A recent article in Quirk’s rightly warned of a troubling trend: the potential for unscrupulous researchers to exploit artificial intelligence to fabricate study participants or even entire datasets. These concerns are valid — and they point to a deeper issue that long predates AI: the misuse of tools in the pursuit of outcomes that ignore integrity.

As someone who uses AI regularly in structured, transparent ways to enhance research and analysis, I believe it’s time to expand the conversation. AI isn’t the threat. It’s a tool — and like all tools, it reflects the intent of its user. What we need is not less AI, but better frameworks for using it ethically.

What AI Won’t Do for You

To clarify what AI is — and isn’t — let’s be specific. Here are examples of what models like ChatGPT will not do:

• Impersonate individuals or organizations
• Generate medical, legal, or financial claims without disclaimers
• Create false credentials, certifications, or survey data
• Provide or simulate identifiable personal data
• Evade platform content policies when prompted for unethical output

These are not theoretical guardrails. They are enforced in real time, with refusal messages that appear whenever a user attempts to cross ethical boundaries. In many cases, the AI goes a step further—explaining why the request is inappropriate.

Which brings us to the central issue: responsibility. Tools don’t have intent. Users do.

A Tale of Two Collaborations

In the past six months, I’ve led two complex research projects using AI in a collaborative, structured way. One involved a detailed question-by-question audit of research findings already produced, and the same survey being repeated this year with a defined audience. The other, a technical analysis of a specific type of specification used by an industry association. In both cases, AI augmented the human process: organizing inputs, surfacing patterns, testing hypotheses, cross-referencing regulatory documents. It was not the sole source of truth. It was a lens—one of many—through which to view the problem.

The result? Better speed, sharper insight, and yes—greater integrity. Not despite AI, but because of it.

It is simply false to suggest that using AI necessarily introduces unreliability. In fact, in a world where human bias, oversight, and fatigue remain persistent threats to data quality, AI may be our best defense.

What Is Claude?

The article references “Claude,” an LLM developed by Anthropic, as one of the tools potentially susceptible to misuse. Claude, like ChatGPT, Gemini, and LLaMA, is a large language model—a tool trained to predict and generate text based on user prompts. It doesn’t conduct research. It doesn’t verify findings. And it doesn’t invent credibility.

No AI model can.

Fabrication Is Not a Feature of AI — It’s a Human Failing

Let’s be honest: fake participants are not an invention of artificial intelligence. Fabrication in research has existed as long as research itself. From made-up survey responses to selectively omitted data points, the temptation to “massage the numbers” is a temptation rooted in human behavior—not in algorithms.

Researchers are people. And people can lie. Have we forgotten that simple logic?

In fact, many high-profile cases of research fraud over the years occurred without the use of any AI at all.¹ The tools involved? Word processors, Excel sheets, and, most often, a desire to serve a particular narrative at the expense of truth.

AI hasn’t introduced fabrication. If anything, it has spotlighted it—by raising questions about verification, auditability, and ethics that some corners of the research world have long ignored.

Misplaced Fears, Missed Opportunities

There’s an old expression in software: garbage in, garbage out. AI has not changed this principle. It has only raised the stakes. But the risk of misuse is not unique to AI. It applies to Excel. To PowerPoint. To market research firms with lax methodology. If a user wants to manipulate, the tool doesn’t matter. What matters is the culture, training, and ethics surrounding the tool.

What worries me more than fake participants is the very real possibility that fear of AI will prevent good researchers from using one of the most promising advancements in analytical thinking in a generation.

Where We Go from Here

Yes, let’s have a conversation about research integrity. But let’s ground that conversation in experience, not speculation. Let’s talk about disclosure, audit trails, and validation techniques—with or without AI. Let’s build stronger processes, not blame sharper tools.

In a phone research project a couple of years ago with an industrial designer, the conversation led to a discussion that brought out the fact that he owned a Tesla. Forgetting for a moment the disruption going on around Tesla today, during that interview, I asked the designer if he had to pick my client’s product or the Tesla, which would he chose? Without hesitating, he said my client’s product: a bidet. When we reported back to the client, the news spread like wildfire through the company. People didn’t believe it. Fortunately, we had the recording.

