The investment in productivity-enhancing technology can either be a necessary evil (just to keep you in business) or provide you with a competitive edge; the difference is a matter of timing.

A new technology that changes the methods we use to accomplish long-standing tasks can be described as disruptive or paradigm changing. If it helps you get the job done better, faster and more profitably, then it is worth investigating; but when?  As it turns out, different organizations do this at different times.

The first group of people to investigate new technologies is referred to as “innovators”.  These folks tend to be techies that recognize the potential to reap great benefits from something new and different and are willing to change their comfortable, tried-and true methods.  They are the least risk-averse group in any industry and most comfortable with changing their past behavior.  They are also the most willing to experience the growing pains of a new technology (that will see major improvement over time).
The next group is the “early adaptors”.  They see the exploitation of new technology as way to gain a significant competitive advantage over others in their industry.

The next group is called the “early majority”.  This is a much larger group of users and they have seen enough and heard enough to believe the technology provides documented benefits, is here to stay and the way of the future.  They do not love technology for its own sake, they are pragmatists.

These groups are typically followed by other groups called “the late majority” and the “laggards”.

So who reaps the greatest rewards that new technology can bring?  Well, the early groups certainly reap the greatest benefits and do so for the longest period of time. Perhaps you have lost a competitive bid to a more progressive competitor that had obtained more-efficient software, a better communications system or a more productive piece of equipment. Maybe that’s OK with you because you are smart enough to wait for the prices to come down.  Well let’s investigate that approach:

Prices certainly do come down over time. However, in today’s tough economy; jobs are more competitively bid and every advantage you have impacts your bid price and bottom line. The amount of money you anticipate saving on a purchase has to be compared to money lost on bids you won’t get, or profits lost using less efficient methods.  The difference in a winning bid and an unsuccessful one may come down to the efficiency provided by some new technology.

Fully automated 3D machine control has been around since the 1990’s.  You won’t be facing the challenges of the visionary “innovators” and “early adaptors”.  Systems are now solid and field-proven. Software has become more complete and user- friendly.  Data preparation services have been established, if you don’t want to prepare 3D models in-house. So the question is: do you want to be part of the “early majority” or wait for more competitive advantage to be lost?

A road construction production study by Caterpillar demonstrated that their AccuGrade 3D machine control system increased productivity by over 100% and decreased fuel consumption by 43% ( while increasing the accuracy of the grading) on a sample project.   Other suppliers of machine control technology can provide other case studies and present similar findings, I am sure.   If you could obtain similar results, what would that do to your profitability?  How would that change your bidding calculations?  To be conservative, assume you could only obtain half of these production increases; what would that mean to you?  It is just a math exercise to apply these production increases and savings to a past job, or one you are planning to bid.  When comparing this to the amount that you think you might save (by waiting for the prices to come down) you may decide to start your investigation sooner than later.

Most industries are conservative and press back against new changes. But eventually there comes a flash point of change when the entire industry, under the pressure of continually escalating disequilibrium in price/performance, shifts its allegiance from the old methods to the new.  This is happening with machine control technology; the question is when will you jump in?

The author wishes to acknowledge Geoffrey Moore and his excellent book “Inside the Tornado” which delineates the various technology adoption groups mentioned above.