Are All Problems Created Equal in Construction Technology?
The real challenge in construction technology isn’t just building tools, it’s knowing which problems are worth solving, and when.
This article is written by Hamzah Shanbari. He is a published author, TEDx speaker, and an accomplished professional in the construction industry. Hamzah holds a PhD from the University of Florida and has extensive experience in construction. Currently, he leads innovation efforts within Haskell, responsible for driving innovation and leading the development and implementation of new technology and processes.
The construction industry desperately needs to embrace digital transformation.
For decades productivity has stagnated and the era of paper, manual, messy and unstructured is finally on its way out.
However, not all sectors of the industry are innovating at the same speed. Project Management and Reality Capture are examples of mature technologies while Procurement and Supply Chain Management remains a nascent field full of opportunity.
The reason why is that not all problems hold equal value in the complex world of construction. The environment is uniquely challenging and on any given jobsite, there are countless moving parts, competing priorities and a small team of people trying to manage it all.
Imagine a ConTech solution promising to give a Superintendent two extra hours a week by digitizing the employee onboarding process. It sounds great in theory, but out in the field, that promise isn’t exactly at the top of the priority list.
This disconnect between what a product offers and what end users prioritize reveals a deeper truth, technology adoption in construction is rarely just about features or ROI. It’s about timing, trust, and the balance of push and pull.
Most technologies contain elements of both dynamics, and the balance between them shifts over time.
Pull occurs when the industry is already feeling a clear pain point and actively seeking solutions. Demand exists, and innovation is drawn toward it.
Push is when a new technology is introduced to the market before a widespread need has been expressed. Innovators are trying to find a use case that resonates.
In construction, where frontline needs are intense and resources are stretched, pull tends to drive faster adoption. But even push innovations, if developed thoughtfully, can succeed. The key is how quickly they evolve to meet real-world constraints and workflows.
Think of 3D printing which began as a push, full of promise but lacking urgency in the field. As capabilities improve and real use cases emerge, it could move closer to pull. But only if it responds to what the industry actually needs.
Why Timing and Market Fit Matter
Many workflows in construction could use optimization however they don’t all exhibit ‘Pull’ dynamics. These systems have ‘worked’ to some extent for decades. They’ve become second nature for Superintendents who have spent years optimizing their methods for existing workflows.
Convincing a Superintendent with over 20 years of experience to abandon a tried and true workflow in favor of an untested new technology can often backfire. It is not just a matter of being resistant to change, it’s about introducing the risk of disrupted processes which could affect project delivery.
For example, the average construction firm has a profit margin of 6%. A new, optimized process may result in a margin expansion by a fraction of a percentage. However if the technology fails and causes schedule delays, the resulting losses can far exceed any potential gain.
In a world with limited upside and significant downside, contractors minimize risk by using tested, peer-recommended solutions backed by real case studies.
While the margins differ across the industry, the challenge applies equally to owner’s representatives, project managers and trade partners.
When a ConTech startup hasn’t truly found its market fit and tries to force its way into these established workflows, the experience can be extremely frustrating. Once there is a negative assertion, that Superintendent and their team will become more entrenched in existing workflows and less likely to use a new solution regardless of how reputable or beneficial it may be.
The Growing Challenge of Technology Overload
This reluctance to adopt new technology is compounded by another problem, technology overload and fatigue.
A decade ago startups were nascent in the industry. Now construction teams are increasingly pitched to and burdened by a dizzying number of point solutions, highly specialized tools targeting a single task or workflow.
While each promises efficiency gains, the reality on the ground is more complicated. Juggling multiple systems leads to context switching, duplicated data entry, inconsistent reporting and fragmented communication.
We’ve seen it time and time again. More software doesn’t always mean more productivity.
There’s only so much training, onboarding and troubleshooting a team can absorb. The marginal return on each new tool is shrinking.