Today, that recording could be “faked.” Today, that interview can be invented. But what good would that do to the outcome of the client’s objectives? What good would faking results do as we pursue truth, which is the ultimate determining factor is achieving our strategic objectives?

In Call Sign Chaos, Jim Mattis wrote: “Digital technologies can falsely encourage remote staffs to believe they possess a God’s-eye view of combat. Digital technologies do not dissipate confusion; the fog of war can actually thicken when misinformation is instantly amplified.”

AI has the promise of making the fog so thick, we lose sight of ourselves as well.

AI isn’t the problem. Misuse is. And the best way to combat misuse is not to avoid the tool, but to learn how to use it wisely.

The real wake-up call? It isn’t about artificial intelligence. It’s about what we, as researchers and marketers, are willing to claim as knowledge—and how we ensure it earns that name.

There’s nothing new under the sun—not even the temptation to misuse a tool. The real test isn’t whether AI can be trusted. It’s whether we can trust ourselves.

Let us know what you think.

By Jim Nowakowski, President
Interline Creative Group, Inc. and Accountability Information Management, Inc.

_______________________________________________

¹ Historical Examples of Fabricated Studies include:

• Andrew Wakefield and the MMR Vaccine Scandal (1998) — One of the most infamous cases of research fraud in modern history. Wakefield published a study in The Lancet claiming a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The study used falsified data, lacked ethical oversight, and was later retracted. No AI was involved.
• Diederik Stapel, Social Psychology Fraud (2011) — A Dutch social psychologist who fabricated data for at least 30 published papers. His research on human behavior and social dynamics — widely cited at the time — turned out to be largely invented. Again, no AI. Just spreadsheets, academic ambition, and a stunning lack of oversight.
• Hwang Woo-suk, Cloning Research (2005) — A South Korean researcher claimed to have cloned human embryos and extracted stem cells. His work made headlines globally, until investigations revealed he had fabricated significant parts of the data. The scientific community was rocked by the realization that such deception could pass peer review.

The post Why AI Is Not the Threat to Research Integrity — But Misuse Is appeared first on Accountability Information Management.

James V. Vitale, AIA, LEED AP, CASp, ACTCP

Even after over two thousand years, words of old still effect our mis-perceptions of disabled individuals. Old Testament references to the blind, lame, deaf, crippled, sick and diseased would have us believe that these afflictions were the results of demonic possessions or curses. From this distorted view, came individuals preying on this ignorance by claiming to possess the ability to “heal” these manifestations. Individuals like Merlin, Rasputin and Nostradamus come to mind. Some, using herbal remedies, could actually do so. Others, claiming the ability to call upon Divine intervention, likewise attempted to do the same; even up to present times.

With the advent of modern medicine during the latter half of the twentieth century, we have begun to identify the origins of many of these historic mis-perceptions.

Institutions for those misperceived to be possessed, warehoused these individuals under abominable conditions all over the world.

Many of the founding states of our Union created the first American institutions for the often primitive treatments for deafness, children with weak minds, cripples and blindness. Society then and up until the Regan years warehoused many of those allegedly perceived as imbeciles, hopeless cases or physically distracting.

Were it not for wars to render hundreds of thousands of veterans and civilians, crippled or in firmed, the rights of the disabled might continue to be ignored or minimized. Had not the son of a prominent Republican been a victim of Polio, and a similarly impacted son of an electrician who was denied a union apprenticeship due to the ignorant perception that he was a cripple; he had a withered arm, become a civil rights attorney; we might never have seen a champion for disabled rights step forward.

1861 was marked by the founding in Faribault, Minnesota of the Feeble Minded and Epileptic Colony for “children of weak minds” that being those perceived as imbeciles, natures mistakes.

In 1945 the Colonies name was changed to State Hospital for the Mentally Retarded.

The names, descriptions and perceptions of various disabilities have changed over the ages. Yesterdays retarded individuals have been found to be, hyperactive and dyslexic. Others the victims of institutions to which they were committed as hopelessly in incorrigible.

