of the firm can be a major factor in determining design and construction innovation
performances. Usually size is associated with the firms’ or company’s’ capital and
number of equipment and materials they have. As a result, larger firms have a
probability to own such capabilities from smaller ones. Moreover, assignment and
engagement for design and construction innovation requires capital and time. Thus, it’s
highly related with the Firms and Companies turnovers. Similarly, the probability to use
competence like R&D to engage in innovation is critically linked with size. Access to
finance, skill & resources are related with size and in line with lowered ability to benefit
from scale advantage.
56
4.4.7. Lack of skilled personnel
Lack of skilled personnel is usually considered as factor for innovation as empirical

evidences noted. This study also considered lack of skilled personnel to measure
barriers to design and construction innovation in Firms and Companies as depicted on
Table 4.10.

Q50 7 15 9 9 40 1.5 2
Q51 9 15 11 5 40 1.7 2
Q52 11 10 12 7 40 1.625 1
Q53 14 11 9 6 40 1.825 3
GRAND 1.6625
NE- (Not Experienced)-0, L- (Low)-1, M- (Medium)-2, H- (High)-3
Table 4.10: The effect of lack of skilled personnel on Firms and Companies design and
4.4.7.1. Effect of lack of skilled personnel on Firms and Companies

design and construction innovation.
Firm and company managers and/or owners response regarding lack of skilled
personnel as an important obstacle to design and construction innovation or not is
depicted in the above table 4.10. The lack of skilled personnel consideration as an
important barriers for Firms and Companies design and construction innovation, has the
grand mean value is 1.6625 in above Table 4.10.
Moreover, Firms and Companies have inadequate number of trained personnel for
innovation (Q50), lack of individuals with creative & innovative ideas (Q51), lack of
managerial know how to manage innovation process (Q52) and lack of qualified
personnel (Q53) are not important barriers to Firms and Companies design and
construction innovation with mean values of 1.5, 1.7, 1.625, and 1.825, respectively.
Additionally, interview scripts indicate Firms and Companies design and construction
innovation is unlikely to be impeded by lack of skilled personnel as indicated by
participants. Owners or managers are well educated as well as the employees.
57
4.4.7.2. Lack of skilled personnel and its comparative effect on Firms

The findings of Tourigny and Le (2004), Galia and Lerros, (2004), Aminreza K, et al.,
(2011); Silva et al. (2007) and Lim and Shyamala (2007) state that innovation is affected
by lack of skilled personnel. Our findings indicate that there is minimal lack of skilled
personnel barrier as most of the owners, managers and employees are educated
professionals.
Organizational activities cannot be achieved without the existence of human beings.

Equally, innovation activity is learning process that is closely related to skills and
competencies available and effective mobilization within and outside the firm. To
understand situations effectively and efficiently to introduce technological innovation, an
educated and creative mind is important. This is the fact, for Firms and Companies in
Addis Ababa, that skilled human power is crucial for the introduction and expansion of
new design and construction methods.
4.4.8. Lack of Finance
Lack of finance is usually cited among factors which adversely affect Firms and
Companies design and construction innovation (OECD, 2005). The effect of lack of
58
finance on enterprises technological innovation at Firms and Companies industry level

and specific Firms and Companies depict on Table 4.11.

Q55 8 8 14 10 40 1.35
Q56 7 6 16 11 40 1.225
Q57 6 8 14 12 40 1.2
Q58 5 8 19 8 40 1.25
Q59 7 5 20 8 40 1.275
GRAND 1.26
NE- (Not Experienced)-0, L - (Low)-1, M - (Medium)- 2, H - (High)-3
Table 4.11: Lack of finance effect on Firms and Companies industry, and Small &
Medium enterprises specific technological innovation
4.4.8.1. Effect of lack of finance on Firms and Companies design and

Respondents were asked whether lack of finance is an important barrier for design and
construction innovation or not. Lack of finance is an important and one of the major
barriers for Firms and Companies design and construction innovation, with a grand
mean value of 1.26 as the survey result obtained indicates. Moreover, enough funds
aren’t available within Firms and Companies to innovation (Q55), absence of access to
long term loans from banks to innovation (Q56), absence of funds from sources outside
Firms and Companies (Q57), absence of investors whom encourage firms through
financing (Q58), insufficient support from banks & financial institution while collateral is
a requirement (Q59) are the main important barriers to on Firms and Companies
design and construction innovation with mean values of 1.35, 1.225, 1.2, 1.25, and
1.275 respectively.
Additionally, interview script support response from survey that design and construction
innovation is hindered by lack of finance and finance related problems. And they
pointed, by its very nature innovation is an intangible asset; as a result anybody could
not give funding by bearing the risks associated with it.
4.4.8.2. Lack of finance and its comparative effect on Firms and

59
Respondents were asked whether lack of finance is important barrier for design and
construction innovation or not in their respective Firms and Companies. The lack of
finance is a major important barrier for their design and construction innovation with a
grand mean value of 1.26 as depicted on the above Table 4.11.
Factors related to lack of finance like, inadequate funds availability within firm or
company for innovation (Q55), lack of access to long term loans from banks for
innovation (Q56), absence of funds from sources outside fir or company (Q57), absence
of investors whom encourage firms through financing (Q58) and insufficient support
from banks & financial institution by collateral requirements(Q59) are impeding findings
for design and construction innovation as mean values for each are 1.35, 1.225, 1.2,
1.25 and 1.275 respectively as indicated on Table 4.11.
Hence, lack of finance is an important barrier for Firms and Companies design and
construction innovation. These findings are supported by the finding of Mohd & Syed
(2010), OCED (2005); Aminreza et al., (2011), Silva et al., (2007) and Lim and
Shyamala (2007) that economic factors, particularly lack of financing are factors restrain
innovation.
Finance is the main root of business. As result, Firms and Companies need finance to
invest in new equipment and machinery, reach out to new markets and products, and
cope with temporary cash flow shortages as well as to develop new technology and
expand it. Insufficient amount of finance makes it near impossible to compete with
others by engaging in activities which gain competitive advantages. So, due to lack of
availability of finance, Firms and Companies have shortage of assigning funds for
This resulted on low engagement of Firms and Companies in new design, construction
or technology developments. Due to intangibility nature of innovation those financial
institution are also not ready to make such loan services available for Firms and
Companies. Thus making its effects adverse.
4.4.9. Lack of Cooperation
60
Cooperation is important for exchanging and sharing different capabilities (Robson et

al., 2009; De man and Duysters, 2005). As a result, absence of cooperation could affect
Firms and Companies innovation performance.
This study considers lack of cooperation as factors which might affect technological
innovation, Table 4.12 depicts the results.