As a result there’s increasing interest in platform solutions, systems that unify multiple use cases into one software. Platforms offer stronger integration, simplified workflows and centralized data making them easier to manage across large teams and long project timelines. This desire is creating opportunities for the major established software providers to consolidate the market and offer comprehensive, integrated solutions.
But there’s a tension with these approaches:
Point solutions offer depth.
They go deep on one problem, often with tailored features that fit specific field needs.Platforms offer breadth.
They connect many use cases across departments, but may sacrifice depth or user experience in any one area.
Choosing between them isn’t just a technical decision, it’s strategic. Teams must weigh:
How critical is the problem being solved?
Can the solution plug into our existing workflows?
Do we need depth of function or breadth of integration?
For startups, this raises a new question, should you own a niche or become a system of record? Each path has tradeoffs in product development, sales strategy and long term defensibility.
Competing for Attention in a Crowded Market
If you’re a ConTech startup, navigating the landscape is anything but straightforward. You’re competing on four fronts simultaneously:
Prospective Clients
How do you clearly demonstrate value?Existing Clients
How do you improve your product while minimizing support needs?Competition
What are your rivals doing and is it working?Investors
How do you show momentum and maintain appeal for future funding or acquisition?
Each of these challenges is difficult on its own. Together, they create a web of competing pressures that can make focus nearly impossible.
To demonstrate growth and secure funding, ConTech startups often feel compelled or pressured to scale fast and close deals quickly. This can leave little time for thoughtful product market fit exploration.
Rather than focusing on their Ideal Customer Persona within their defined segment of the market (the Serviceable Obtainable Market, or SOM), they often cast a wide net, aiming for the Total Addressable Market (TAM) to meet revenue targets.
Their logic is simple, ‘if you cast a wider net, you’ll catch more fish.’ But not every fish is worth catching.
Some customers are too small to be sustainable. Other times, you’ll hook a whale that’s way too big for your boat. A large enterprise client that overwhelms your support team, drains your resources and threatens to sink the entire operation with their demands.
The race to scale quickly driven by investors can lead to a dangerous de-prioritization of the very users the technology is meant to serve.
Losing Sight of the Mission
Most ConTech startups begin with a genuine desire to solve a specific problem. It often starts with a spark of inspiration, a noble mission to revolutionize a cumbersome, outdated process in the industry.
But the reality from ideation to execution is gruelling.
Startups face constant pressure from all directions: customers, competitors, investors, and their own teams. After several funding rounds, multiple pivots, new features and churned (lost) customers, teams can lose sight of their initial problem statement.
The focus can shift from meaningful problem solving to meeting revenue projections and chasing higher valuations.
“Wait, what were we trying to solve again?’ the co-founder/CEO might ask the co-founder/CTO after a particularly stressful quarter.
The original mission can become overshadowed by the need to meet valuation expectations. It’s a cautionary tale I’ve seen again and again. If you lose sight of the problem you set out to solve, you risk creating solutions that may look great on paper but fail to deliver value where it matters most—to the field.
Final Thoughts: Navigating the Complex ConTech Landscape
The construction industry needs to be more digitized, not less.
But the path forward isn’t as simple as pushing out more technology. It requires thoughtful, well-communicated solutions which genuinely address the unique challenges of the field. Startups must resist the urge to scale indiscriminately and instead focus on creating lasting value even if that means growing at a slow pace.
Of the four competing fronts, your customers, existing and prospective, matter most. Because the future of ConTech isn’t just about building more software. It’s about solving real-world problems, staying mission-driven, and delivering value where it counts.
Let’s ensure that as we transform our industry, we’re not just adding noise but providing solutions which make our lives on the jobsite better and less stressful.
This article is written by Hamzah Shanbari. He is a published author, TEDx speaker, and an accomplished professional in the construction industry. Hamzah holds a PhD from the University of Florida and has extensive experience in construction. Currently, he leads innovation efforts within Haskell, responsible for driving innovation and leading the development and implementation of new technology and processes.