 
         
For many contractors, digitisation is key for improving on-site operational efficiency. But it may be time to take stock of progress and examine what does and doesn’t work.
     
That is not to say that the anchors should be thrown out to halt development. Far from it. In the past eight months, the 
     
“This study is another step of CECE’s investment into digitising our industry,” said Enrico Prandini, CECE president. The goal remains to “facilitate the uptake of digital construction machinery in order to reap the benefits of data on productivity, safety and sustainability, our three major challenges”, he said during his opening speech to the 175 delegates to the event that was hosted by the Italian construction equipment association 
     
“If there is one key takeaway from this project, it is the need to change business models to unlock the value of data.”
     
The digitisation of machinery directive is working well for regulating safety and bolstering the single internal market, and allowing for innovation of equipment, said Barbara Bonvissuto, head of the advanced engineering and manufacturing systems unit for DG Grow within the European Commission.
     
But there remain concerns, such as cybersecurity. This and other issues will be sitting in the in-tray of the next commission after elections in the new year. Bonvissuto reassured the delegates that the construction sector in general and the CECE in particular will continue to be regularly consulted.
     
 
Computers that dig
     
Digitisation is more than simply grafting the latest Internet of Things technology onto machinery and giving the operator a fancy touchscreen, said Luca Chittaro, professor of human-computer interaction at Italy’s University of Udine and who started his career looking at digitisation in the aviation sector. “How do we design the cockpit of any machine to benefit the customer in some way?"
 
     
This  human-machine interface, or human-computer interface, raises serious  issues for operator and owner, he warned. As a modern airplane is a  computer that flies, will the coming generations of construction  equipment be computers that dig?
     
The  answer depends on the stakeholders in the construction sector, he  explained. Whatever they decide, they will have to ensure the physical  reliability of equipment, ease of use for the operator and that safety  remains paramount – “nobody gets hurt”.
     
Machine designers and software developers will have to be aware of several  HMI/HCI principals. One, called affordance, is whether the design and  control of a feature looks like what it will do. In other words, is it  obvious to an operator that if you push a certain button that that is  the right button for initiating an action, whether it is stretching out  an excavator’s boom or raising a bucket.
     
The  feedback principal is whether by pushing the button an operator feels  as if they have actually initiated the desired action. For example, is  there a physical click or similar sound to tell the operator that, yes,  that action has been initiated?
     
Chittaro  said the world of human-machine interface is full of examples of  operators pushing a button not knowing that the initiation has taken  place and so he or she keep pressing that button. In the worst design  cases, this has led to repeated actions being initiated to the detriment  of the original intention. An excavator may take several buckets of  material out of the ground instead of only one intended.
     
But  even with good feedback from initiating an action, an operator might  wish to be reassured that the action has taken place. This  seeing-is-believing concept is called the situation awareness principle.  Has something actually changed because of the initiated action?
     
For  human-machine interface to be efficient, there must be some  standardisation of languages for the operator to understand across many  functions controlled by a computer. This can be words, icons and  functionality. Consider that one type of button for initiating a task  works well for many of a machine’s functions until the machine is  running at a particular speed or being stretched to the limits.  Vibrations, shakes and movement means an operator may have difficulty  locating the switch when needed.Reading instructions may also be  difficult. This was the case in the aviation industry when planes were  flying in turbulence.
 
     
Also   – and more important than previously thought – digitisation should  make  the job more interesting for an operator. This raises the issue of  just  how much automation should a machine have and to what degree  should an  operator have to over-ride that automation. In this respect,  the  operator will be key to digitisation, he said. It might be that  some  number of tasks should be left to an operator at which they are   particularly good.
     
These   last points highlight “the three ironies of digitisation”, he said. The   first is that you digitise to reduce human error, only to increase   computer error. Secondly, you may digitise to relieve an operator of   difficult tasks, only to make his work harder because of increased use   of monitoring many more details.
     
A   third irony is that digitisation may make an operator computer  literate  but reduce his skills to manually take over a machine when  automation  fails. To this end digitisation may “take [an operator’s]  eyes and mind  off the road”, said Chittaro.
     
 
AI versus operator
     
During   a panel debate on human-machine interface, speakers noted that there   can be a struggle between artificial intelligence experts and operators.   The AI people see the advantage of having full automation of a  machine.  Meanwhile, operators wished to retain some sort of “physical  feeling”  of control over the machine and for the machine’s performance.
     
An   operator is happy feeling the machine, said Frederico Pagliacci,   development vice-president of drilling and foundation equipment   manufacturer 
     
Getting   right this balance between operator and automation will ensure the  most  efficient use of the machine, said Xavier du Boys, chief executive  of  French equipment rental company Groupe Kiloutou. It must be  remembered  in the rush to automate machines, that there are still  millions of  operators in Europe between 45-55 years old who grew up  with feeling  their machine’s performance intuitively. Training to  handle more  automation should reflect these people’s skill levels and  desirability  to move toward more automation. To this end, there needs  to be a lot  more cooperation between software developers and machine  owners and  operators.
     