Colonies, asylums and institutions have been replaced by foster and group homes, and independent living centers (ILC’s).

Consider that early in the twentieth century, supposedly educated individuals suggested that the best remedy for defective individuals was eradication by elimination or legalized sterilization. At one point twenty-five states had legalized euthanasia, a policy later adopted by Nazi Germany.

The end of World War II left many American veterans with disabilities requiring specialized care; this and the outbreak of Polio brought further visibility to the plight of the disabled. Until the advent of television disabilities were not as visible to the general public. 1947 saw the first telethon seeking to raise funds and awareness of MSD. Since 1966, Jerry Lewis has raised over a billion dollars for research with his annual telethon.

Returning veterans with disabilities sought education under the GI Bill but colleges and universities were unprepared with programs and dormitories to house them. Early efforts to accommodate them were lead at the University of Illinois by Ted Nugent. A similar effort, concurrent with the early days of the civil rights movement in the sixties was led by Ed Roberts at UC Berkeley.

It became apparent that without physical modifications to buildings and sites, programs for the disabled could not be readily accommodated. In 1961 the American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, together with a group of concerned organizations, created 117.1-1961, the first attempt at a national standard for the inclusion of access into building design. As there was no national building code at the time, it met with limited success. A major rewrite underwritten by HUD and chaired by Robert F. Lynch, FAIA, a polio surveyor, followed in 1980. It remains the adopted standard though it has been revised as recently as 2017 but not yet adopted by DOJ.

President Ronald Regan founded the “National Council for the Handicapped” in 1984, chaired by Justin Dart, son of a prominent Republican fund raiser who was a polio surveyor. Dart and another polio surveyor, attorney Robert L. Burgdorf, Jr., who was denied an apprenticeship by the electrical union as he was perceived to be disabled due to a withered arm; drafted the early language for the Americans with Disabilities’ Act.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law in 1990. Since that time progress has been made but the built environment continues to remain only partly accessible. Try as we may, it appears that a resistance to comply remains. This may be  because the ADA is civil rights law with a set of guidelines (the ADAAG, based on ASTM A117.1 – 1980) for its implementation by local agencies. Implementation requires states to draft building codes reflecting their understanding of the guidelines. ADA Guidelines are just that, non-specific minimum recommendations, in this case however, they have the force of federal law behind them.

As of 2000, the three national code agencies: UBC, SBC & BOCA have merged into one agency, the ICC and drafted a national model code, the International building Code (IBC). Revised every three years and now in its sixth edition; it incorporates in Chapter 11 model language with regards to the ADA. Acceptance of the IBC, if used without amendments is pending DOJ approval. Similar DOJ approval is available to each state, subject to the submission of their codes for review.

Application of the code and law to individual projects is the responsibility of owners, architects, building and government officials. It is here, due to conflicting interpretations, that issues remain; what does and does not constitute compliance is a cause of constant disagreement.

Claims of ADA non-compliance can only be made by disabled individuals to the DOJ or in California to the civil courts per the Unrhu Civil Rights Act of 1959. California was an early leader in the development of statewide code provisions for access, preceded by Massachusetts in 1967 and North Carolina in 1973. Responsibility for its administration is with the State Architect. Code issues related to access compliance for alterations and  new construction remain an ongoing source of discussion. The DOJ released the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design (ADASAD) as a revision to the initial ADAAG Standards in an attempt to bring further clarity to its guidelines.

Advocates for disability rights, though not nationally organized, continue to file a number of lawsuits each year in Federal and State courts. They are sufficient in number to create backlogs in some courts, to the degree that thirty years after the passing of the ADA, legislatures continue to be faced with bills seeking prior notice of intent to file a claim against a building owner. These run contrary to the intent of the ADA for building owners to voluntarily remove barriers to accessibility.

While much barrier removal in pre-ADA structures remains to be accomplished, the ADA has resulted in significant improvements in access to our built environment for those with various levels of disabilities.

The post An ADA Perspective After 30 Years appeared first on Accountability Information Management.

