Architects Innovate: A Mapping Review of the Architect’s Role in Driving Construction Innovation

Abstract

This study conducts a systematic mapping review of the academic literature published between 2008 and 2025 to examine how architects’ agency is framed, attributed, and conceptualised within construction innovation research. The review maps how scholarship represents architectural contributions, identifies patterns of visibility and omission, and diagnoses gaps in how innovation is recognised, documented, and valued. It asks how scholarship characterises architects’ roles, how such agency shifts across design, procurement, and construction, and what inhibits the dissemination of innovation. Across the mapped corpus, architects are predominantly positioned as innovation enablers who act as knowledge creators, integrators, and collective problem solvers. Their influence is phase contingent and shaped by the social and technical conditions of project delivery. The review also shows that the literature often struggles to attribute, with analytical clarity, such innovation to architects. Authorship is frequently obscured, and the value generated through architectural work is therefore difficult to trace, compare, and transfer. Building on these findings, the paper advances a framework for analysing architect-led construction innovation across four domains: development, recognition, documentation, and evaluation. This framework highlights the institutional checkpoints and leverage points through which architectural contributions can be made legible, comparable, and cumulative, including through comparative case study analysis.

1. Introduction

Construction innovation (CI) is often understood as a departure from conventional practice in project design, construction, or delivery [1]. It is framed not simply as technical novelty, but as a strategic and systemic response to environmental, technological, and market pressures [2]. Yet the construction industry continues to face persistent challenges relating to low productivity, fragmentation, inefficiency, and the imperative to improve sustainability outcomes [3].

What distinguishes CI from innovation in more standardised sectors such as manufacturing, and helps explain the challenges it faces, is the environment in which it is produced. CI unfolds within project-based settings characterised by temporary organisations, complex and shifting stakeholder constellations, and variable regulatory constraints [4]. The sector’s reliance on technological complexity and project-specific customisation further anchors innovation in broader socioeconomic conditions, rather than in isolated technological breakthroughs [5,6]. Put differently, understanding CI’s opportunities, constraints, and limits requires attention to the sociotechnical environment through which novelty is proposed, negotiated, and stabilised, and, by extension, to the forms of actor agency through which innovation is enacted during construction [7,8].

Within this distributed ecosystem, the design and planning of buildings, typically led by architects and engineers, remain pivotal sites within which innovation is conceived, specified, and coordinated [9]. Semlies (1999) similarly identifies designers, including architects and engineers, as a significant source of innovation [10]. However, architects’ roles continue to be discussed in diverse ways, and often only implicitly, within the construction innovation literature, with limited analytical clarity regarding the questions of where, when, and through what mechanisms architectural agency shapes innovation across project phases [11,12]. Thus, while architects are frequently recognised as drivers of innovation through their design decisions, coordination practices, and material experimentation, empirical studies examining how architects operate during construction, and how their agency is negotiated in delivery settings, including in relation to innovation, remain limited [13]. The significance of this gap, and its consequences for how CI is conceptualised and assessed, is underscored by Murphy, Perera, and Heaney (2011), who argue that excluding architects from innovation discourse overlooks some of the most creative and consequential contributions to the construction process [14].

Over the past three decades, scholarship has progressively reframed the architect’s role beyond aesthetic authorship, positioning architects as mediators and integrators within sociotechnical systems [15,16,17,18]. In this study, the term ‘architect’ is used in its legal and professional sense, referring to a regulated practitioner whose title is protected by relevant regulations and whose role is defined by specific contractual, technical, and public responsibilities. This distinguishes architects from architectural designers, building designers, and other design practitioners, whose authority, liability, and institutional positioning differ substantially across jurisdictions [19].

Rather than acting in isolation, architects operate within relational networks that translate between cultural, technical, and economic domains. This positions them as knowledge brokers who facilitate the exchanges of ideas, technologies, and methods across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Consequently, architects function as systems integrators, synthesising structure, materials, environmental performance, and design intent into coherent project solutions [20]. Taken together, these accounts suggest that architects are not peripheral to CI, but are well-placed to connect technological, organisational, and creative dimensions of novelty, and to shape how innovations are articulated, coordinated, and made workable within project delivery settings.

Furthermore, while the existing scholarship offers valuable insights into how architects engage with innovation processes, the relationship between foundational definitions of CI and the specific expertise and agency of architects remains only partially articulated. Some influential studies describe architects as mediators, integrators, or initiators of innovation, whereas others reference their contributions only implicitly within broader organisational, managerial, or technological frameworks [8,21]. As a result, it remains unclear how consistently the literature distinguishes the architect’s role, and how that role is defined across different scales, project contexts, and phases of innovation [22,23].