Q60 5 14 16 5 40 1.475 1
Q61 7 14 10 9 40 1.475 2
Q62 5 14 11 10 40 1.35 2
Q63 7 10 13 10 40 1.35 1
Q64 7 12 9 12 40 1.35 2&0
GRAND 1.4
NE- (Not Experienced)-0, L- (Low)-1, M- (Medium)-2, H - (High)-3
Table 4.12: Lack of cooperation effect on Firms and Companies industry, and Firms
and Companies specific technological innovation
4.4.9.1. Effect of lack of cooperation on Firms and Companies design

and construction innovation
Managers or owners were asked whether lack of cooperation was an important barrier
for design and construction innovation or not. It was concluded that the lack of
cooperation is an important barrier for Firms and Companies design and construction
innovation with a grand mean value of 1.4, as shown from the survey in Table 4.12.
Difficulty in finding cooperation partners for innovation (Q60), low cooperation with
institution & business development services providers (Q61), low access of expertise’s
61
from other firms (Q62), weak relationship with different association (Q63), deficiency
dealing closely with government, private & NGO in relation to innovation (Q64) are
important barriers to Firms and Companies design and construction innovation were the
mean values are 1.4275, 1.475, 1.35, 1.35 and 1.35, respectively.
Moreover, from interview scripts employee engineers strongly agree that their
respective Firms and Companies design and construction innovation was fairly hindered
by lack of cooperation with different parties. Particularly, Firms and Companies are not
in a willing position to cooperate with other Firms and Companies around them.
4.4.9.2. Lack of cooperation and its comparative effect on Firms and

Lack of cooperation is an important barrier for Firms and Companies design and
construction innovation. Similarly, the finding of Tsai (2009) and Todtling et al., (2009),
are in line with this study, identifying lack of collaboration as barriers for innovation.
Cooperation is important for developing better and winning ideas. It’s created with
consent or interest of different parties like industry (Firms and Companies), universities,
financial institution and the government. As a result, if the government isn’t encouraging
cooperation of different parties (Firms and Companies) in the country, it’s difficult for the
introduction or expansion of design, construction and technological innovation. Thus, it
has an implication to Firms and Companies that lack of access: to well-trained
manpower, to basic and applied research results of new technologies, to professional
expertise not usually found in an individual firm and so on. So, absence of establishing
a system of communication and co-operation results in a vacuum with their attempt of
design, construction or technological innovation rather than sharing and developing their
engagement in those areas.
4.5. Ranking of Barriers for Firms and Companies design and

construction Innovation
62
The ranking of variables was based on obstacle Firms and Companies face. Thus,
barriers for technological innovation are ranked by managers or owners accordingly, as
survey result indicate in Table 4.13.
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th TOT G.SUM MEAN MODE
rank rank rank rank rank rank rank rank rank
LF 5 8 6 5 3 2 2 6 3 40 175 4.37 2
5
GPR 7 6 4 2 6 5 4 3 3 40 178 4.45 1
LTM 5 4 8 6 3 7 3 2 2 40 173 4.32 3
5
IRD 6 6 7 3 10 3 3 1 2 40 166 4.15 5
HCI 4 6 6 9 5 5 1 2 2 40 166 4.15 4
SE 1 1 1 3 4 3 5 6 15 40 274 6.85 9
LSP 3 2 4 3 2 2 8 10 6 40 243 6.07 8
5
OC 3 1 1 3 5 3 10 8 8 40 269 6.72 7
5
LC 4 3 2 6 3 7 5 6 4 40 216 5.4 6
1st= major barrier 9th = least barrier
LF – Lack of Finance
LTM – Lack of Technology and Market Information
IRD – Inadequate Research and Development
HCI – High Cost of Innovation
SE – Size of Enterprise
LSP – Lack of Skilled Personnel
OC – Organizational Culture
LC – Lack of Cooperation
Table 4.13: Firms and Companies manager or owner ranked barriers for design and
Firm and company managers and/or owners were asked to rank design and
construction innovation barriers. Prioritization of obstacles is given based on extent of
Firms and Companies design and construction innovation impeded by those nine
variables identified from the literature. The Ranking are arranged based on the mean &
mode value of respondent responses regarding barriers to Firms and Companies
design and construction innovation. While ranking is prepared, for lower mean first rank
63
is given because response rate is multiplied by its rank to get grand total sum, then it
will be divided by total number of usable sample (40) to get the mean value.
Thus, Firms and Companies design and construction innovation barriers are ranked in
this order:
1. Government policy and regulation

2. Lack of finance
3. Lack of technological & market information
4. High cost of innovation
5. Inadequate R&D
6. Lack of cooperation
7. Organizational culture
8. Lack of skilled personnel
9. Size of enterprise
The rankings are from high important barrier to low important barriers for design and
This study’s findings were similar with the finding of Aminreza et al.,(2011); Silva et al.,
(2007); and Lim and Shyamala (2007) that economic factors like Lack of finance and
High cost of innovation are one of the major restraining factors.
The study identified economic factors as main restraints for Firms and Companies
design and construction innovation. As a result of economic factor, design and
construction innovation were hindered due to inability to assign money for innovation
activities, inability to take risk, having useful technology for innovation and inadequate
R&D engagement. These resulted in Firms and Companies’ not developing new and
innovative means of design and construction as expected in the construction sector.
4.6. Internal and external barriers and limitation for Firms and
64
Firm and company owners and/or managers were asked about the barriers imposed by
different internal and external factors. The limitations or barriers stated in this paper are
further classified into two;
 internal factors:-
 Inadequate R&D
 Size of firm or company
 Organizational culture
 Lack of finance
 Lack of cooperation
 Lack of skilled personnel
 External factors :-
 High cost of innovation
 Government policies and regulations
 Lack of technology and market information
4.7. Other limitations and barriers
65
Further literature review and responses from the questionnaire identified other factors
as barriers to design and construction innovation. Factors such as;
 Firms and Companies lose confidence on the benefit of design and construction
innovation and become demotivated to engage in innovation due to absence of
support and access to loan. So Firms and Companies remain not playing their
roles as expected. Not setting new or revising standards that encourage
innovation, inadequate government policy incentives, unsuitable bidding process
lack of government financed competitions on innovation, government not
requiring Firms and Companies to upgrade and lack of government funded
research on design and construction innovation.
 Lack of good management that overviews innovation in Firms and Companies,
absence of organized party that takes responsibility for innovation activities and
lack of resource for engaging in innovation can be categorized as barriers due to
poor management
 Universities and institutes of technology are key contributors to the design and
construction innovations. The participation is a vital component to the progress of
innovation activities. However, the school curriculum not being innovation
oriented, poor linkage between universities and firms/companies, inactive
participation of universities and lack of presentation/introduction of new
discoveries from universities to Firms and Companies are considered as barriers
to innovation.
 Due to fast changing environment and increase of knowledge dissemination, it’s
difficult for Firms and Companies to maintain competitive advantage through
internal capability. Since, Firms and Companies have limited cooperation with
universities, institution, research organization and other companies; they can’t
access expertise from outside related to technological innovation. Firms and
Companies not working hand in hand and absence of professional associations
regarding design and construction innovation can therefore be regarded as
cooperation barrier for Firms and Companies design and construction innovation.
 Lack innovation department in Firms and Companies is another major limitation
or barrier to innovation. Non-awareness of the importance of R&D and the ability
66
to access new finding which enabled them to do radical innovations as a result of

no engagement in R&D. It’s also difficult to imitate technology actively or gain
competitive advantage in creating and adding values. Thus, inadequate R&D is
barrier for Firms and Companies design and construction innovation.
 International correspondence and exchange are necessities when it comes to
discoveries new things. However, lack of experience exchange with foreign
companies, lack of training opportunities in foreign company design or
construction projects, inadequate engagement in international conferences and
innovation expos and lack of foreign exchange programs are the major limitation
and barriers to design and construction innovation in Addis Ababa’s construction
sector.
4.8. Summary of the Chapter
In this chapter, data obtained from survey and interview has been analyzed in line with
making sure the consistency and internal integrity of each items on the scales. The nine
identified variables were used to analyze the barriers of Firms and Companies in the
As a result, all variables were considered to restrain design and construction innovation
with the exception of LTMI, HCI, IR&D and LSP variables which were not important
barriers for design and construction innovation.
67
4.9. CASE STUDY