Marketing research is the primary tool for both bridging the communication gap with customers and enabling managers to stay in touch with their markets. It involves the specification, gathering, analyzing, and interpretation of information to help management understand the environment, identify problems and opportunities, and develop and evaluate alternative courses of marketing action. The information generated in a market research study is dependent upon the technique employed; and, the technique employed is dependent upon management’s information objectives, derived from the problem definition, as well as the nature of the market.

It is frequently possible and often preferable to obtain market information through specifically focused qualitative research methods as opposed to the more costly and time-consuming quantitative survey methods that dominate marketing research practice. In technical and industrial marketing research, often aimed at hard-to-reach “subject matter experts” and professionals, surveys based on random samples can produce non-representative information because high demand concentration spells a high degree of information concentration among a very limited number of sources. It is not uncommon to find that less than one percent of the ‘knowledgeable’ persons associated with an industry possess virtually all of the relevant information about the market. This concentration of relevant information requires that careful attention be given to the sample selection process, using purposive judgment samples rather than random sampling methods[1]. One interview with a knowledgeable person can have greater information value than one hundred inter-views with uninformed respondents. A more logical and workable approach is to select a truly representative judgment sample of knowledgeable persons upon which results can be pooled to make valid decisions.

Delphi Investigative Paradigm

The Delphi method is a systematic, interactive research methodology based on structural surveys and makes use of information from the experience and knowledge of the participants, who are mainly “subject matter experts” (SMEs). It therefore yields both qualitative and quantitative results and draws on exploratory, predictive, even normative elements. The Delphi method was developed over a period of years by the Rand Corporation at the beginning of the cold war to forecast the impact of technology on warfare[2]. Since its development in the 1950s and 60s, this procedure has become a popular tool in long-term sales forecasting, technological forecasting, business strategy analysis, and new business development. The Delphi research paradigm is one of the most important exploratory techniques for investigating future manifestations in finite technical and industrial universes. For example, the iterative aspect of the method, as well as the in-depth normative nature of the investigative paradigm, lends itself to a wide range of new product development situations[3]. In instances where the market for a new product is not well-defined and/or the product concept is emerging, the technology is still fluid, and history seems inappropriate for forecasting future events, the Delphi technique can produce reliable and valid market intelligence.

The Delphi investigative paradigm can be accomplished by implementing a two-stage research program. The first stage is exploratory in nature and begins with a thorough review of the organization’s tech-nology goals and objectives, as well as an extensive review of secondary information relating to those goals and objectives. Stage II-Delphi represents an in-depth research effort with a broader, more representative panel of knowledgeable persons from target market businesses[4].

Stage I-Exploratory

With an emphasis on the boundaries that are used to define or limit the market in question, a preliminary view of the current situation is the key objective of the Stage I exploratory effort. The basic definition of a business, resource allocation decisions, identification and assessment of specific opportunities, and competitor threats are only a few of the areas which are strongly influenced by the way a market is structured. The Stage I-Exploratory effort can best be characterized as a preliminary market assessment that is used to focus the Stage II-Delphi research effort.

Exhibit A summarizes the Stage I approach and presents several objectives as well as two basic methodologies and four different information sources that are often employed in developing a preliminary view of the current situation. There are two interrelated efforts associated with the Stage I effort: (1) secondary research and (2) “expert” interviews. It is difficult to separate the two efforts since they overlap and are often performed in parallel to enhance investigative efficiencies. Virtually every question can be illuminated, at least in part, by secondary sources of information.

Secondary data can be internal or external to the organization and may exist in published or unpublished form. Secondary data are often supplemented with a number of expert interviews with key trade personalities. Expert interviews are often required to (1) identify key information sources, (2) close loose ends, and (3) obtain informed subjective evaluations. Frequently, the experts who are contacted during the Stage I exploratory effort are re-contacted several times during the course of the study to follow up on a particular topic or to test preliminary hypotheses Stage II-Delphi – Stage II utilizes the Delphi methodology to achieve a convergence of subject matter expert (SME) opinion, and the “key informant technique” to identify knowledgeable persons. The two keys to the successful use of SMEs are (1) identifying who they are, and (2) achieving a convergence of expert opinion. The Delphi method relies on repeated measurement and controlled feedback to obtain the consensus opinion of a group of SMEs[5] The selection of the panel of SMEs is critical to the success of the study. The pool of “experts” is often identified via the “key informant technique”[6] and recruited during the process of collecting relevant secondary data from trade publications and associations. The “key informant technique” represents a form of networking knowledgeable persons in an industry, thereby identifying which persons are considered most knowledgeable; these are the persons who are recruited as SMEs. Generally, 30-50 experts is an acceptable range. Less than 30 experts limits the analysis and may not provide confidence in the derived consensus. Interviews with more than 50 experts make administration of the Delphi method overly complex.

