Mind the Gaps: Navigating the ConTech Divide
How to Bridge the Divide Between Construction Innovation and Real-World Adoption
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.
This post is part of a biweekly guest article series that explores the challenges and problem statements facing the industry, aiming to drive the adoption of new solutions in construction.
Each year 100s of new solutions come to market with the aim of revolutionising the construction industry. Despite the hard work and rigor of the founding team, so many fail to make a mark and working as an acquirer and adopter of technology at Haskell, there are several gaps which startups (and corporates) often overlook.
These gaps are both the result of the way the industry is structured and trends in the technology ecosystem. Understanding these are key to ensuring that your startups go-to-market strategy or your innovation team’s technology adoption and scaling program is effective.
We’re talking about five key gaps between:
The Office and the Field
Big platforms and Point solutions
General Contractors and Trade Partners
Early adopters and the Early majority
Technology expectations and Reality
Let’s unpack these gaps and explore why they matter so much.
The Office-to-Field Disconnect: An Overlooked Barrier
One of the most glaring gaps in ConTech implementation is the one between the office and field. Here’s how it typically unfolds.
A project manager or an “innovation champion” from the office identifies a new technology that seems promising. They’re sold on the solution and decide to implement it on a jobsite, often without input from the field who are actually using the solution.
Field teams end up with technology they never asked for with no opportunity to provide feedback or express their concerns. Worse still, the benefits of the technologies often flow back to the office—faster access to information, streamlined reporting, immediate visibility—while increasing the workload for the field.
If it doesn’t make life easier for the user (the field), it won’t get adopted.
Worse yet, if the benefit is for some manager in the office who never got their boots dirty, it only increases distrust.
This top-down approach leads to frustration and resistance. If field teams feel a technology adds more work rather than making their jobs simpler, adoption rates plummet.
The key lesson here is collaboration. Office and field teams need to work together to evaluate new tools and agree on their value. Without this mutual understanding, the implementation is doomed to fail.
The Proliferation of Point Solutions and the Need for Integration
When ConTech solutions first began to emerge they did so as point solutions. These are tools designed to address very specific problems such as tracking jobsite safety metrics or streamlining change orders. These workflows were painful enough that project teams were willing to pay for them and it’s led to incredibly effective solutions.
Yet as more and more point solutions hit the market, the big picture often gets lost. Users begin to become frustrated with switching between tools, juggling login details and unique workflows desiring an integrated experience.
It led to platform solutions such as Procore and Autodesk developing marketplace offerings to present themselves as all-in-one solutions. But even their comprehensive ecosystems aren’t immune to gaps. They can’t possibly provide a module for every niche use case, which leaves room for supplementary point solutions. While these add-ons claim to integrate seamlessly with larger platforms, the reality is often disappointing. Just because two tools can "talk" to each other doesn't mean they communicate meaningfully or add significant value.
As such, startups find they need to build adjacent capability to their core offering to provide a more holistic solution for their customers. These additions tend to be called ‘necessary evils,’ the features or additional modules customers require before they are willing to switch and use your solution.
An example of this is Fieldwire who started as a Task Management solution which used drawings as the unit of structure. They found that while they had strong adoption amongst clusters of users, their lack of document management capability (e.g no version control, markups or basic takeoff) prevented widespread adoption.
To overcome this and identify the ‘necessary evils’ they segmented their product roadmap into offensive and defensive features. These were:
Offensive
Features which continued to differentiate their own product.Defensive (or ‘necessary evils’)
Features which undercut the competition and were important for the initial adoption or greater penetration within a company.
A key lesson here is understanding the industry software baseline—your solution must meet this standard before users will adopt its ‘offensive’ features.
The GC-Trade Partner Divide: A Missed Opportunity for Collaboration
Another critical gap exists between general contractors (GCs) and their trade partners (a.k.a Subcontractors). In many projects, the GC takes the lead in adopting new ConTech solutions, sometimes with the owner’s blessing and sometimes without. But here’s the problem, the trade partners, the ones actually doing the work, are often left out of the conversation. Similar to the Office vs Field gap, this oversight undermines the effectiveness of technology and reduces the odds of successful implementation.
Instead, including trade partners in the decision making and implementation process could significantly improve outcomes. These teams bring valuable insights and are often better positioned to identify potential pitfalls or areas where the technology can provide real value.
Ignoring them is not only a missed opportunity for collaboration, but also a sure way to create frustration and inefficiency.