4.9.1. Introduction
Innovation in buildings structural designs becoming a standard for design nowadays in

Ethiopia. Different buildings with new and different structural as well as architectural
design and being constructed in and around Addis Ababa, all of which have different
sets of purpose in mind. Buildings for designed for commercial, residential, offices or
multipurpose are now being designed with sense of innovation to maximize their space,
energy and cost efficiency.
A case study has been conducted regarding innovation in building design and its
barriers/ limitations. There are about nine pre-determined variables that are considered
barriers to innovation in this thesis paper. Many architectural/consultancy and
construction firms have given their input into the research. Subsequently, many of the
buildings designed and constructed by these firms and companies are impeded by the
aforementioned variables. In this case study, the selection of a particular building was
made based on the minimal effects of these limitations. A building that was innovative in
its design concept was considered.
For this thesis paper’s case study, the Lideta-Merkato shopping mall located around
Lideta sub city, Addis Ababa was selected. The client was Flintstones engineering and
was designed by XV studio. This building was selected after the fulfillment of the pre-
determined criteria. The concept of the building, the way it maximized its space and
energy conservation is regarded as innovative.
68
4.9.2. Company Background
Flintstone Engineering was founded in 1992. Two decades of sustained growth led to
the present day Flintstone, with annual revenues of Birr 500 million (ca. USD
25,000,000) generated from contracts and real estate. In 2007, Flintstone was the first
construction company in Ethiopia to have its quality management system certified to
ISO 9000 standard. Flintstone Homes, the real estate wing, was launched in 2009 and
since then, 1,483 units were sold and over 600 delivered so far with as many more
scheduled for del Flintstone has ventured in small scale into the Tanzanian market as
well. Recently, after a rigorous evaluation process that involved Tanzanian official visits
to Addis Ababa, Flintstone has been awarded a few state housing contracts in M’twara
in the south and in the capital city, Dar El Salam.ivery before the end of 2014.
4.9.3.Case Presentation
The lideta Mercato multistory market design was unveiled by XV studio after a winning
entry of a pre-qualified competition. Construction of this multistory market was begun in
May 2011.
The Lideta Mercato was originally conceptualized as a typical shopping mall that are
common to Addis Ababa. However, the concept of this commercial building was altered
after a general analysis of the existing commercial shopping mall buildings was done.
The results of the analysis showed that there were three major weak points in these
buildings.
1. they are empty because the shops are too big

2. their glass facades create heating and bring too much light in the inside
3. Their image does not reflect Africa, neither Ethiopia’s character.
The design concept was culture-centric. It’s representative of Ethiopia’s cu;ture to Africa
and the world in general. The façade is design to resemble the Ethiopian traditional
dress.
69
4.9.4. Design Concept
The Lideta Mercato multistory market project was designed to replicate the old
Mercato’s business shops into one building. The business shops located in the old
Mercato where more or less single units dispersed throughout that area, horizontally.
The Lideta mercato multistory market used this idea and created spaces vertically to
optimize the given plot of land and create the whole shopping experience in one
building based on traditional market principles.
Instead of an all glass façade adapted by many, the Lideta mercato multistory market
was made using concrete sheet and fractal pattern glass pieces, in resemblance to
Ethiopian women traditional dresses. The façade of the building is also protective from
the sun and rain and brings ventilation to the interior in a controlled way by putting into
consideration the climatic conditions of Addis Ababa.
Facades are commonly considered as isolation layers between the internal and external
space. In this respect, facades are medium of connection between two ambiances. So,
porosity in facades was new innovative façade system. This system is named
“breathing façade”. These pores create tiny horizontal air foundations generate
dynamic thermal ambiance. This approach fights against rigidity of the actual definition
of thermal comfort that produces homogenous internal atmospheres and instead
creates a thermal landscape by controlling ventilation inlets and outlets that are
distributed along the façade.
4.9.5. Stages of design
The lideta mercato multistory market has gone through four basic steps before its
completion.
First was the initial assumption. The project like every other had an initial assumption
phase, which was identifying its purpose. The project was then identified to be used as
a shopping mall.
70
After identifying the purpose then came the context study. This was the part of the
project where it was needed to thoroughly analyze how that implemented project would
bring financial benefit to the organization or company (Flintstone Engineering).
After the context study the financial aspects of the project were understood and it was
determined whether the project is feasible or not. The third stage is implementing
exterior input on the project. This was the major step for this project. This was the part
were all the conditions mentioned in the case study were implemented in order to
modify the initial assumption.
The exterior input of the project is a key element to our thesis paper. This is because
the design was done by XV studio which is a foreign company. One of the solutions
stated to overcome lack of innovative designs in Ethiopia is by introducing foreign
companies to share experience with our own.
As a result, this project accomplished that aim in its exterior input stage and ended up
with an innovative design that could overcome challenges like the availability of light
and electricity.
The final step was the design process. In this stage, several aspects of the design
process were assessed.
4.9.6. Functionality of the Building
The Lideta merkato multistory market sits on 14,200 m 2 plot of land and is located in
Lideta subsity, Addis Ababa. The area is under several construction of middle rise
different purpose buildings making it a very dense neighborhood.
The initial assumption or the basic shape was more of a cubic type of closed structure.
However, one featured that created a modification to this initial assumption was creating
a diagonal shortcut that connects the two ends of the shopping mall. The curved
entrance also tries to resemble the ancient construction trend of the country (ancient
Ethiopian orthodox churches have curved entrances).
The building had a mezzanine floor system which maximizes the space utilization and
creates a fluid circulation of movement.
71
Modern day buildings are designed with a void space in the middle of the structure to
facilitate the utilization of natural sunlight as a means of energy conservation.
Accordingly, the Lideta Mercato multistory market has a void space. This void spaces
though were distributed incrementally per floor. The distribution of this void according to
the floor plans produced an inclined void space. The inclined void created a variety of
circulation and organization of the shops on each floor and reinforces the idea of
continuity from the ground floor to the roof.
The roof contains gathering and recreational areas, a new urban oasis protected from
the rain and the sun. The circular porches and the roof collect the water from the rain to
be processed and reused for sanitation. The porches also hold a network of
photovoltaic panels that produce and store electrical energy for the interior and
illuminate up the façade at night.
Addis Ababa is a rapidly growing city. Hence, there is a huge demand of electricity and
water in different parts of the city due to different construction projects and highly
electric incentive factories. As a result, the shortage of water and electricity needed for
different is commonly observed in many buildings and shopping malls in Addis Ababa.
The lideta mercato multistory market project used an innovative approach to deal with
this problem.
The shopping mall has a unique water recycling system which initially starts by storing
rain water. There is a rain water storage tank storage tank located at the top of a
building structure. The stored water is then transferred to a grey water filtration tank
through pipe like structures. Then the water enters to the service water tank and is
distributed for use of restrooms and other different purposes by water pumps and other
mechanisms. This will be a great practice for different construction projects since it
encourages the use of water recycling and saves water resource.
Another innovative aspect of this project is the saving of solar energy by photovoltaic
panels. Building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) glazing can help buildings generate their
own electricity, by turning the whole building envelope into a solar panel. This
technology is efficient at producing energy even on north-facing, vertical walls and its
high performance at raised temperatures means it can be double glazed or insulated
72
directly. As well as saving on energy bills and earning feed-in tariff revenues, its cost is
only marginal over traditional glass, since construction and framework costs remain,
while cladding and shading system costs are replaced.
4.9.7. Discussion
This building was chose as a stark contrast to the current building design and
construction methods followed in Addis Ababa. Many building are designed
categorically according to their function and purpose. However, there seems to be no
significant differences of building designs within those categories.
The barriers to innovation, as discussed in this thesis paper, have affected the design
and construction process. The Lideta Mercato building was designed and constructed
still while facing most of the barriers and limitations.
GPR may be considered non-factors or a firm can work around those restriction by
creating a viable alternative within those restrictions. LTMI can be minimized through
growing globalization and commutations. Firms and companies whom have a great OC
are looking for new and better ways of design and construction have adequate R&D
within. They also are not affected by LF because they include innovation as part of their
organizational structure.
73
Chapter Five: Summary of Findings, Conclusion and