Exhibit B presents a six-step approach for implementing a Delphi investigation. Steps 1 and 2 describe the participant selection process. This process allows for the exclusion of marginal (less knowledgeable contributors) populations which, if sampled, provide less informative data. This two-step approach involves the initial contacting and screening of knowledgeable persons and the performing of in-depth telephone interviews with the recruited participants identified in Step 1. Based on previous experience, initial in-depth interviews are typically 45 minutes to one hour in length, depending on whether the participant is providing critical baseline information or supportive data. The convergence process, Steps 3 and 4, utilizes the Delphi method. With this approach, opinions of experts are converted into an informed consensus through a structured multi-step recruiting and polling process. The initial evaluation process, depicted in Step 3, includes the analysis of information needed to provide preliminary evaluations. This information is analyzed with respect to the participant’s area of expertise as well as how this might bias certain estimates, the completeness of the information obtained, and the exogenous and endogenous variables affecting this information. Participant evaluations that deviate from the general consensus are analyzed, and substantiated reasons for variance are cited. When unsubstantiated evaluations are identified, participants are recontacted to clarify their assessments. These participants are provided additional information obtained from other contributors and given the opportunity to revise their assessments. One of the most important benefits derived from this approach is that results are improved by having a trained moderator work with participants during the interviewing process using one or more methods to explore the basis of participant information, evaluations and assessments.

In addition to the original in-depth Delphi interviews, recontact and supplemental interviews are usually performed. Recontact interviews are usually performed to achieve a convergence of opinion on critical issues or to obtain additional information. Supple-mental interviews are usually required when multiple sources exist and these particular experts are crucial to the convergence process. Past experience indicates that supplemental and recontact interviews provide a level of validity that must be achieved in small sample Delphi studies. The analysis, depicted in Step 5, represents an integration and interpretation of in-depth qualitative information[7]. All expert interviews are taped and transcribed for this analysis. The in-depth qualitative analysis can best be described as a psychological content analysis. Following the in-depth content analysis, findings from this analysis and the Stage I-Exploratory secondary research are integrated to produce the final report and/or presentation.

Delphi Application – An Example: “Books in the 21st Century”

Breakthroughs in digital technologies have impacted printing and publishing processes and altered the roles and relationships of major industry players. Additionally, emerging electronic technologies have created new media for delivering intellectual information that has the potential to complement or compete with traditionally printed books. The overall purpose of this study was to provide printers and publishers in America with insight into forces influencing future book demand, book publishing and printing processes, and relationships between major players in eleven different book industry segments. This assignment was intended to explore and define how book publishing and printing is likely to evolve. The effort included forecasting the growth of key technologies and assessing the impact on demand for printed books.

As illustrated in Exhibit C, this Delphi investigation was conducted through a programmatic research effort. Stage I consisted of an exploratory investigation incorporating secondary information and in-depth interviews with industry experts. The general objective developed for Stage I was to investigate future book publishing trends from the perspective of major industry “experts” and to provide a historical timeline documenting major technological and societal milestones which have impacted the book publishing industry. We were interested in understanding what had happened to the market for books and, based on that understanding, developing an informed judgment as to what could happen in the years ahead.

In addition, Stage I provided a baseline forecast of book sales for the eleven book industry segments, along with estimates of how new technologies and other factors including demographic changes are likely to affect the baseline forecast.