To examine this issue, the present study conducts a systematic mapping review of academic research at the intersection of CI and architectural practice. Rather than evaluating innovation performance or the effectiveness of particular interventions, a mapping review analyses how a topic has been conceptualised, structured, and distributed across an evidence base, thereby providing a systematic overview of the field’s intellectual landscape [24]. This approach enables patterns of emphasis, precision, and omission to be made visible. Specifically, the review examines how the academic literature frames and contextualises the relationship between CI and architectural practice, and how clearly (or ambiguously) the contribution of architects is represented within innovation discourse. Accordingly, this review is guided by two research questions:

• RQ1: How does academic literature on CI frame and discuss the role of the architect?
• RQ2: What are the interdependencies between CI, the role of architects, and the phases of architectural design in the current scholarly literature?

The first research question (RQ1) examines how scholarly work conceptualises and characterises architects’ contributions within the broader discourse on CI. It explores the ways in which researchers frame, describe, or at times overlook the role of the architect, identifying the presence, depth, and consistency with which the involvement of architects is addressed. By analysing whether architects are portrayed as drivers, mediators, or barriers to innovation, RQ1 aims to assess how clearly or ambiguously their roles are defined across the existing studies. This question provides insight into the qualitative representation and positioning of architects within the literature and considers whether their contribution to innovation processes is presented with conceptual coherence or remains fragmented.

Building on this, the second research question (RQ2) investigates how the literature articulates the relationships between these elements. It examines the extent to which architects’ roles are linked to specific phases of the design process, such as conceptual design, technical detailing, and project delivery, and how these phases intersect with innovation dynamics. By mapping these interdependencies, RQ2 evaluates how explicitly and systematically studies define the mechanisms and contexts through which architects contribute to innovation. This analysis helps to indicate whether scholarship offers a phase-specific understanding of architects’ involvement or whether the analysis of the contributions of architects remains diffuse and implicit.

Together, these questions provide a framework for linking conceptual definitions of CI with the professional expertise and integrative capacity of architects. This framework offers a structured basis for observing how the academic literature depicts architects’ participation in innovation across scales and stages of the construction process.

This mapping review contributes to the understanding of how architectural practice is positioned within the discourse on CI. By systematically charting the field, it identifies both the breadth of scholarly engagement and the degrees of precision with which architects’ roles are defined. The review highlights that most studies portray architects as enablers of innovation and that the contributions of architects are primarily discussed across three interrelated domains: professional skills, stakeholder relationships, and the timing of the involvement of the architects across design and construction phases. By connecting these dimensions, the review offers a structured lens for interpreting how architects operate within multi-actor innovation ecosystems. The resulting map clarifies areas of conceptual convergence and fragmentation, providing a foundation for further theoretical and empirical research on how architects generate, integrate, and sustain innovation within the built environment.

2. Materials and Methods

Building on the conceptual and thematic foundation outlined above, this study employed a systematic mapping review approach that combines quantitative bibliometric mapping with qualitative thematic synthesis. The aim was to examine how academic scholarship frames the roles of architects in CI across the design and construction phases. This hybrid approach draws on the rigour of systematic reviews while maintaining the exploratory character of mapping studies, making it well-suited to reveal both the scope and the conceptual patterns within the existing literature.

The review followed a structured, multistage process designed to ensure transparency and reproducibility. It comprises six main stages:

• Database selection and search strategy development, involving the construction of predefined search strings to capture studies addressing both CI and architects’ roles;
• Identification of records through database searches and the removal of duplicates;
• Title, abstract, and keyword screening to exclude clearly irrelevant studies;
• Full-text screening against predefined eligibility criteria to determine final inclusion;
• Structured data extraction and deductive and inductive coding to capture predefined and emergent concepts;
• Thematic synthesis and bibliometric mapping to identify recurring themes, relationships, and shifts in how architects’ roles are conceptualised across project phases.

This methodological design integrates systematic procedures with mapping review logic, allowing both quantitative and qualitative insights into how architects’ agency in CI is defined, connected, and represented within the scholarly literature.

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria were defined to ensure relevance, quality, and comparability across studies. Publications were included if they

• Were published in English, reflecting the dominant language of international CI scholarship;
• Focused on the building or construction sectors;
• Contained the keywords “construction innovation” in combination with “architect” or “architectural design” and reported defined frameworks, methods, or analytical approaches;
• Included discussion of technology and/or innovation;
• Made available the full text of the work;
• Were published between 2008 and 2025.

This starting date (2008) was selected because Murphy, Perera, and Heaney’s article “Building design innovation: Expansion of classification linkages through case study analysis” (2008) [14] represents the earliest study that explicitly analyses and frames the role of architects and engineers within CI scholarship, while the ending date reflects the most recent works in the literature available at the time of data collection.

2.2. Search Strategy

Scopus and Web of Science were selected as the primary databases due to their broad coverage of peer-reviewed construction and built environment research and their widespread use in systematic literature reviews. Google Scholar was used as a supplementary source to identify relevant review articles and to ensure that influential studies not indexed in the primary databases were not overlooked.