Recommendation
The study was intended to look at limitations and barriers of design and construction
innovation of consultancy/Architectural, construction and real estate companies in Addis
Ababa. The purpose of this chapter is to windup the study by stating the summary of the
findings, conclusion and recommendations.
5.1. Summary of Findings
The study aimed to describe limitations and barriers of Firms and Companies design
and construction innovation posing the following research question:
 Did Firms and Companies introduce design and construction innovation?

 the reason why Firms and Companies didn’t innovate
 What are the main design and construction innovation limitations and barriers in
the construction sector?
 What are internal and external barriers?
 Ranking of barriers to innovation.
Those raised questions were answered by using survey data from managers and/or
owners of firm and companies managers and/or owners, as well as sub city officials.
Therefore, Valid (40) responses were obtained from respondents to measure the level
by which Firms and Companies design and construction innovations were affected
adversely by. The questions revolved around nine identified variables.
 From the selected Firms and Companies 19 (47.5%) had engaged in design and/or
construction innovation whereas the remaining 21(52.5%), didn’t introduce any kind
of innovation.
 Out of those 19 (47.5%) Firms and Companies that introduced some form of
innovation, 7 (36.8%) introduced design innovations, 7 (36.8%) cited that they
74
introduced construction innovations and 5 (26.4%) indicated that the introduced

process innovation to the construction sector.
 Out of the 21(52.5%) Firms and Companies that didn’t introduce design or
construction innovation, 5 (23.8%) stated it was due to prior innovations, 7 (33.4%)
stated that it was due to market conditions and 9(42.8%) stated that it was due to
constraining factor.
The following factors are identified in the study as factors affecting Firms and
Companies design and construction innovation engagement:
 Unfavorable government policy & regulation is an important obstacle for Firms and
Companies design and construction innovation, where the grand mean value is
1.1875. absence of government R&D funding, low financial regulation assurance,
sharing of new technology experience with the help of government, low support for
doing & expanding innovation , low access & usage of government loan , no
modification of tax system to encourage innovators and unequal support for all Firms
and Companies are more important factors for Firms and Companies design and
 Lack of technological & market information is an important obstacle for Firms and
Companies design and construction innovation where the grand mean value is
1.6392. Low access & utilization of new technological information and lack of
technological transfer institution are considered important factor for impeding
innovation.
 Inadequate R&D is important obstacle to Firms and Companies design and
construction innovation where the grand mean value is 1.5125. Inability to have
organized R&D office & equipped staffs, inadequate engagement of R&D towards
innovation and being unable to purchase and use new technology investigation on
R&D in private organizations are considered important barriers to design and
 High cost of innovation is an inhibiting factor for Firms and Companies design and
construction innovation, with a grand mean value of 1.575. , inadequate amount of
75
budget assignment to innovation and failure risk unacceptability (Q38) is an

important factor.
 Organizational culture is identified as an important barrier for Firms and Companies
design and construction innovation, where the grand mean value is 1.7465. None of
the factors listed under this variable weren’t considered important factor for the
barrier of design and construction innovation.
 Size of enterprise which could be measured in financial and human resources is
important restraining factor for industry Firms and Companies design and
construction innovation where grand mean value is 1.367. Firms and Companies
face problems of innovation due to being small or medium, Firms and Companies
size impedes internal funds assigned for innovation and the size of firm or company
matters when it comes to engagement in innovation with help of R&D are important
for Firms and Companies design and construction innovation.
 Lack of skilled personnel is important barrier for Firms and Companies design and
construction innovation in the construction, where the grand mean value is 1.6625.
Firms and Companies have inadequate number of trained personnel for innovation,
lack of individuals with creative & innovative ideas, lack of managerial know how to
manage innovation process and lack of qualified personnel are not important
barriers to Firms and Companies design and construction innovation
 Lack of finance is an important and one of the major barriers design and
construction innovations where the grand mean value is 1.26. Enough funds aren’t
available within Firms and Companies to innovation, absence of access to long term
loans from banks to innovation, absence of funds from sources outside Firms and
Companies, absence of investors whom encourage firms through financing,
insufficient support from banks & financial institution while collateral is a requirement
are factors more important for Firms and Companies design and construction
innovation.
 Lack of cooperation is important barriers for Firms and Companies design and
construction innovation in the construction, where the grand mean value is 1.4.
Difficulty in finding cooperation partners for innovation, low cooperation with
institution & business development services providers, low access to expertise from
76
other firms, weak relationship with different association, deficiency dealing closely
with government, private & NGO in relation to innovation are important factors for
industry technological innovation.
 Limitations and barriers for Firms and Companies design and construction
innovation barriers are ranked in this order:
1. Government policy and regulation
2. Lack of finance
3. Lack of technological & market information
4. High cost of innovation
5. Inadequate R&D
6. Lack of cooperation
7. Organizational culture
8. Lack of skilled personnel
9. Size of enterprise
77
5.2. Conclusion
The following conclusion was pointed out from the finding of the study:
 Consultancy/Architectural firms are better in introducing design and construction