Stage II provided an in-depth Delphi investigation with leading book publishers, printers, suppliers, and other technology experts. Knowledgeable individuals within these companies were asked to evaluate the baseline forecast derived in Stage I and provide their expert opinion on factors influencing book demand. These opinions were used to adjust and refine the Stage I baseline forecast to project the demand for books and related supplies. The major conclusion of “Books in the 21st Century” was that successful publishers, printers, and suppliers will be those who recognize and pursue the opportunities of electronic media. Those who are able to develop the capability to supply both traditional print and electronic on-demand publishing will be well positioned to continue growing into the 21st century. On the other hand, industry players who remain complacent will find the market moving away from them. Explicit details were provided for each of the book industry segments.

Advantages

The ultimate objective of research is to generate meaningful and actionable information that is capable of reducing the risks in management decision-making. The purpose of the Delphi methodology is to exploit the specialized knowledge and judgment of experts to ascertain critical information that can be used by management to make informed decisions. The use of judgmental data (expert evaluations) in decision making is hardly avoidable today, and is rapidly becoming the foundation of many of the more advanced and sophisticated decision models in marketing.

The Delphi paradigm meets five key guideposts of sound inquiry: objectivity, reliability, validity, intensive analysis, and marketing applicability. We have used the Delphi technique to identify and assess B2B new product/market growth opportunities, investigate market structure changes, emerging and converging technologies, and evaluate strategic strengths/weaknesses in competitive environments.

__________________________________________

Charles Ptacek heads up Charles & Charles Associates, Inc. and has over 25 years of consumer, industrial, and B-to-B quantitative and qualitative marketing research experience specializing in the identification and assessment of new product/markets growth opportunities, investigating market structure changes/emerging & converging technologies, and evaluating strategic strengths & weaknesses in competitive environments.

__________________________________________

[1] Ptacek, C. H., “Nonprobability sampling assures representation and validity with B2B universes,” Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, March, 2008

[2] Lindstone, H., and Turoff, M. (ed.), The Delphi Method, Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1975

[3] (Boufford, D., “Finding a clear path to new ideas,” Quirks.com, March, 2006

[4] Ptacek, C.H., “Using the Delphi investigative paradigm for market forecasting,” Quirk’s Marketing Review, December, 2007).

[5] Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., & Brook, R. (1991) Consensus Methods: Characteristics and Guidelines for Use., Santa Monica, CA: RAND

[6] Marshall MN, “The key informant techniques, Family Practice, 1996, 13, 92-97

[7] Ptacek, C.H., “Beyond initial impressions,” Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, March, 2009

The post Exploring Difficult-to-Research Technical Markets: The Delphi Investigative Paradigm appeared first on Accountability Information Management.

The construction industry is grappling with issues pertaining to productivity and meeting project deadlines that have been intensified following the economic recession of 2008-2009. About 2 million construction workers were let go in the United States alone between 2007 and 2011, and the industry has not been able to fill this vacuum during the recovery period. Additionally, with the impending BREXIT in Europe, the industry faces huge gaps in terms of skillsets. Such macro-economic trends hamper the growth of the construction industry as numerous timelines may be extended, leading to overall project delays.

How is the industry responding to these challenges?

The industry is adopting innovative techniques to overcome productivity challenges and is borrowing heavily from the manufacturing sector. The construction industry is now open to building homes in a factory off-site and installing the built homes onsite. The industry stakeholders are increasingly adopting such buildings, known as modular or prefabricated buildings, as these help them in completing projects in about half the time as traditional construction practices, leading to high savings.

The growth in adoption of modular and prefabricated building practices paves the way for increased automation in the construction industry, which otherwise relies on manual processes such as bricklaying, installation, and carpentry that depend heavily on skilled labour.

How is automation achieved?

The adoption of modular and prefabricated buildings has also led to the adoption of principles hitherto unutilized in the industry. One such principle is the Design for Manufacturing Assembly (DfMA). The DfMA process, which is increasingly being adopted by prefab manufacturers, enables them to have a stronger design plan compared to traditional construction. This, in turn, helps in achieving a shorter construction period.

This approach has also led to the increased adoption of the Building Information Management (BIM) systems that typically generate 3D design models for a building. The BIM systems effectively compute the time, materials used, and cost of materials used in constructing a building. Thus, BIM acts as an effective project management tool that allows industry stakeholders to better track and manage construction projects. Apart from tools such as DfMA and BIM, other tools are also being adopted that aim to make construction projects more effective in terms of cost and time parameters.