Searches were conducted using predefined and database-specific search strings designed to capture literature on CI while explicitly referencing architects and architectural design. The inclusion of “architect” as a mandatory keyword functions as an analytical filter rather than a normative assumption. It ensures that only studies in which architectural agency is explicitly recognised are mapped, enabling an assessment of how frequently and in what ways the architect is made visible within CI scholarship.

The search scope included innovation-related terms (e.g., construction, technology, material, and building innovation) combined with architect-related terms.

Search strings used:

Scopus (search date: 10 September 2025):

TITLE-ABS-KEY (“construction innovation” OR “innovation cases” OR “innovation implementation” OR “technology innovation” OR “material innovation” OR “building innovation”) AND (“architectural design” OR “architect”) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR “re” OR “bk” OR “ch”))

→ 155 results.

Web of Science (search date: 10 September 2025):

TS = ((“construction innovation” OR “innovation cases” OR “innovation implementation” OR “innovation management”) AND (architect*))

→ 98 results.

Google Scholar (search date: 22 September 2025): supplementary search for review articles using “construction innovation” AND “architectural design.”

→ 131 results

Because the search strategy required the explicit inclusion of the term ‘architect,’ the results reflect how architects are represented within construction innovation scholarship rather than within the full universe of innovation activity in the construction sector. This conditioning effect is acknowledged as a limitation of the mapping approach.

2.3. Screening Procedure

Records were screened in four stages, using the Rayyan platform:

• Titles, abstracts, and keywords were screened by one reviewer to remove clearly irrelevant records and establish an initial pool of potentially relevant studies;
• Full-text screening was performed by three independent reviewers, blind to each other’s selections, to assess both relevance to the research questions and methodological fit.
• Assessment against eligibility criteria was performed to determine final inclusion;
• Final inclusion was confirmed through consensus. Disagreements during full-text screening were resolved through discussion, with papers being re-examined against the eligibility criteria until agreement was reached. To ensure rigour, all reviewers independently coded the papers, iteratively compared coding results, and refined themes collectively.

The screening process is summarised using the PRISMA flow diagram presented in Figure 1.

Formal inter-reviewer reliability metrics (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) were not calculated because the coding and thematic synthesis were interpretive rather than categorical. This approach is consistent with established qualitative systematic review practices in construction and architecture research [6,25], in which consensus-based resolution and iterative coding refinement are used to maintain methodological rigour.

2.4. Data Extraction and Analysis

Data extraction followed a structured coding process informed by the research questions. An initial deductive coding framework was developed a priori to capture the presence, frequency, and contextual use of the terms ‘architect’ and ‘architectural design’ within CI-related discussions. Quantitative mapping recorded term frequency and distribution across construction phases, providing an initial descriptive layer of analysis. Extraction was guided by the following criteria:

• Papers discussing CI with explicit use of the terms “architect” or “architectural design”?
• How frequently and in what contexts these terms were used.
• Whether they were employed with positive or negative connotations.
• Where positive, whether the architect’s contribution to CI was defined or described, and to what extent.
• What types of CI were attributed to architects?

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the screening and selection process for the systematic mapping review. Source: the authors’ systematic mapping review.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the screening and selection process for the systematic mapping review. Source: the authors’ systematic mapping review.

Qualitative analysis involved the interpretive coding of how architects’ roles were framed, including the nature and extent of the architects’ contribution to CI. Inductive codes were added iteratively through close reading of the texts to capture emergent patterns not anticipated in the initial framework. Coded data were then synthesised into higher-order thematic domains through iterative comparison and refinement aligned with the research questions.

Following title and abstract screening, full-text review, and eligibility assessment, a total of eighty-seven articles were included in the final systematic mapping analysis.

3. Results

The mapping review identifies a strong association between architects and construction innovation within the selected works in the literature. Across the reviewed corpus, thirty-six papers describe architects as enablers of innovation, while only one study frames architects as inhibitors. Where constraints are noted, such as reluctance to adopt practices not fully supported by regulatory frameworks [26], architects are nevertheless predominantly represented as actors whose agency is associated with innovation processes.

Analysis of the reviewed studies reveals three recurring thematic domains. First, a substantial body of scholarship focuses on the skills attributed to architects in relation to construction innovation. These include knowledge creation, integration across disciplines, management of complex systems, and adaptability to changing technical and regulatory conditions. Second, many studies emphasise the roles of relationships between architects and other stakeholders, including clients, contractors, engineers, suppliers, and communities, and document how these relationships can either enable or constrain innovation outcomes. Third, a subset of the reviewed works in the literature explicitly link innovation to specific phases of the building process, ranging from early concept design through documentation, procurement, construction, and post-construction learning, and associate architects’ agency with these stages.

Together, these domains structure the presentation of results in this section. The following subsections report how the reviewed works in the literature characterises architects’ roles in construction innovation, the domains in which their agency is described, and the project phases in which this agency is most frequently located.