innovation in the construction sector
 Majority of the firms and companies regard Constraining factors as a major
obstacle for design and construction innovation
 Various factors obstacle design and construction innovation
 Government policy regulations, size of enterprise, lack of finance and lack of
cooperation are regarded as important barriers to design and construction
innovation by firm and companies
 Government policy regulations are considered as the most unfavorable for
innovation
 Absence of loans and financial restrictions inhibit innovation in the construction
sector
 Market conditions and organizational activities as also key limiting factors to
innovation in the construction sector
 Linkage with universities and the outside world play crucial roles in the
development of innovative design and construction methodology.
 Lack of innovation in building design and construction is inhibiting Ethiopia’s
progress with respect to global standards.
 Utilization of different kind of methodology, ideologies, software, materials and
equipment in building design and construction can help make Ethiopia’s
engineering firms and construction companies competent on the world stage.
78
5.3. Recommendation
Based on conclusion, the study recommends the following points to overcome Firms
and Companies design and construction innovation.
5.3.1. Firms and Companies overall approach to innovation
 Access up to date technology information and materials by having web gadget

access, reading design, construction and technological journals. Create an
information integration and partnership with technological institution, vocational
schools and with others in line with the shift in demand of customers.
 Engaged in radical innovation by having organized R&D offices and equipped staff
and be able to use new finding of R&D of private organization for introduction or
expansion of their design, construction and technological innovation. Hence,
enterprises can gain competitive advantage.
 Believe that anybody in the firm or company could have the potential to innovate,
encourage empowerment & synergies of resources, share best practices with
employees in line with the playing of significant roles by managers and/or owners in
spending time to listen to employee ideas, and use possible opportunity to promote
 Have adequate number of trained personnel for technological innovation by in
reaching the potential of existing employees through upgrading their knowledge or
hiring new employee.
79
 Enhance engagement in design and construction innovation by assigning internal

funds for innovations in line with increasing capital and turnover of the firm or
company.
 Be in a position to find partnership with government, private R&D organizations and
different association which help share experiences and expertise in line with
engagement of technological innovation.
5.3.2. Government and its policy makers
The government is in a position to give due emphasis to Firms and Companies in the
construction sector and their roles in accomplishment in introducing new and innovative
means and ways. Therefore, government and its policy makers should:
 Set a clear policy and regulation that can encourage design and construction
innovation in Firms and Companies.
 Formulate independent agencies and organizations which control innovation activity
accordingly
 Design R&D funding (innovation fund) and enable patent protection.
 Make financial regulation to insure finance provision for innovation activities
 Support or encourage Firms and Companies to expand innovation by making
government loans accessible, expanding financial support institutes and creating
government policy incentives.
 Modifying tax for encouraging innovators while purchasing valuable plant
 Encourage cooperation between Firms and Companies and different parties in the
country
 Allowing construction sectors to produce offer other than government order in line
with shift in demand of customers
 Create government financed innovation researches, competitions and awards on
innovation.
80
 Promote fair competition, make it knowledge based and not capital based.
 Require that Firms and Companies should upgrade to current and latest design and
construction methods.
For construction sector parties:
 University, technology institutes and research development organization should be

in the position to share and inform new findings Firms and Companies in the
 Banks and financial institution should design and implement innovation encouraging
schemes that promote Firms and Companies design and construction innovation.
 On other hand, financial institution should adjust in such a way to give credit to those
Firms and Companies engaged in design, construction and technological innovation
according viability with low collateral requirement request.
 Universities and technology institutes should actively participate in design and
construction innovation, present/introduce new discoveries, as well as Create strong
linkage between firms & companies.
 All parties involved in the construction sector, including universities, should be highly
involved with foreign exchange programs to broaden experience and knowledge of
innovative methods. There should also be ample job training opportunities inside
foreign consultancy and construction companies on local and even international
projects. Also, Participation in international innovation conferences and expos is a
vital component.
5.3.3. Further research suggestion
 It would be interesting to examine limitations and barriers to design, construction and

technological innovation by comparing different sectors in the country.
 Moreover, finding out why, how and what the remedy was to put Ethiopia on the
bottom (lower) of the design, construction and technological innovation?
 Further, it would be interesting to examine the impact of information technology on
Firms and Companies innovation in the construction sector.
81
Bibliography
Aminreza K., R. Maryam and A. Mah Lagha,(2011). Barriers to Innovation among

Iranian SMEs, Asian Journal of Business Management 3(2): 79-90, 2041-
8752
Assefa, A, A Comparative Analysis of the Development of Small Scale Industries in

Region 14 with other Regions. . (1997)
Avermaete, T., Viaene, J., Morgan, E.J. and Crawford, N., “Determinants of
innovation in small food firms”, European Journal of Innovation
Management, (2003)
Bradley, Robert E.; Sandifer, Charles Edward. Leonhard Euler: Life, Work and Legacy.
Elsevier.(2007)
Canepa, A. and Stoneman, P. 'Financial constraints to innovation in the UK:

evidence from CIS2 and CIS3' Oxford Economic Papers 60(4):
(2008)
Cohen, W. and Klepper, S., A Reprise of Size & R&D. Economic Journal, (1996)
82
Concepcio´n, L., Ana, M. and Gema, G, Patterns of Institutional Cooperation in R&D

For Spanish Innovative Firms in the Manufacturing and Service
Sectors, Management Research News,(2008)
Creswell, W., (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed

Approaches, 2nd edition. Sage publication, California
conlink catalogue (6th .Ed) (2016). Architects, engineers and contractors: A

comprehensive reference for professionals, consultants.
Contractors, occupational sans companies
D. Vallero and C. Brasier , Sustainable Design: The Science of Sustainability and Green
Engineering. Hoboken, NJ, (2008),
De Man, A.P., and Duysters, G., “Collaboration and Innovation: a review of the effects
of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation”,
Technovation, (2005)
Galia, F. and Legros, D., “Complementarities between obstacles to innovation:

Evidence from France”, Research Policy (2004)
Galileo, G. (Crew, H & de Salvio, A. (1954)
Huang, Y.H. and Tsai, M.T., “A study of service innovation in Firms and Companies
(Firms and Companies): evidence from e-commerce systems”, Research
Journal of International Studies, Vol. 18. (2011)
Lim, E. and Shyamala, N., Obstacles to Innovation: Evidence from Malaysian
Manufacturing. Retrieved from: //
http:mpra.ub.unimuenchene.de/MPRA Paper (2007)
Mohd, F. and Syed, S., Barriers of innovation of food processing SMIs in Malaysia:
An empirical study (2010)
Mulu, G., Innovation and Microenterprises Growth in Ethiopia, UNU-MERIT

Working Papers, (2009)
83
OECD The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities, Frascati Manual 1980,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
(1981).
Poll, E., Crinnion, P. and Turpin, T. „’Innovation barriers in Australia: What the
available data say and what they do not say‟‟, working paper,
University of Wollongong, Australia (1999),
Robson, Paul J.A., Helen M. Haugh. and Bernard O., „Entrepreneurship and
Innovation in Ghana: Enterprising Africa (2009)
Samad, N. A., Positioning Malaysian Firms and Companies in the global. Proceedings
of Persidangan Kebangsaan IKS 2007, Kota Kinabalu: Universiti Utara
Malaysia. (2007)
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business
Students (4th ed.). Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Sayed, H. Customer Relationship Management and Its Relationship to the

Marketing Performance, (2011)
Silva, M., Leitao, J. and Raposo, M., Barriers to Innovation faced by Manufacturing
Firms in Portugal: (2007)
Todtling, F., Lehner, P. and Kaufmann, A. “Do different types of innovation rely on
specific kinds of knowledge interactions?” Technovation, (2009),
Tourigny, D. and Le, C. Impediments to innovation faced by Canadian

manufacturing firms. Economics of Innovation and New
Technology, (2004),
Tsai, K.H., collaborative networks and product innovation performance: toward a

contingency perspective. Reseach policy (2009)
Victor E. Saouma. "Lecture notes in Structural Engineering" , University of Colorado.