How does automation benefit the industry?

Automation helps in processing and installation of a variety of construction materials, including wood, composites, and plastics. These materials, when compared with traditional ones such as concrete and steel, are considered more sustainable. For instance, wood emits a lower amount of CO₂ to the environment when compared with concrete and can also be replenished through afforestation and reforestation activities.

Thus, manufacturing and automation in the construction industry are also enabling sustainable building practices, which is a primary challenge.

What is next?

With the advent of new technologies, such as additive manufacturing (3D printing), which is rapidly being deployed in the manufacturing sector, one can witness the increasing use of 3D printing in building prototypes for homes. This will help in gaining a better understanding of designs amongst stakeholders and enable better change management while executing projects. In fact, the Swiss design firm Fuseproject and the construction technology firm Icon have developed a joint venture named New Story in Latin America to develop housing solutions for the homeless using 3D printing and developed a 350 sq. ft.  concept model in May 2019.

As a result, the industry is also experiencing a transformation of the traditional business models where design companies are becoming the construction companies of the future. For instance, AutoDesk, a major design software company, recently acquired the US-based prefab company FactoryOS and has initiated its use in the construction industry.

____________________________________

About Frost & Sullivan

For over five decades, Frost & Sullivan has become world-renowned for its role in helping investors, corporate leaders and governments navigate economic changes and identify disruptive technologies, Mega Trends, new business models and companies to action, resulting in a continuous flow of growth opportunities to drive future success. Frost & Sullivan has explored this sector through research in the modular and prefabricated building materials space and how technologies are impacting the construction industry as a whole. For more information on this article, contact Jacqui Holmes jacqui.holmes@frost.com.

The post Manufacturing Helps the Construction Industry Face Its Biggest Challenges appeared first on Accountability Information Management.

A word to the wise. Winning business by exaggerating your capabilities doesn’t do anyone any favors. It is far more fruitful to find customers who will genuinely benefit from what you actually have to offer. Over-promising only leads to unhappy customers, stressed customer service reps, overworked developers trying to save the day, and wasted time for everyone. Be diligent up front in making sure your product fits the customer’s needs and you’ll lead a happier healthier life.

The post A Tip for Entrepreneurs appeared first on Accountability Information Management.

By “we”, I mean everyone in the residential home services market: manufacturers, distributors and contractors. I fear that if trends continue, we will lose control over our markets and our customers. We’ll have done it to ourselves.

A typical homeowner finds buying plumbing, HVAC, electrical, and even stuff like roofing and siding, opaque. They have no idea how to discern the quality of what they’re buying or if they’re getting a fair deal. I know what I’m talking about when it comes to plumbing and HVAC, less so when it comes to other home improvements. Siding and windows should cost in the neighborhood of $20,000. I was once offered siding and windows for $45,000, a price that made competitors break out laughing when I told them.

A long time ago when I was working a side job at Home Depot, a woman asked me if $800 for a Kohler stainless steel kitchen sink was a fair price. Well, yeah. Look at what you’re buying, a high-quality sink from a contractor. If you want to pay $69 for a house brand sink, you’ll get what you pay for. But she didn’t know that.

Sure, you can buy all sorts of national name brands at big box stores, but you can’t buy the products that they are selling through two-step distribution to the trades. Manufacturers go to great lengths to keep their retail lines and professional lines separate. The air conditioner displayed at your membership club isn’t the high-SEER model you can buy from a dealer. I once heard Milwaukee Tool President Steve Richman say that if you find a Milwaukee battery online, it’s probably counterfeit. In some cases, there are no retail products. Bradford White only sells water heaters to the trade.

Manufacturers can protect the integrity of their brands. Distributors can offer benefits like training, financing, inventory management and delivery. Contractors have unique quality products to sell. Homeowners have no idea what any of this means.

It’s our own fault, really. If homeowners can’t figure out which contractor is reputable and which product is good or bad, it’s because we haven’t told them. We’ve tolerated shoddy contractors. We haven’t told them what products are good, better, best and what the differences are.

