Abstract:
Innovative building technologies (IBTs) are often flaunted as a panacea for mitigating housing delivery shortfalls in light of the ever-growing construction costs. However, the adoption of these technologies in Kenya’s construction industry is slow and this slackens their probable impact on facilitating affordable housing. The lagged adoption has partly been attributed to rigid institutional framework and unfavorable building laws, which oftentimes are cited to challenge any viable solution to the housing problem. This study aims to formulate a framework that can enhance the adoption of IBTs in the construction industry. The study appreciates government effort to ease barriers to the adoption of IBTs through the housing policy for Kenya, construction industry policy, and planning and building regulations. Multiple legislations and institutions have been noted to bear on IBTs adoption and the probable influence of these laws is discussed in the context thereof. The research relies on interviews, desktop reviews and questionnaires to gather information from industry players broadly classified into IBTs policymakers and disseminators and IBTs technology providers. The researcher assessed the drawbacks in institutional and legal frameworks that derail the adoption of IBTs from the perspective of the industry players. The findings showed that the regulatory and administrative framework in the Kenyan construction industry is not optimally and holistically promoting adoption of IBTs. Specifically, the promotion of IBTs was found to be fragmented amongst the various developers and institutions involved and the linkage between industry and training is weak. Legal provisions in some legislation also present some barriers for the adoption of IBTs but gains have been made in reviewing these laws. Given this, the study recommends intervention mechanisms to mitigate barriers linked to various stages of the IBTs adoptive process. The recommendations are founded on four pillars; technical capacity to fill in the information gap that exists regarding IBTs; institutional interventions geared towards alignment of institutional objectives and building of synergies; social economic interventions that seek to address the bias and affordability challenges and thus bridge the technology acquisition gap; and, finally the government support framework that is geared towards the supportive legal and economic environment to allow utilization of technologies. It is anticipated that the findings of this study will inform a holistic approach for promoting development and adoption of IBTs by focusing on the four areas simultaneously.