Robert  Laux,  senior vice-president for operations at 
 
     
A   lot of  cooperation between software designers, machine manufacturers   and the  machine owners and operators is already being done, noted du   Boy.  However, this so-called “participatory design” has perhaps relied   too  much on an operator’s input being collected from too formal an    interview. There should be more on-site discussion where everyone has    their heads around a machine and sees for themselves what the issues are    for an operator.
     
Chitarro    agreed, saying that designers should perhaps have a little more    humility when it comes to taking into account an operator’s concerns.
     
Also,    noted Chitarro, with all the data that is even now being collected on  a   machine’s performance, the issue of safety is rarely talked about  in   relation to operator performance. For operators, it can be a case  of who   is watching me and what data is being collected about how well  the   machine is being operated safely. This is where there needs to be  some   transparency about data sharing to make the operator feel  comfortable   that nobody is looking over his or her shoulder in an  aggressive way.
     
It   was  good to see, said both Pagliacci and Laux, that contractors appear   to  be increasingly interested in, and ready to commit to, more   high-level  training for their operators. At the end of the day,   digitisation and  automation should be about not replacing an operator   but making their  lives easier, said Prandini. It is best the   digitisation comes first  to large, simple repetitive procedures and   jobs.
     
 
Buyer beware
     
The    global value of auctions and online sales of new and used heavy    equipment and attachments is steadily rising. But there can be issues    for contractors that go down this route. Know your purchaser and do your    homework on the product, said the two speakers in a panel discussion    about digitisation of sales.
     
The    warning should be heeded to most rigidly by small- to medium-sized    contractors who think they are getting a real bargain, said Felipe    Urrutia, director of strategic accounts for Europe within Canada-based    global auction house 
     
While    brand loyalty may be breaking down, brand awareness is getting more    important in this age of internet sales, be they at on-site auctions or    from websites. Purchasers should ask about servicing histories,    trustworthy inspection reports and any guarantees being offered. Ritchie    Bros, he said, offers all this, so online buyers can be reassured  that   the auctioneer is backing up its product.
     
Michele    Vitulano, managing director of Italian attachment manufacturer  
     
This    is where buying from a trusted OEM reduces risk and increases value   for  money. Sadly, otherwise, safety is compromised. Don’t forget, said    Vitulano, the contractor will be responsible in the event of a tragic    accident.
 
Level playing field?
     
China’s     Belt and Road Initiative may be one of the largest global     infrastructure strategies ever set out but it is also one of the most     threatening to European manufacturers and contractors. 
     
The     tactic is to replace western technology with that of China, said  Jost    Wuebbeke, an analyst with Sinolytics, a Berlin-based consultancy  that    provides research, analysis and advice to international firms  and    investors about China’s strategic development.
     
It     is part of moving china from being a global factory to a global     industrial superpower by 2049, the centenary of the communist takeover     of China’s government, he said. The construction sector will not be     immune from this strategy.
     
Belt     and Road is focused on investing and physically developing - if not     outright ownership of - ports and road networks from China to South   East   Asia and from China across northern Asia to the edge of Europe.   The   object is make it easier to get Chinese products to these markets   and   these markets to sell into China.
     
Financing     port and road development is through low-cost loans to governments,     many of which likely won’t be able to repay the debt. In the long  term    this may be of little consequence to China given that it will  control    the trade routes.
     
Wuebbeke     said an analysis of these construction contracts – as much as can be     done given transparency is not very high – is that 90% are carried  out    entirely by Chinese contractors and their extended Chinese supply     chains. There has been, and will continue to be, little business  going    the way of European contractors, at least outside Europe, he  said.
     
Within    Europe,  China will likely secure few major contracts because it fails    to  adhere to EU procurement legislation, such as for the use of local     contractors. For a recent major road deal with Montenegro – not an EU     member – China was able to stipulate that local subcontractors,  should    they be used, must have 70% of their equipment purchased from   Chinese   manufacturers. This would not be acceptable under EU   procurement rules,   said Wuebbeke.
     
At   the   moment, he said, Chinese equipment manufacturers are as   competitive as   they are with European companies because they are   highly subsidised.   This includes Chinese makers YMCG, ZoomLion, Sany,   Shantui and Sumec. In   some cases, net losses are wiped out by   subsidies, said Wuebbeke.
     
This     situation is sometimes “crazy”, said Philippe Citroën, director    general  of UNIFE, the EU association of rail manufacturers. On the one    hand, it  is getting harder for EU manufacturers to sell into China    because of  restrictive ownership rules. On the other hand, EU taxpayers    are paying  for Chinese contractors using only Chinese construction    equipment to  build infrastructure in Europe.
     
During     a panel debate, Citroën cited the example of the controversy over  the    recent deal by Croatia to award construction of the Peljesac  Bridge  to   China Road and Bridge Corporation. CRBC undercut EU  infrastructure    consortia by a massive 30%.
     
Citroën     said it is usually very hard to prove that subsidisation goes on.     Meanwhile, Howard Dale, chairman of Liugong Europe, said there can also     be misunderstanding about what constitutes a subsidy – something   which,   he noted, his parent company does not get.
     
It     is not unusual for a major manufacturer to get government grants and     money to move an entire plant out of an area which has been   transformed   over the years from an industrial belt into a green belt   due to urban   sprawl. This, he said, goes on in many countries and is   not particular   to China.
 
     
         
         
         
        


