Civil Engineering says to Productisation: It's Not Me, It's You!

When looking at other sectors such as software, technology and manufacturing, the concept of developing a service, technology or idea into a product in its own right, and selling it in this way is now paramount to how those industries function. This same concept has begun to make its way into Civil Engineering, but not at the speed or scale of those professions - is this because it just isn't a good fit or are there other factors in why this isn't the case?

*Please note I reference mainly Transport projects in this article.

Why it makes sense for Productisation to work in Transport Projects?

Not everything is unique... is it?

The world consistently needs a significant number of design solutions in constructing their Transport projects, and even if we had the infinite monkey theorem in play, we would eventually recreate the same design and construction. This clearly isn't the case, and our industry is filled with super bright minds coming up with fantastic solutions all over the place and I would hazard a guess that many engineers have come up with the same or very slightly different solutions time and time again. Coupled with this, how many times has 'What did we do on that previous project? Oh I know who knows…' type phrases, show how we naturally productise and standardise in and between our minds but it’s just not documented and systemised. Productisation in Transport need only be a written and defined version of this, powered by simple digital solutions.

This being said, not everything can be standardised to this degree so that it adds value – in some cases it detracts. For example, the more complex of our solutions are likely to be designed once and never revisited again - i.e. they have high variability but limited quantity. An example of this would be a major crossing such as the Queensferry Crossing or the New Storstrom Bridge. (A great excuse to plug the great work in Ramboll). I like to visualise this decision in the following chart, with a couple of items plotted on there:

What this doesn’t include for me is lots of items, especially in Transport projects, that are significant in quantity and don't have a high variability that digital solutions can't help us with just yet. Things like retaining walls, pipes, standard steel structures and simple bridges should all be in our reach.

Clearly, even after standardisation, each location and method of construction will have an affect on the final output. Therefore the standardisation should allow for re-design and re-accommodation of local design conditions.

As an industry we don't like risk... but everything is designed again and again?

As an industry we are currently looking to manage and share out risk wherever possible and this is typically managed through the contract process. Inherently standardisation and productisation give the assurance needed to outweigh / overcome a lot of that risk and change. This begs the question why this hasn't been challenged by end clients and contractors before - why is there so much change in the design process that we as consultants haven't tackled before? It's a fair question, but the answer to this lies in the way we work and the term we used to define ourselves - consultancies. We are a collection of people with the combined knowledge to solve the problem, but that knowledge isn't defined, learnt from and progressed in the same way other industries do. It's a matter of perspective, and seeing what we design in this way - not as individual projects, but as part of a larger portfolio and as intellectual property (IP) we own. This needs to start from a change in mindset of the companies themselves – creating value out of a combination of knowledge and IP – storing and managing this IP in a more structured way. (This may not just benefit productisation, but other areas of the current businesses too).

Making the most effective sustainable design decision

The construction of Transportation projects contributes to a significant portion of global carbon emissions, which itself is then very small compared to the lifetime carbon created on its' use. This coupled with the need to manage the resources we have as part of the circular economy we hope to build means there is going to be an increasing amount of scrutiny on ensuring we are as an industry providing the best value.

By having a catalogue of products in our industry we will have a benchmark or comparison of different design options and their affect on value-based outcomes on a project. When these catalogues are combined with solutions such as Continuum Industries' Optioneer tool, which can evaluate the overall carbon outcomes of the project, possibilities for the end clients to see and evaluate outcomes will be far superior to what we have today.

We don't have the workforce, both in labour and design.

We are constantly reminded as an industry we don't have enough people to deliver on x or y large project and there are always recruitment drives targeting at the next generation. This combined with an increasing number of remote working options available is resulting in many employees challenging their employers on where they work. Typically on construction projects, contractors will relocate to support construction projects - however when you combine productisation with the ability to pre-construct your elements in factories local to the workforce, this creates a new opportunity for those workers. Laing O'Rourke have done exactly this with their Explore Manufacturing facility. This can then enable a greater and more diverse workforce, with those with families and requirement to stay local could now have a new point of entry to our industry.

What is preventing productisation making ground?

Margins, margins, margins... and bums on seats.

There are lots of big players making small margins on large number of people that they employ - and those small margins on lots of people equate to quite a lot, and this keeps their shareholders happy (something I very proud to say we don’t have at Ramboll). I frequently call this the 'bums on seats' approach which I'm sure I've nabbed from others discussing the same.

