This case study looks at how a construction company learnt from the past to become more deliberate in how they buy and use AI and other technologies
 |
Supported by the Innovate UK BridgeAI programme, this case study took place as part of an action research project carried out by CIPD’s research partner, the Institute for the Future of Work (IFOW). The project sought to foster a shared understanding on how to use AI effectively and responsibly. This case study describes how a construction company learnt from the past to become more deliberate in how they buy and use AI and other technologies. |
This case study focused on a construction company, referred to here as ConstructionCo. ConstructionCo handled every step of building a home, from identifying and buying land to construction and sales. It employed several thousand people across its regional divisions in the UK. In the past two years its HR team grew from one to 25 people.
Even though the construction industry is slow to use new technologies, the people at ConstructionCo felt they were falling behind their rivals. When IFOW started engaging with ConstructionCo, its HR department had procured an AI-enabled HR system and were in testing phase. Meanwhile selected departments across ConstructionCo were trialling a general-purpose generative AI tool.
This case study explored how ConstructionCo learned from the past and became more thoughtful in how they choose and use new technologies across the organisation. For example, how a prioritisation technique guided the HR department’s procurement and how the legal department assessed a general-purpose generative AI tool.
A cross-functional working group got together to support the action research process with IFOW, including from HR, IT and risk departments.
Employees were wary about using new tools because previous launches hadn’t gone well. In one case, a new system was introduced with limited employee consultation. Because the system didn’t meet their needs, hardly anyone used it and ConstructionCo had to cancel the contract in the end.
Despite these past negative experiences, regular feedback from quarterly townhalls and employee surveys showed high levels of trust and engagement. During the townhall meetings, management shared their plans for new technology and invited employees to share their thoughts about the new HR system and on using generative AI. This renewed interest in AI was partly sparked by a new, pro-technology senior leader. With this fresh perspective, employees brainstormed practical ways to save time and share knowledge effectively.
However, as ConstructionCo is at early-stage digital maturity, it lacked a clear strategy for leveraging AI and this meant that use on the ground was fragmented. Employees were trying AI tools independently and didn’t have many opportunities to share their learnings with others.
The biggest challenge for ConstructionCo was that employees had different levels of interest and confidence in using AI.
Employees who didn’t use general-purpose generative AI tools much were hesitant and anxious about the risk of data breaches. They were curious about how AI could help them streamline processes and do advanced data analysis. But because there was no clear plan or structured training, they didn’t feel they had the skills to figure out how AI could help them with specific tasks.
‘Super users’ on the other hand were technology savvy, confident and willing to experiment with AI tools. But their efforts were ad-hoc and there were no structured processes to enable them to share learning more widely.
Because of this, few employees used AI tools and missed out on chances to learn from one another. Without clear rules, structured training or a way to share ideas, ConstructionCo risked getting stuck in ad-hoc experimentation instead of making real progress.
As part of the action research process, IFOW reviewed internal documents, interviewed employees across corporate departments and co-designed a workshop with the working group. IFOW also looked at how the legal department assessed a general-purpose generative AI tool.
One of the documents reviewed was a request for proposal (RFP) to HR system vendors outlining the HR department’s requirements by priority. This RFP set the tone for a thorough nine-month HR system procurement process. Requirements in the RFP were organised by the MoSCoW prioritisation technique: ‘must-have’, ‘should-have’, ‘could-have’ and ‘won’t-have’. Vendors were asked to show how their solution addressed each item in the list. This helped the HR department systematically think about how vendor proposals for the new HR system could help employees, managers and the HR department in their daily work.
ConstructionCo’s working group co-designed a workshop with IFOW to discuss with employees ways in which they thought identified challenges could be overcome. The working group agreed that it would be useful to identify ground rules and structured learning opportunities to enable effective AI use at work.
Meanwhile the head of legal independently led a pilot to assess whether using a general-purpose AI assistant could reduce their use of external legal panels.
The co-designed workshop plan included live demonstrations, breakout discussions, and activities to map AI’s impact on job design. While there wasn’t time to run the workshop during the action research process, the workshop co-design meeting helped the working group surface gaps to address:
Furthermore, the legal department’s AI tool pilot uncovered significant time and cost savings. The time spent to review a document fell from around an hour to 15 minutes. This highlighted an opportunity for ConstructionCo to bring routine work back to their own legal department and save money. Besides making work faster, the pilot created space for open conversation on how employees in the legal department were using AI tools. This allowed ConstructionCo to formally check the AI tool’s performance while listening to employees.
This case study looks at the rollout of an AI writing assistant at a large organisation. It highlights how failing to involve employees and preserve foundational skills creates a trust gap that undermines investment
This case study details steps taken by a not-for-profit membership organisation to navigate towards a collective position on using generative AI
This case study looks at how a strategic innovation company navigated the sector’s structural challenges while introducing an AI tool for maintenance planning
This case study looks at how an NHS Foundation Trust engaged staff on plans to roll out an AI-enabled HR chatbot
Leading Voices is a series of short audio essays in which senior people professionals reflect on how they have tackled some of the profession's most pressing challenges.
Leading Voices is a series of short audio essays in which senior people professionals reflect on how they have tackled some of the profession's most pressing challenges.