Retrieved 2007-11-02.
84
Watson, Jeff (2001), How to Determine a Sample Size: Tipsheet #60, University. Park,
PA: PennStateCooperativeExtension.
Yan Ji and Stellios Plainiotis (2006): Design for Sustainability. Beijing: China
Architecture and Building Press
Zikmund, W. (2000), Business Research Methods (6th Ed.). United States of America:
Harcourt College Publishers
URL 1 – www.flintstonehomes.com/
URL 2 -www.vilalta.cat/en/portfolio-item/lideta-mercato/
URL 3 -www.archdaily.com/122599/lideta-mercato-xv-studio
URL 4 -www.academia.edu/9768602/The_Concept_of_Void_as_Spatial_Effects
URL 5 - addisbiz.com/ethiopian-companies/construction
Appendix
A. Questionnaires and interview guide
Questionnaire
Addis Ababa University Institute of Technology

Civil and Environmental Engineering undergraduate program
Questionnaire on factors Affecting innovation in the building design and construction

sector
Dear Respondents,
This questionnaire is designed to explain the extent of limitations and barriers to
innovation of building design and construction in and around Addis Ababa. This study is
conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the undergraduate degree in Civil
and Environmental Engineering at Addis Ababa University institute of technology. Its
85
main objective is to identify the factors affecting design and construction innovativeness
of building structures in and around Addis Ababa. Your response is vital to the outcome
of the study and you are requested to completely and objectively answer all questions.
The research is going to be carried out based on your responses and other relevant
data that could support it. It forms a major part of the research and the information you
will enable the researcher to critically analyze why architectural firms, consultancies and
contractors are not or partially active in innovation. Your cooperation to respond
genuinely is very important to this study because it represents several of other Firm or
Company who are not included in the sample. Please answer all questions. Space is
provided at the end of the questionnaire for you to add further explanations or
comments. All information you provide would be strictly confidential.
Please tick () or provide your own answers where applicable.
Thank you in advance for your indispensable cooperation to spare invaluable time and energy to complete
these questionnaires
Name: (Students at AAIT) Contact info. E-mail

Brook Kassahun +251911405840 brkassahun@gmail.com
Yonathan Girma +251911941472 yonathangirmaygn@gmail.com
Kalab Yemane +251911425537 4kalab@gmail.com
Yeneneh Zena +291911026831
Abel Assefa +251911931784
1. General information and demographic background of firm or company Managers
or owners
1.1. Gender  Male  Female
1.2 Education  Secondary School  Diploma & degree
 Masters  Doctorate/Ph.D.
1.3 What is your position in the enterprise?
 Manager  Owner
1.4 Enterprise is established as?
 Sole ownership  Partnership  in cooperative
86
1.5 According to the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Works and Urban Development, in
which group profile is your firm or company categorized in currently?
 General contractor  Building contractor  Consultancy/ Architectural firm

 engineering firm  Real estate
1.6 The sectors you are engaged in?

 Design  Construction  Both
 Client
1.7 How long have you been engaged in your sector?
 0-5 years  5-7 years  7-10 years
 Above 10 years
2. Manger/ owner opinion /views regarding limitations and barriers of innovation in
building design and construction
Term፡ Design innovation is the utilization of the intrinsic power of technology for a simple,
safe, economical and intuitive structural design both aesthetically and structurally.
Construction innovation is the introduction of a new or significantly improved construction
materials, equipment or machinery. The innovation (new) must be new to your firm or company.
Process innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved design process,
construction process, material production and implementation process; or support activity for
your goods or services. The innovation (new) must be new to your enterprise.
2.1. Did your firm or company introduce technological innovations to Ethiopia?
Yes  No 
2.2. If your firm or company is an innovator, what did it introduce?
Design innovation Yes  No 
Construction innovations Yes  No 
Process innovation Yes  No 

2.3. If your firm or company had no innovations, even if other firms or companies introduced
innovations, please indicate why it has not been necessary or possible to innovate or expand
innovation?
No need due to prior innovation Yes  No 
No need due to market condition Yes  No 
Factors constraining innovation Yes  No 

This survey attempts to get your opinions of the barriers to design and construction; product and
process innovation your firm or company are facing currently. Please show the extent to which
87
you think innovation barriers affect building design and construction innovativeness. What is
interested in here is a number that best shows your views about enterprises innovation barriers
by putting this () in the box on the following table provided.
KEY: 3 = High 2 = Medium 1= Low 0 = Not experienced (Not existed so far the
services)
2.4. To what extent are your firm’s or company’s’ design, construction or process innovation
activities faced with obstacles due to government policy and Regulation? [Please put a check
Mark () in the box]
Likert scale items 3 2 1 0
11. Strategies of government are appropriately designed for Firm or Company

technological innovations
12. The Government’s technological innovation policies are encouraging
13. Patent is protected for design and construction technological innovators
14. Firm or company innovation activities are helped through government R&D
funding
15. Regulatory measures ensure financial resources for innovation
16. Firm or Company share new technological experience with help the government
17. Firm or company has support through access for doing and expanding
innovation by gov’t
18. Firm or company accessed and used government loans service for innovation
projects activities
19. Tax system are modified with the view to promote Firm or Company
technological innovations
20. Gov’t provide equal support for all Firm or Company related to innovation
2.5. To what extent are your firm’s or company’s design, construction and process innovation
activities faced with obstacles due to lack of technological and market information?[please
put a check Mark() in box]
21. Firm or company has access & utilizes up-to-date technological information
(exposure to innovation journals and articles)
22. Firm or company has accessed and utilized up to date technology materials
23. Adequate information technology transfer institutions are available for Firm or
company.
24. Firm or company easily accesses & utilizes internet services while they need
technological innovation information
25. Firm or company has enough knowledge of markets & their demand
26. Firm or company seek new technology markets to serve and satisfy existing
clients
27. Firm or company participates in conferences, trade fairs and exhibitions to share
technological innovation information
88
2.6. To what extent are your Firm’s or company’s design, construction or process innovation
activities faced with obstacles due to inadequate research and development? [Please put a
check Mark() in the applicable box]
28. Firm or company has organized R&D office & equipped staffs ready to
innovation
29. Firm or Company have adequate engagement on R&D towards innovation
30. Firm or Company believe R&D enable to innovate new technology in line with
user demands
31. Firm or Company have purchased and used new technology for the investigation
in R&D of private organizations
activities faced with obstacles due to high cost? [Please put a check Mark () in the
applicable box]
32. Firm or company hires or purchases the necessary skill or equipment which is
important to innovation
33. High innovation cost is tolerated by Firm or company
34. Cost of acquiring external competence important for innovation are admitted by
Firm or company
35. Firm or company encourages staff to devote time and resources to innovation
projects
36. Enough budget is assigned to innovation activities by Firm or company
37. Firm or company’s innovation is on-going basis based on client requirements
38. Risk is taken by Firm or company while the infeasibility of the innovation project
is possible
2.8. To what extent are your Firm’s or company’s design, construction or process
innovation activities faced with obstacles due to Organizational culture? [Please put a check
Mark () in the applicable box]
39. Firm or company believes anyone of the workers could be creative and
innovative
40. Employees are empowered to come with new ideas in the Firm or company
41. Firm or company is aware of constantly changing environment & innovation as
key to this situation
42. Firm or company encourages synergies of different resources towards
innovation
43. Firm or company managers or owners play significant role in promoting
innovation
44. Supervisors spend a good deal of time listening to employees' ideas and
89
support for new ideas development