Surprisingly, the reverse also happens. There are instances where trade partners implement their own ConTech solutions without involving the GC. Both scenarios highlight a lack of communication and shared strategy. By working together and aligning on technology use, GCs and their trade partners could unlock new levels of productivity and efficiency, creating projects where data flows freely so everyone benefits.
The Early Adopters vs. Early Majority: Crossing the Chasm
Geoffrey Moore, in his seminal work on technology adoption, identified a critical gap he called "the chasm"—the challenging transition between early adopters, who are excited to try new technologies, and the early majority, who are more cautious and risk-averse. This chasm is particularly evident in the ConTech world.
Early adopters are essential for testing and refining new solutions, but true industry-wide transformation only happens when the early majority starts to adopt these technologies. Bridging this gap is critical and this challenge is described best by Nate Fuller:
These early customers [adopters] are not “normal”. They’re willing to look past flaws in a product because they love technology or they’re a company with a long-term strategic plan that your tech addresses. Importantly, they might be more interested in kicking the tires on a new technology rather than focusing on near-term business ROI.
Their motivations compared to mainstream buyers are totally different.
The early majority needs to see clear, proven value before they'll jump on board, and that requires the technology providers to gather real-world case studies, provide tangible results, and trustworthy endorsements.
Expectation vs. Reality: Setting the Record Straight
The gap between expectations and reality is another major hurdle. ConTech startups often overpromise in their marketing efforts, driven by the need to generate leads and close deals. Claims like “100% accurate data" or "save 20 hours a week" set sky-high expectations that are rarely met in practice.
This disconnect is often amplified by the traditional sales process. Sales teams, incentivized by quotas and commissions, may oversell capabilities or gloss over implementation challenges to close deals quickly. They paint pictures of seamless adoption and immediate ROI, only to hand off to implementation and customer success teams who must somehow bridge the gap between these lofty promises and what's actually achievable. These teams are then left with the unenviable task of managing client disappointment while trying to deliver value that may not align with the original sales pitch.
As a response the industry is moving towards running initial pilots or securing smaller sales. They want to validate the claims of the sales team as the industry operates as a ‘show me’ business.
When reality doesn’t match the hype, disappointment sets in. It is why setting realistic expectations is crucial. A more honest—admitting that the technology may deliver 90-95% of the desired results and require some manual oversight—can go a long way in building trust and ensuring more successful adoption.
Moving Toward a More Connected Future
The construction industry is making strides toward a digital future, but progress is slow and filled with missed opportunities. These gaps we’ve explored aren’t just abstract concepts, they’re real barriers impact productivity, profitability and people’s daily work lives. Bridging them requires more than just awareness; it demands intentional action and collaboration across a fragmented industry.
Success in closing these gaps starts with an honest conversation. Office teams need to get out to the field more often. Technology providers need to be more transparent about their capabilities and limitations. GCs and trade partners need to break down traditional barriers and create true partnerships. Most importantly, everyone needs to remember that technology is meant to serve the people using it, not the other way around.
Looking ahead, the companies that will thrive are those that tackle these gaps head-on. This means:
Creating feedback loops between field and office teams during technology evaluation
Demanding better integration between platforms and point solutions before adoption
Building stronger partnerships between GCs and trade partners around technology implementation
Supporting early adopters while creating clear paths for the early majority to follow
Setting and maintaining realistic expectations throughout the entire technology lifecycle
The road to digital transformation in construction isn't about adopting every new technology that comes along. It's about thoughtfully selecting and implementing solutions that address real needs, bridge existing gaps, and create genuine value for everyone involved. While this may mean slower initial progress, it will ultimately lead to more sustainable and meaningful change for the industry as a whole.
Recapping the Gaps: A Call to Action
Office - Field: Collaboration is essential. Office and field teams need to work together to choose and implement technologies that genuinely benefit everyone involved.
Big Platforms - Point Solutions: The lack of meaningful integration between point solutions and big platforms creates inefficiency. The industry needs a more cohesive, well-integrated digital environment.
GC - Trade Partner: This is a goldmine of opportunity. GCs and trade partners need to align on ConTech use, creating a more collaborative and data-driven work environment.
Early Adopters - Early Majority: The early majority holds the key to industry-wide change. We need to close this gap by demonstrating proven value and making new technologies more approachable.
Expectation - Reality: Misaligned expectations are a major barrier. ConTech companies must market their products more honestly, focusing on long-term benefits and realistic outcomes.
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. In his role at Haskell, Hamzah is responsible for driving innovation and leading the development and implementation of new technology and processes. His innovative mindset and technical expertise have made him a thought leader in the industry, and he regularly speaks at conferences and events on the topic of technology in construction.