3.1. Representation of Architects’ Roles in Construction Innovation (RQ1)

The reviewed works in the literature consistently associate construction innovation with the role of architects. Analysis of the selected studies indicates that this association is primarily articulated through two domains. The first relates to the skills attributed to architects within innovation processes. The second concerns the relationships through which architects interact with other project stakeholders. These domains are reported below as they emerge from the mapping of the literature.

A large proportion of the reviewed studies describe architects as knowledge creators within construction innovation processes [27,28,29]. In these accounts, individual projects function as sites of learning through design practice, collaboration, and experimentation [30]. Knowledge is reported as being embedded in processes, artefacts, and organisational routines [31,32], while also being actively generated through the adoption of digital workflows, parametric and algorithm-driven design approaches, and the integration of sustainability and circular-economy principles [33,34,35].

Beyond knowledge creation, architects are frequently described as integrators who coordinate across fragmented project environments. Multiple studies report architects’ involvement in aligning design tasks, engineering systems, and construction processes [36]. Within this section of the literature, architects are associated with the coordination of information flows across design, fabrication, and supply networks, as documented in studies of large-scale projects such as Brock Commons Tallwood House [37] and the Elbphilharmonie [38]. Similar patterns are reported in studies addressing green building practices [39], timber-based innovation [40], and digital transformation in design and construction [41].

Several studies also characterise architects as managers of complex systems. Innovation is described as unfolding within interconnected technological, organisational, and regulatory contexts [42,43], requiring architects to reconcile competing requirements across multiple scales. This role is reported in research on hospital design, where architects coordinate multi-actor innovation networks [44], as well as in digitally mediated environments where they integrate advanced tools into professional practice [41].

Adaptability is another skill frequently attributed to architects in the reviewed works in the literature [45,46]. Studies report architects’ engagement with emerging construction approaches, including cross-laminated timber systems [47], BIM-related innovation [48], artificial intelligence applications [49,50,51], and strategies addressing waste reduction and circular-economy objectives [35,52]. Adaptability is also linked to architects’ responses to changing client expectations and regulatory conditions.

In addition, architects are commonly described as collective problem solvers who operate within collaborative project settings. The literature reports architects working alongside engineers, contractors, suppliers, and clients to address technical, social, and environmental challenges. This role is documented in studies on innovation acceleration in New Zealand [53], narrative-driven collaboration in the United Kingdom [54], and corporate social responsibility-oriented stakeholder engagement [55]. Across these studies, problem solving is presented as a distributed activity rather than an individualised one.

Taken together, the reviewed works in the literature present architects’ skills in construction innovation as multidimensional. Architects are not described solely as design authors, but as actors whose skills encompass integration, knowledge creation, adaptability, complexity management, and collaborative problem solving. The skills reported in the reviewed studies are summarised in

Table 1. Architects’ skills as reported in selected construction innovation studies. Source: the authors’ systematic mapping review.

Skills	References
Integrator	Erbil et al. [11]; Naar et al. [36]; Staub-French et al. [37]; Dreher and Thiel [38]; Sal Moslehian et al. [44]; Zheng [48]; Adafin et al. [53]; Ninan et al. [54]; Nguyen et al. [55]
Trust holder for knowledge sharing	Erbil et al. [11]; Brewer [30]; Dreher and Thiel [38]; Nguyen et al. [39]; Ghiyasinasab et al. [40]; Shahruddin and Husain [41]; Sal Moslehian et al. [44]; Adafin et al. [53]; Nguyen et al. [55]
Highly complex system manager	Fang et al. [33]; Staub-French et al. [37]; Dreher and Thiel [38]; Shahruddin and Husain [41]; Xue et al. [42]; Castle [43]; Sal Moslehian [44]; Zheng [48]; Adafin et al. [53]; Ninan et al. [54]; Hänninen et al. [56]
Knowledge creator	Till and Schneider [27]; Lai et al. [28]; Lotfabadi et al. [29]; Fang et al. [33]; Dreher and Thiel [38]; Sal Moslehian et al. [44]; Zhong and Gou [47]; Zheng [48]; Adafin et al. [53]; Nguyen et al. [55]
Professional with changeable and adaptable skills	Brewer et al. [30]; Fang et al. [33]; Ramilo and Embi [45]; Zhong and Gou [47]; Zheng [48]
Collective problem-solver	Till and Schneider [27]; Lai et al. [28]; Fang et al. [33]; Staub-French et al. [37]; Dreher and Thiel [38]; Castle [43]; Sal Moslehian et al. [44]; Zheng [48]; Adafin et al. [53]; Nguyen et al. [55]; Hänninen et al. [56]; Cardellicchio [57]

.

The reviewed works in the literature also characterise architects’ involvement in construction innovation through the architects’ relationships with other project stakeholders. Across the selected studies, innovation is described as emerging within complex multi-actor project environments, where architects interact with clients, contractors, engineers, suppliers, and communities [58]. These relationships are reported as influencing whether innovation processes are enabled or constrained.