45. Firm or company enables staffs to update with best practice learning
(benchmarking exercise) related to innovation
46. Firm or company sees opportunities for innovation where others see problems
activities faced with obstacles due to Size of firm or company? [Please put a check Mark ()
in the applicable box]
47. Firm or company doesn’t face problem of innovation due to being small or
medium
48. Internal funds are available and assigned for innovation activities no matter
the size of the firm or company
49. Firm or company is well engaged in innovation with help of efficient R&D
activity no matter the size of firm or company
activities faced with obstacles due to lack of skilled personnel? [Please put a check Mark ()
in the applicable box]
50. Firm or company has adequate number of trained personnel (human resource
capabilities) needed for successful innovation projects
51. Firm or company has individuals with creative and innovative ideas
52. Firm or company has enough managerial know-how to effectively and
efficiently manage innovation processes
53. Within Firm or company qualified, experienced and technically skilled
personnel are available for innovation
activities faced with obstacles due to by lack of finance? [Please put a check Mark () in the
applicable box]
55. Enough funds are available within your Firm or company to carryout
innovation projects
56. Firm or company has access to long term loans from banks to innovation
projects
57. Funds are available from sources outside your Firm or company for
innovation
58. Investors (banks, venture capitalists, etc.) are encouraging innovative firms
through financing
59. Collateral requirements of banks & financial institutions are encouraging
90
innovation
activities faced with obstacles due to lack of cooperation?
Innovation co-operation is an active participation with other firms or organizations on innovation
activities. [Please put a check Mark () in box]
60. Firm or company has no difficulty in finding cooperation partners for

innovation
61. Firm or company has good cooperation with institutions i.e. universities,
non-university, and business development service provider regarding
innovation
62. Firm or company can access expertise for innovation from other firm and
scaling up innovation
63. Firm or company establish relationship with technical, commercial R&D
enterprises and Industrial associations
64. Firm or company has done closely with federal government, private and
non-profit research institutes on innovation issues
2.13. Rank those barriers to design, construction and process innovation according to the
extent your firm or company is facing? [Please rank (1-9) in the box]
Lack of finance Size of enterprise
Government policy & regulation Lack of skilled personnel

Lack of technological & market information Organizational culture
Inadequate Research & Development Lack of cooperation
High Cost of innovation
3. Open ended questions for Firm or Company managers and/or

Owners
3.1. Why are firms or Companies not or partially engaged in design, construction and
process innovation? (What, according to you, are three of the most important factors for
successful enterprises innovation?)
____________________________________________________________________________________
3.2. What are those internal factors which hinder your organization product and
process innovations so far? You can give more than one answer
 Inadequate R&D  Organization culture  Lack of cooperation

 Size of firm or company  Lack of finance  Lack of skilled personnel
91
If other please specify

_______________________________________________________________________________
Of those internal factors affecting your firm’s or company design, construction and process
innovation rank three of them according the extent they hinder?
3.3. What are those external factors hindering your organization design, construction and/or
process innovations so far? You can give more than one answer.
 High cost of innovation  Lack of technology & market information

 Government policy & regulation  If others please specify
Of those external factors affecting your firm or company design, construction and/or process
innovation rank three of them according their extent they hinderer?
3.4. List those factors affecting technological innovation of Firm or Company other than
discussed above?
3.5. What are your suggestions to overcome the problem of limitations or barriers to
design and/or construction technological innovation your firm or company is facing?
Thank you again for your cooperation to complete this questionnaire!

5th year civil and environmental engineering undergraduate students of AAIT
Interview Guide
Addis Ababa University Institute of Technology

Civil and Environmental Engineering undergraduate program
Interview guide questions for Architecture and Consultancy firms; Construction companies
and Clients on factors affecting design and construction technological innovation in the
building design and construction sector in and around Addis Ababa.
92
1. Why are Firms or Companies not or partially engaged in design and construction
innovation? Please indicate why it has not been necessary or possible to
innovate? What, according to you, are the most important factors constraining
innovation of building design and construction?
2. What are those internal factors hindering your Firm’s or Company’ design or
construction innovation so far? (What, according to you, are three of the most
important factors constraining firm’s or company’s innovation?
3. What are those external factors hindering your Firm’s or Company’s’ design or
construction innovation so far? (What, according to you, are three of the most
important factors constraining your Firm’s or Company’s innovation?
4. What are the causes for these factors hindering Firm’s or Company’s design or
construction innovation?
5. What is your experience regarding innovation in building design and
construction
6. What are the roles of members of the building construction sector? (Architects,
engineer, contractors or clients).
7. What is your suggestion to overcome the problem of limitations or barriers to
design, construction and/or process innovation the building design and
construction sector is facing?
Thank you again for your cooperation to complete this interview.
5th year civil and environmental engineering undergraduate students of AAIT
B. List of Tables
Q11 9 12 1 6 40 1.6 1
3
Q12 6 15 1 5 40 1.55 2
4
Q13 8 11 1 7 40 1.5 1
4
Q14 5 11 1 8 40 1.325 1
6
93
Q15 4 7 1 10 40 1.125 1
9
Q16 5 6 2 6 40 1.25 1
3
Q17 5 9 1 9 40 1.25 1
7
Q18 3 7 1 17 40 0.9 0
3
Q19 5 7 2 8 40 1.225 1
0
Q20 5 14 1 8 40 1.4 2
3
Grand Total 1.1875
NE- (Not Experienced) - 0, L- (Low) - 1, M- (Medium) - 2, H - (High)-3

Q21 7 17 12 4 40 1.425 2
Q22 6 16 15 3 40 1.625 2
Q23 4 13 17 6 40 1.375 1
Q24 14 13 8 5 40 1.9 3
Q25 8 12 17 3 40 1.625 1
Q26 10 14 12 4 40 1.75 2
Q27 12 13 10 5 40 1.675 2
Grand total 1.6392
Table 4.4: The effect of government policy and regulation on Firms and Companies design and
NE (Not Experienced) – 0-L (Low) - 1, M (Medium) - 2, H (High)–3
Table 4.5: Effect of lack of technological and market information on Firms and Companies industry level
and enterprises specific technological innovation