Moving to selling in a productised or standardised way could end up stimulating a race to the bottom in the market, where those with those large number of employees working on small margins are likely to lose out the most. This is why this kind of thinking isn't appealing to the larger companies and is therefore typically avoided in conversation - however all it may need is that one domino for the others to fall. I would expect this to come from a small to medium size company with much more to gain than to lose.

Public body driven procurement processes mean we have to evaluate ideas fairly and work through a given process that doesn't support productisation

The real benefits of standardisation come when you can apply it on as large a scale as possible. Most typically this is done on large projects, but due to typical procurement processes we miss out on applying this client-wide – which could then achieve maximum value. This is where it would give most value, as a client then has a range of standard solutions that they can ask for a designer to validate.

It is great to see some public bodies work with this - Trafikverket in Sweden for example is actively working on standardisation of bridges. Further information can be found in a report created by them. I also recall a standard MS4 gantry being created by National Highways to support the Smart Motorways Programme and then Alliance. This shows how it’s possible to build standardisation client wide into the design process.

If we standardise, everything looks the same.

Yes, to a degree the more you standardise the more things look similar - but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad thing, nor is it a given. Especially in Transport projects I don't think I've even driven along a motorway with 3/4 similar bridges and found myself frustrated that one of them wasn't an architectural masterpiece – typically on projects they look similar anyway due to the standardisation that we as engineers gravitate to when working on projects. Also, some of the standardised projects are now bringing in architectural design into the process.

National Highways ran a competition with RIBA in 2023 for looking at how to standardise the motorway gantry network and there were very aesthetically pleasing outcomes from it. Network Rail have also had efforts in this space too including an architectural 'FLOW' footbridge designed with Knight Architects. Network Rail have also been the most successful public body I have seen with standardisation of designed elements such as their standard design rail and footbridges.

Network Rail Station Footbridge and Subways

Network Rail FRAME Footbridge brochure

A discussion I’ve always had on this topic, has been how can the approach apply to other disciplines but the repetition and client requirements is where the Buildings and Transport sectors differ. Most Buildings do aspire to have more of a uniqueness and I think clients are more likely to push the designers to achieve this, whereas there isn’t a similar pressure on most civil structure designs. Yes, some Buildings solutions could be productised, and Buildings is clearly leading the way with modular and offsite, but I don't think to the same degree as Transport projects.

Risk of Losing IP

As the profession has moved to digitalisation to create efficiencies and improve our collective output, contracts have evolved to accommodate this as end clients feel they are missing out. A growing number of contracts are becoming quite firm on the acquisition of both foreground and background IP rights as part of the contract, and I've even seen some go as far as wanting any digital solutions used to produce the deliverables be handed over to the ultimate client 'bug free'. This completely stifles any innovation efforts such as standardised designs and especially the technology that supports it, but it also represents a mis-understanding of value and also the digital space. (I’m not sure an Amazon or a Google would ever provide a solution bug free…)

Side note - it's great to see the DfT coming up with a guidance note to discourage this type of thinking, but as we are seeing, it will take a while to flow through to our contracts.

When we reach 100% standardisation important knowledge transfer will be lost between generations

One of the retorts I have heard frequently with regard to digitalisation as a whole is what happens to the knowledge transfer between people on how to design x,y,z when the process has been fully automated - and standardisation of design is no different.

For me, this is a fear of change rather than something that will manifest as a result of over-standardisation. Noting the technological improvements of the past 4 decades with the increase of use of computational power to solve our design problems this would and should have posed the same kind of challenge. However, the principles of professional design has continued through the industry and all the technology has added in the widest sense is greater productivity and accuracy within the design process. It’s now assumed we as an industry need these advanced analytical and geometrical software solutions and is a given in the workplace – and I see no reason why this wouldn’t and couldn’t be the same with productisation. I'm buoyed that other engineering industries such as aviation and automotive sectors have already done this and I imagine we will have many things to learn from them as we venture more and more into this space.

The legal aspects and fear of propagation of design errors

Currently as consultancies, the insurances we have to sign off the design of structures is typically limited to that. So when we are creating and developing things in the long run and turning designs into 'products' there will need to be a reconsideration of what insurances we need to have. This is especially a concern as if this mindset is adopted a design error 'could' propagate through many different projects and the risk of a design error is then magnified.

Those consultancies that have gone on to create products have more likely than not created separate entities to manage this risk - this is especially highlighted when just moving to digital products like software to be used by other consultancies.