There was a story in the Tampa Bay Times about the county sheriff running a sting to catch unlicensed contractors. That should be a good thing, right? I was stunned at the comments that attacked the sheriff’s department, Pinellas County government, and the entire concept that contractors should be licensed to begin with. This is what the public thinks of us. Contractors don’t need to be licensed because who can tell the difference anyway.

This opacity, combined with the internet, has led homeowners to look for alternative sources of home improvement products. That’s why homeowners are using referral services such as HomeAdvisor or Angie’s List. That’s why they’re buying faucets online. When I was in the magazine biz, I kept nagging my readers to not cede the smart home market to the cable guy.

Or maybe to Best Buy, where Nest has a big presence. Nest, by the way, is going to sell room sensors that will communicate with the Nest thermostat. Perhaps I’m missing something, but don’t room sensors only make a difference when there’s a zone control system installed by, oh, I don’t know, maybe an HVAC contractor?

This opacity is why homeowners want to be able to hire contractors with an app. Doing it the old-fashioned way by getting referrals from friends and neighbors and then getting three bids is too much work. At least one of the contractors you call won’t show up.

Michael Werner, the “retired” CEO of kitchen and bath manufacturer Globe Union, has founded Home Experiences LLC, with the idea of acting as a concierge of sorts to find and dispatch a select group of contractors to homeowners. I mentioned Mike’s venture to a plumbing industry executive and he said, “That’s a great idea,” and then told me all about his difficulties finding an electrical contractor. Mike has recognized the industry’s current malaise and is developing a solution to the problem.

The current trend threatens to separate customer-facing representatives — independent contractors — from their customers. The solution is to get better at facing your customers. Think about it. Whether you’re selling nuts and bolts or airplanes or toilets, you have to know who your customers are, what they want and need, and then provide it to them. Our industry often doesn’t know any of this — who the customers are and what they want, so they don’t know what to sell.

When was the last time you were contacted by a service provider? Received a newsletter? A coupon? Birthday greetings? I once got a hand-written thank you card from a transmission shop and it was such a rarity that I was stunned.

There are a few elite home services contractors who are aided by first-class best practices organizations. They understand the importance of keeping in front of their customers on a regular basis. They are a small minority. There are, perhaps, 85,000 firms with payroll in the industry in the United States, and 80,000 of them don’t know who their customers are.

That’s why homeowners want to buy from an app on their phones. Then we are definitely screwed.

The post Are We Screwed? appeared first on Accountability Information Management.

Fifteen years ago, I was the publisher of a magazine. I was in the media business for sure, but the changes that had taken place in the business of publishing B2B magazines had not really changed in 50 years. With a few years under my belt it wasn’t necessary to make any further investment in my knowledge of the product I was responsible for growing, nor my understanding of how my customers used it.

Flash forward to today and I find it much more challenging to explain to friends and family what I do. I am certainly still in the media business and I still publish a magazine. However, I also sell online advertising, newsletters, email marketing, content marketing, webinars, research, trade shows, video, hosted buyer events, and educational conferences to name just a few. The thing that has changed the most is that these products are perpetually changing.

As we deal with these changes and ramp up our knowledge on how these products work and how our customers use them I think many veterans of the industry yearn for the stability that we had with print. While we are absolutely still in the media business, we are also in the technology business. This fact creates the need to accept change is perpetual. I don’t believe we are ever going back to a time where we won’t need to continue learning new products around the quickly changing technologies available to us.

For many veteran sellers the loss of comfort and security that being in a simpler static market we once had is daunting. Many media companies are not built to train their sales teams on an ongoing basis. We want our team selling, not learning. The more I look at the business I am responsible for growing, the more I think this is one of my biggest challenges. With customers doing more with less, how likely is it they will spend time with you if you don’t know what programmatic is or what it means if a client is investing thousands of dollars in a HubSpot program?

Step number one…. Accept that change is perpetual. We will never again achieve the level of comfort or status quo we once had.

The post Moving to Perpetual Change appeared first on Accountability Information Management.