Several studies identify the relationships between architects and clients as a key factor shaping innovation outcomes [59]. In these accounts, clients who articulate non-standard or performance-driven project goals are associated with greater scope for innovation, including outcomes that exceed minimum sustainability requirements [28,44]. The literature reports that such project ambitions can give rise to new aesthetic and technical solutions, some of which later become standardised or commercially available [47]. Client capacity is also discussed in relation to innovation support, with studies noting that clients with higher levels of technical understanding are more likely to accept additional costs or risks associated with novel approaches [42]. Conversely, clients characterised by limited technical knowledge or high risk aversion are reported as constraining innovation by favouring conventional solutions and established practices [60].

The relationship between the architect and the contractor is frequently identified as another central dimension of construction innovation. Multiple studies report that early collaboration between architects and contractors supports the integration of constructability considerations into the design processes, thereby reducing uncertainty during delivery [37]. This observation aligns with earlier research highlighting design and construction integration as a driver of innovation [61,62]. In contrast, the literature also documents that fragmented project structures and limited interaction between designers and builders are associated with reduced trust and diminished innovation capacity [56].

Relationships with engineers and specialist consultants are similarly reported as shaping architects’ roles within innovation processes [63]. Studies describe how collaboration with structural and technical consultants enables alignment between design ambition and engineering feasibility, particularly in projects involving data-driven or algorithm-based approaches [34,64]. Within these accounts, architects are described as coordinating inter-organisational exchanges of technical knowledge [11]. Where consultant expertise is siloed or coordination is limited, the literature reports reduced potential for systemic innovation [11].

Suppliers and manufacturers are also identified as influential actors in construction innovation. The reviewed studies report that early engagement with suppliers enables the co-development of bespoke materials and construction processes [59,65]. Some examples include collaborative relationships with facade and glass manufacturers, as documented in research on the Elbphilharmonie project [38]. These interactions are associated with the transfer of production knowledge into design processes and with enhanced coordination across supply chains. By contrast, the literature also notes that restricted access to proprietary knowledge or selection based primarily on cost considerations can limit trust and constrain knowledge exchange [53].

Across these studies, architects are consistently described as operating within relational networks rather than acting independently. Client, contractor, consultant, and supplier relationships are reported as shaping both the scope and direction of innovation processes. The reviewed works in the literature therefore present architects’ agency in construction innovation as relationally produced, with outcomes contingent on the configuration and quality of stakeholder interactions. The relationships identified in the reviewed studies are summarised in

Table 2. Stakeholder relationships influencing architects’ roles in construction innovation, reported as enabling or constraining conditions. Source: the authors’ systematic mapping review.

Architect and…	Positive/Negative Relationship	References
Client/User	Positive—Client openness fosters architects as knowledge creators	Lai et al. [28]; Nemati et. al. [59]
Client/User	Positive—User engagement in healthcare co-creates innovation	Sal Moslehian et. al. [44]
Client/User	Positive—CSR-driven clients foster stakeholder trust and innovation	Nguyen et al. [55]
Client/User	Negative—Client risk aversion suppresses innovation	Xue et al. [42]
Client/User	Negative—Unclear requirements cause waste and hinder innovation	Adafin et al. [53]
Contractor/Builder	Positive—Early collaboration and joint innovation with contractors	Brewer et al. [30]
Contractor/Builder	Positive—Trust-based collaboration with contractors (temporary project orgs)	Brewer et al. [30]
Contractor/Builder	Positive—BIM/IDP with builders supports integrative innovation	Staub-French et al. [37]
Contractor/Builder	Negative—Fragmented project ecologies hinder innovation	Hänninen et al. [56]
Engineer/Consultant	Positive—Collaboration with engineers enables integrated technical innovation	Erbil et al. [11]; Villena Manzanares et al. [64]
Engineer/Consultant	Positive—Architects work jointly with engineers in public housing projects	Brozovsky et al. [63]; Villena Manzanares [64]
Engineer/Consultant	Positive—Collaboration across consultants supports algorithm-driven processes	Cheng et al. [34]
Engineer/Consultant	Negative—Siloed expertise limits systemic outcomes	Erbil et al. [11]
Supplier/Manufacturer	Positive—Collaboration with façade/glass suppliers creates new materials	Dreher and Thiel [38]; Sariola and Martinsuo [65]
Supplier/Manufacturer	Negative—Withholding proprietary knowledge blocks trust	Adafin et al. [53]
Community/Society	Positive—Engagement with communities fosters collective innovation	Ninan et al. [54]
Community/Society	Positive—CSR embeds social value in innovation performance	Nguyen et al. [55]
Community/Society	Negative—Public opposition slows adoption of new materials (CLT, timber)	Zhong and Gou [47]

.