Is there anything that could be done to further stimulate a product-based mindset in Civil Engineering?

Partnerships between Contractors and Consultants

One thing I think is constantly under-rated is the value of collaboration between contractors and consultants, especially when it comes to standardisation. Yes, there are contractual forms that encourage partnerships and interwoven teams but the biggest value out of these relationships are when they are longer lasting and can directly contribute to how the output of design is constructed. This can be tailored to each individual contractor based on their methods of working, and therefore the contractor can gain even greater efficiencies through partnerships like this. We've been very fortunate to be working really closely with Laing O'Rourke specifically for the DfMA Modular bridges, and have seen the benefit of this first hand. I really hope there are more opportunities like this in the future.

Embracing Open Source and Making Design Codes Digital

We need to let the industry find its way to this productisation, and things that will truly enable this are fostering a community approach between companies, embracing open source and sharing the base of our work such as the design codes we are working with. This for me is on the standards companies and technical approvals bodies to stimulate, and we are starting to see this come through such as the digitisation of the DMRB through National Highways.

The value in what we do should be in how we interpret these codes through people and digital solutions to achieve the best and most valued outcome possible, rather than in being able to systematically reading through and interpreting requirements.

Modular and Offsite Construction (DfMA and MMC)

As referenced a few times during this article, the use of DfMA (Design for Manufacture and Assembly) or MMC (Modern Methods of Construction) really has the potential to bring productisation to the fore. It's a really tangible way of showing how productisation can affect the whole process from design all the way through to construction. This seems to be getting a lot more traction in the buildings space, but surely Transport projects with their repeatability and limited variation in part should have the same benefit just magnified?

Value Based Pricing needs to be accepted and empowered

As an industry we need to accept more that value-based pricing exists. Some companies have taken the risk to generate their IP at their cost, they should be rewarded for it and not scrutinised and lose out as a result. For example we wouldn't buy a car and expect it to be the exact cost of making that car - it's obvious the automotive industry builds in this cost into the cost they hand to the customer - why is Civil Engineering any different? Instead when bidding for projects the focus is on blending rates per hour, ensuring enough contingency and then being super attentive to the scope being delivered, when we should be more transparent and forceful on the value each of our companies is making to the successful delivery of that project - and that can and should be already created value, as well as value created with the client on the project. The latter is a really effective way of starting a productised approach and creating relationships with contractors directly.

Trust in those who dare to try…

Our industry is filled with bright minds trying to get digital traction in our industry but I now know of many different colleagues who have left our industry and either joined software companies, or created startups. I don’t think as an industry we do well enough to create a home for these type of colleagues and also create a career path for them. For me from experience it takes a senior role / department head to see the value of these roles, and give them the time and space to develop, learn and grow – it’s from this trust and empowerment that the real seeds of innovation start especially the larger companies. We also have to acknowledge as an industry we don’t like to fail. In my university days (feels far too long ago), doing our structural design classes I distinctly remember interpreting one factor wrong – when discussing the outcome the lecturer said ‘Bridge fails… everyone dies’ which is quite poignant. I think this adversity to failure and subsequently learning percolates through our entire profession, leading to little experimentation (limited to only those who dare, and those who enable the daring nature). I believe this is caused due to the nature of our projects being hours and people based rather than value also, as discipline leads and management on project are fully focussed on delivery and not the value created overall.

So where does this lead us?

Productisation is both there and not in our industry, some would say it’s Schrodinger’s productisation. It's in the way we think about design, but we both don't build on that knowledge through digitalisation nor do we as a company look to build upon that super valuable intellectual property and sell it in an appropriate way.

But we are already seeing some efforts and early steps take place in this space, KOPE.AI having recently gained some seed funding to further develop their modular/offsite marketplace for Building projects. It is a fantastic concept, and I'll definitely be watching closely.

If I was a betting person, which I'm definitely not, it is only a matter of time before someone commoditises a significant portion of design to such an extent that it is seen as a catalogue of products, and the consultancies we see today selling traditional time on a project will have to compete with a value-based price of something that only needs minor tweaks and changes to be suited for the client - and those that own the marketplaces and comparison tools will win the most, just like Amazon, Ebay and Uber did. Engineering consultancies will still exist but will be powered by a library of standard solutions to bring to projects, and the real value in consultancy will be on the bespoke and individual (at least until AI really takes over and does it all for us and we sit on a beach for the rest of time…).