Q28 5 11 17 7 40 1.35 1
Q29 6 12 17 5 40 1.475 1
Q30 9 17 9 5 40 1.75 2
Q31 6 11 19 4 40 1.475 1
Grand total 1.5125
NE (Not Experienced) - 0, L (Low) - 1, M (Medium) - 2, H (High) – 3
Table 4.6: Inadequate Research and Development effect on Firms and Companies industry, and Firms
and Companies specific technological innovation

Q32 11 10 16 3 40 1.725 1
Q33 9 13 11 7 40 1.6 2
Q34 7 14 14 5 40 1.575 1&2
Q35 8 11 16 5 40 1.55 1
Q36 7 9 16 8 40 1.375 1
Q37 10 11 16 3 40 1.7 1
Q38 6 14 14 6 40 1.5 1&2
Grand Total 1.575
NE (Not Experienced)-0, L (Low) - 1, M (Medium) - 2, H (High) – 3
Table 4.7: the effect of high cost of innovation on Firms and Companies design and construction
innovation
94

Q39 11 15 8 5 40 2.025 2
Q40 11 16 9 4 40 1.85 2
Q41 14 12 10 4 40 1.9 3
Q42 10 10 15 5 40 1.625 1
Q43 12 10 14 4 40 1.75 1
Q44 8 12 15 5 40 1.572 1
Q45 8 12 13 6 40 1.525 1
Q46 9 16 10 5 40 1.725 2
Grand total 1.7465
NE - (Not Experienced)-0, L - (Low)-1, M - (Medium)-2, H - (High)-3
Table 4.8: Organization culture effect on Firms and Companies design and construction innovation

Q47 7 14 9 10 40 1.45 2
Q48 6 9 15 10 40 1.275 1
Q49 7 10 14 9 40 1.375 1
Grand Total 1.367
NE - (Not Experienced)-0, L - (Low)-1, M - (Medium)-2, H-(High)–3
Table 4.9: Size of enterprise effect on Firms and Companies specific technological innovation.

Q50 7 15 9 9 40 1.5 2
Q51 9 15 11 5 40 1.7 2
Q52 11 10 12 7 40 1.625 1
Q53 14 11 9 6 40 1.825 3
GRAND 1.6625
NE- (Not Experienced)-0, L- (Low)-1, M- (Medium)-2, H- (High)-3
Table 4.10: The effect of lack of skilled personnel on Firms and Companies design and construction
innovation.

Q55 8 8 14 10 40 1.35
Q56 7 6 16 11 40 1.225
Q57 6 8 14 12 40 1.2
Q58 5 8 19 8 40 1.25
Q59 7 5 20 8 40 1.275
GRAND 1.26
NE- (Not Experienced)-0, L - (Low)-1, M - (Medium)- 2, H - (High)-3
Table 4.11: Lack of finance effect on Firms and Companies industry, and Small & Medium enterprises
specific technological innovation

Q60 5 14 16 5 40 1.475 1
Q61 7 14 10 9 40 1.475 2
Q62 5 14 11 10 40 1.35 2
Q63 7 10 13 10 40 1.35 1
Q64 7 12 9 12 40 1.35 2&0
GRAND 1.4
Table 4.12: Lack of cooperation effect on Firms and Companies industry, and Firms and Companies
specific technological innovation
95
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th TOT G.SUM MEAN MODE
rank rank rank rank rank rank rank rank rank
LF 5 8 6 5 3 2 2 6 3 40 175 4.375 2
GPR 7 6 4 2 6 5 4 3 3 40 178 4.45 1
LTM 5 4 8 6 3 7 3 2 2 40 173 4.325 3
IRD 6 6 7 3 10 3 3 1 2 40 166 4.15 5
HCI 4 6 6 9 5 5 1 2 2 40 166 4.15 4
SE 1 1 1 3 4 3 5 6 15 40 274 6.85 9
LSP 3 2 4 3 2 2 8 10 6 40 243 6.075 8
OC 3 1 1 3 5 3 10 8 8 40 269 6.725 7
LC 4 3 2 6 3 7 5 6 4 40 216 5.4 6
1st= major barrier 9th = least barrier
Table 4.13: Firms and Companies manager or owner ranked barriers for design and construction
innovation
96

Chapter One Introduction 1 1 Background

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter One Introduction 1 1 Background

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovative Structural Design and barriers to design and construction Innovation

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1. Background of the Study

In a rapidly changing world of engineering, the imperative for innovation is always

Based on Global Innovation Index (GII) ranking of countries by region, Sub-Saharan

However, if countries are not in a position to engage effectively in innovation activities,

Thus, this study focused on generating relevant information to understand limitations

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Engineering firms and construction companies in developing countries such as Ethiopia

Innovation is an area that has expanded dramatically in recent years. Particularly,

Therefore, this thesis research paper focuses on conducting an investigation to describe

1.3. Research Questions

 Did your firms and companies introduce design or construction innovation?

1.4. Objective of the Study

1.4.1. General objective

1.4.2. Specific objectives

1.5. Significance of the Study

1.6. Limitation of the Study

 Lack of up-to-date information about each sector of SMEs.

1.7. Scope of the Study

1.8. Organization of the Paper

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Overview of innovation in structural building design

2.1.2. History of structural engineering

2.1.3. Early structural engineering developments

Equal weights at equal distances are in equilibrium, and equal weights at

The ancient Romans made great innovative bounds in structural engineering,

2.1.4. Modern developments in structural engineering

In 1826 he also established the elastic modulus as a property of materials independent

Robert Maillart furthered the understanding of reinforced concrete behavior. Maillart

Prestressed concrete, pioneered by Eugène Freyssinet with a patent in 1928, gave a

2.2. Innovation in the construction industry

Innovation in construction is a subject being discussed during a considerable period of

The construction industry is being increasingly challenged to successfully innovate in

It is generally accepted that innovation is the implementation of significantly new

2.3. NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION

On the other hand, uniqueness was criticized as a hindrance for construction

Unfortunately, official statistics are limited in measuring innovation and existing

2.4. Modern day innovations for Urban Development

Innovative structural materials are expected to improve urban landscape of long-term

Innovative Requirements in building construction that need to be met

2.5. BARRIERS TO CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION

2.6. Relation between innovation and barrier to innovation

Extensive investigation is made on the literature studying the importance of external

2.6.3. Lack of skill personnel

2.6.4. Inadequate Research & Development

2.6.6.Government policy and regulation

Regarding government respect to public financial support, it has been shown to

It is becoming more and more difficult to maintain a competitive advantage through

2.6.8. Lack of technological and market information

The presence of information technologies in organizations has expanded significantly to

2.6.9. Organizational Culture

capacity to absorb innovation into the organizational culture and management

To stimulate innovative effort it is also important to include the following points:

 quantifiable goals based on organizational standards

The construction industry is also known for conservatism; professionals cling to an

Top executives in innovative organizations appear to assume responsibility actively for

2.7. Empirical Studies Related With Barriers to Innovation

Government policies and regulations, is a frequent source of barriers to innovation (Poll

2.8. FACILITIES TO ENHANCE CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION

One of the principal themes in the management of innovation is that, ‘innovativeness’ of

Information plays a key role in innovation as in many other situations. Lack of

• Assigning responsibility for managing innovation information to a specific

2.9. INNOVATION IMPLEMENTATION