3.2. Architects’ Innovation Agency Across Design and Construction Phases (RQ2)

The reviewed works in the literature also examine construction innovation in relation to specific phases of the building process and associate architects’ agency with these phases. Across the forty-nine papers included in the mapping review, between twelve and fifteen studies explicitly connect innovation to design and construction stages using terms such as stages, processes, or phases [8,66,67]. These studies report that architects’ involvement in innovation varies depending on the timing of their engagement within the project lifecycle.

For the purpose of reporting results, design phases are understood as the sequence of activities through which a building project progresses from initial concept to construction documentation, procurement, construction, and post-construction use. Within the reviewed works in the literature, four phases are most frequently associated with construction innovation: concept or early design, design development and documentation, procurement and construction, and post-construction operation and learning.

A subset of the reviewed studies associate construction innovation with the concept or early design phase. These studies report that innovation-related decisions are often initiated at this stage, prior to the establishment of detailed specifications and contractual commitments. Empirical analyses indicate that factors such as project complexity and client requirements are commonly cited as influencing innovation investment during early design [59,68].

Research on performance-driven design environments, including Solar Decathlon projects, reports that early definition of energy and envelope targets conditions subsequent design and construction decisions [69].

Several studies also report that client engagement during early design influences the scope of innovation. Client-led regimes that prioritise cost and time certainty are described as narrowing the range of possible solutions [58], while studies documenting more ambitious client briefs associate early design with expanded opportunities for innovation [28]. Early engagement with manufacturers and suppliers is reported in some studies as contributing to a clearer definition of performance objectives and method responsibilities at the concept stage [70].

Within this phase, the literature frequently describes architects as coordinating early coalitions of project actors. Studies report architects’ involvement in structuring information flows, managing early risk considerations, and facilitating collaboration across organisational boundaries [11]. The use of parametric tools, simulation methods, and early risk framing is documented as supporting the definition of innovative systems during concept development [50,71,72]. Some studies also report that early assignment of responsibility for specialist construction methods reduces uncertainty in later project stages [73].

The design development and documentation phase is reported in the reviewed works in the literature as a period in which innovation is translated into formal project information. Studies describe this phase as involving the conversion of design ideas into specifications, tolerances, and performance criteria suitable for pricing, tendering, fabrication, and verification [14,69]. A concentration of technical innovation is reported at this stage, encompassing architectural systems as well as building services.

A few studies discuss the roles of prototypes and full-scale mock-ups during design development. Where mock-ups are used to test critical conditions and support iterative learning, they are reported as contributing to collective understanding [36]. In contrast, studies also note that when mock-ups are treated primarily as compliance artefacts, they generate limited transferable knowledge and may not prevent issues during construction. Other reported constraints include fragmented modelling environments, incompatible digital tools, and limited resources [45].

Research addressing industrialised building systems and mass timber construction reports that early prototyping during design development supports resolution of tolerances and logistical issues and contributes to the production of priceable design information [60]. Studies also identify conditions under which architects maintain an integrative role during this phase, including feasibility studies of subsystems, coordinated digital modelling, reliance on recognised standards, and early involvement of suppliers so that production knowledge informs design documentation [6]. Where these conditions are absent, the literature reports breakdowns in translation between design intent and construction execution.

The reviewed works in the literature identify procurement and construction as phases critical for the continuation or dilution of innovation. Studies report that outcomes depend on how decision rights and risk allocation are structured within contractual and governance arrangements [74,75]. Collaborative procurement approaches are associated in the literature with the retention of non-standard solutions across organisational boundaries, while price-based tendering processes are reported as filtering out innovation and limiting architects’ influence [58].

Several studies describe the role of the manufacturer during procurement and construction. Where manufacturers are formally integrated into contractual arrangements and remain involved during site activities, studies report higher continuity between design intent and built outcome [70]. Case-based research on projects such as Brock Commons Tallwood House and the Elbphilharmonie documents the use of factory testing, bespoke quality procedures, and ongoing architectural oversight during fabrication and assembly [37,38].

The reviewed works in the literature also report that architects’ influence during construction varies depending on governance structures and project management routines. In some cases, responsibility for integration is shared with contractors or project managers. Studies note that architects retain greater involvement where information flows and collaborative problem-solving practices are maintained, and reduced involvement where conservative procurement practices restrict their role to documentation review and variances [11]. In contexts characterised by weaker regulatory oversight, responsibilities for temporary works are reported as being transferred to lower cost practices, with implications for quality and safety issues [73].

Fewer studies address architects’ involvement in post-construction phases, yet those that do report opportunities for evaluation and feedback. Research documents the use of commissioning processes, post-occupancy evaluation, operational data, and maintenance analysis to assess the performance of innovative solutions [76,77]. Studies also report that building envelopes and complex systems provide long term insight into durability, access requirements, and lifecycle performance [78].

Some studies describe organisational mechanisms for incorporating post-construction feedback into future projects, including updates to standard details, supplier databases, and programme planning tools [37]. Where manufacturers combine research and development activities with site operations, tighter feedback loops are reported [70]. However, the literature also notes that architects are infrequently contracted into operational phases, limiting systematic learning [11].

A small number of studies document cases in which architects are directly associated with product and material innovation emerging from post-construction engagement. Examples reported in the literature include the development of self-cleaning concrete systems associated with the Jubilee Church in Rome [57] and timber based structural systems developed through experimental architectural projects [40].

Across the reviewed works in the literature, architects’ agency in construction innovation is reported as varying across project phases. Early design is most frequently associated with the initiation of innovation-related objectives and partnerships. Design development and documentation is described as a period of translation and specification, during which innovation is formalised. Procurement and construction are reported as decisive phases in which innovation is either retained or diluted depending on governance and contractual arrangements. Post-construction phases are less frequently documented, although available studies report their importance for evaluation and feedback. These phase-related findings are summarised in

Table 3. Construction innovation across project phases and associated forms of architectural agency identified in the reviewed works in the literature. Source: the authors’ systematic mapping review.

Phase	Concept/Early Design	Design Development/Documentation	Procurement/Construction	Post Construction/Operation and Learning
CI focus	Set measurable performance targets; link form–material–climate; early supplier involvement; parametric/simulation and risk framing; assign responsibility for specialist methods.	Translate ideas into specifications and tolerances; cluster of technical innovations; “classification linkages” make non-standard solutions tenderable; prototypes and mock-ups that genuinely teach; blockers include fragmentation and weak interoperability.	Decision rights and risk allocation determine outcomes; IPD traits preserve novelty; price-only tendering filters innovation; factory tests, bespoke QA, and manufacturer presence sustain design intent.	Commissioning, POE, operational data, and maintenance logistics validate claims; update standards and supplier lists; monitored performance informs playbooks; tight loops when R&D links with site operations.
Architect agency	Shape coalition and information flows; involve suppliers early; set testable aims; map risks; assign method responsibilities.	Integration and specification authorship; govern BIM/VDC spine; feasibility studies; early supplier input; co-located iteration.	Orchestrate methods and data across firms; align QA with design intent; push collaborative procurement; sustain information flow and conflict resolution.	Convert outcomes into standards and patterns; maintain feedback loops with users and manufacturers; extend services to remain connected to assets in use.
Key references	Erbil et al. [11]; Nolan [60]; Ozorhon et al. [62]; Manley [70]; Caetano and Leitão [71]; Boakye Danquah et al. [73]; Cardellicchio [57]; Brozovsky et al. [63]	Murphy et al. [14]; Erbil et al. [11]; Naar et al. [36]; Ramilo et al. [45]; Nolan [60]; Ozorhon et al. [62]; Boakye Danquah et al. [73]	Erbil et al. [11]; Dreher and Thiel [38]; Nolan [60]; Baghi et al. [69]; Caetano and Leitão [71]; Boakye Danquah [73]; Cox and Rigby (ed.) [75]; Lee et al. [76]	Erbil et al. [11]; Cardellicchio [57]; Caetano and Leitão [71]; Hua [77]; Cardellicchio and Tombesi [78]; Brozovsky et al. [63]

.

4. Discussion

This mapping review shows that architects are not peripheral to construction innovation but are consistently positioned as actors through whom innovation is initiated, coordinated, and translated into practice. Across the reviewed works in the literature, architects are predominantly framed as enablers of innovation. Interpreting the patterns reported in Section 3, one can clarify not only how architects are represented in construction innovation scholarship, but also where and why their contributions become visible or obscured across project delivery. These patterns point to the conditions under which architectural agency is recognised, constrained, or lost within construction innovation processes.

Two explanatory domains emerge as particularly significant: professional skills and stakeholder relationships. Together, they suggest that architectural agency operates as a relational and processual form of competence, exercised through coordination, synthesis, and negotiation rather than through isolated technical authorship.

Within the skills domain, architects’ capacity to act as knowledge creators, integrators, systems managers, and adaptable problem solvers reflects their ability to work across technical, organisational, and cultural boundaries. These capacities become consequential when mobilised to manage uncertainty, align divergent interests, and stabilise novel solutions within project settings, rather than functioning as abstract professional attributes.

Equally, the literature highlights that architectural agency is shaped by relationships with clients, contractors, suppliers, and consultants. These relationships can sustain innovation when they support trust, early collaboration, and shared responsibility, but they can also constrain it when governance structures prioritise cost certainty, risk transfer, or fragmented decision-making. Architectural influence is therefore contingent on how relational networks are configured, rather than on professional capability alone.

Building on this relational understanding, the phase-based analysis reveals that architects’ influence on innovation is uneven across the project lifecycle. Their agency is most pronounced during the concept and early design stages, when performance ambitions, risk positions, and partnerships remain open to negotiation. In later phases, architectural influence depends increasingly on contractual arrangements, procurement logics, and project management routines that either preserve or erode continuity between design intent and delivery.

During design development and documentation, architects’ agency lies primarily in translation, converting ideas into specifications, models, and performance criteria that can be fabricated, tested, and verified. Procurement and construction represent a critical hinge, where innovation may be stabilised through collaborative arrangements or diluted by price-driven tendering and restrictive contractual frameworks. Post-construction engagement receives comparatively limited attention in the literature, yet the available evidence suggests that sustained involvement in evaluation and feedback strengthens learning and continuity across projects.

Furthermore, the review indicates that architectural contributions can remain difficult to acknowledge and value within the CI discourse. This constraint appears to be less of an absence of innovation activity than an indication of a lack of standardised pathways through which architectural contributions might be developed, legitimised, transferred, and assessed across an innovation process that often parallels the project lifecycle. For the interpretation of this issue, the discussion suggests a four-part framing that follows a widely observed innovation arc [21,79], as adapted here to project-based construction: development (making and trying), recognition (legitimising), documentation (transferring), and evaluation (capturing and allocating worth).

This lens extends conventional innovation models that assume stable organisational ownership (e.g., firm-led R&D pipelines) or diffusion via market-based adoption of discrete artefacts. In project-based construction, innovation is episodic and distributed across temporary coalitions, and is validated through contractual, regulatory, and evidentiary methods. The sequencing proposed, however, is adaptable to any project governance and, for this reason, helps to identify, overall, where architectural agency becomes visible or disappears, which artefacts and institutional checkpoints stabilise novelty, and how value and liability are ultimately assigned.

Recent analyses of the Elbphilharmonie glass façade in Hamburg by Herzog and de Meuron illustrate the value of this sequencing [13,38]. The first-time implementation of spherically curved, multi-layered security glass demanded new production capacities and experimental fabrication routines (development). Commitment to the solution relied on prestige dynamics and the architects’ authority (recognition), while regulatory admissibility was achieved through bespoke testing and single-use approvals (recognition). Standard routines proved inadequate, prompting new quality criteria and documentation practices that translated novelty into inspectable artefacts and supported oversight aligned with design intent (documentation). The trajectory closed as testing outcomes informed emergent standards and redistributed value and liability across specialist suppliers, contractual arrangements, and long-term performance expectations (evaluation).

Overall, the sequence helps explain a persistent tension in the mapped literature where architects’ contributions are not consistently rendered legible across project lifecycles and are therefore difficult to capture empirically. Architectural agency in CI is therefore not always visible to large-scale, survey-based, bibliometric, or macro-level approaches that privilege stable categories, formal organisational ownership, or readily quantifiable outputs.

Research Gap

These insights collectively underscore the need for a more targeted and project-sensitive inquiry into how architectural agency operates within innovation ecosystems. In this context, case study analysis provides an effective bridge between conceptual frameworks and empirical realities [80]. By tracing how novelty is initiated, negotiated, and stabilised within specific projects, case studies illuminate mechanisms that broader models can only approximate. They show how architects operate as knowledge creators, integrators, and collective problem-solvers within complex networks, and how design intent is translated into technical and procedural innovation across documentation, procurement routines, construction practices, and post-occupancy feedback. Not surprisingly, the value of project-based inquiry is well established in CI research [81,82]. For architectural innovation in particular, case study research is well suited to documenting how design ambition is converted into innovation claims, evidentiary artefacts, and delivery practices [83]. Scholars such as Dana Buntrock [84] and Alberto Bologna [85] show how avant-garde projects stimulate industries by demanding new materials, fabrication routines, and techniques. In Australia, the building of Renzo Piano’s Aurora Place prompted the development of an innovative glass louvre system [86], while Frank Gehry’s Dr Chau Chak Wing Building required a new brick façade and fixing method that later became a commercial product line [87]. Furthermore, projects such as Zaha Hadid’s MAXXI Museum and Richard Meier’s Jubilee Church [78] similarly demonstrate how architectural vision can extend technical and material boundaries, linking creative experimentation to industrial transformation. As Shelden observes [88], practices specialising in complex façades and high-performance assemblies occupy central positions within innovation ecosystems, sites where architectural creativity intersects with manufacturing expertise and technological development.

If architectural agency is enacted through distributed development, recognition, documentation, and evaluation, then empirical research designs must be able to follow these mechanisms within projects. This points to the value of case-based and process-tracing approaches capable of capturing how innovation is rendered, deliverable, legitimate, and valuable, across the project lifecycle. Taken together, these cases illustrate why case study analysis remains a vital method for accelerating CI research and practice [89]. It allows scholars to connect architectural agency with construction outcomes and helps practitioners understand how innovations move from individual projects into broader industry practice.

Among the contexts best suited to advancing this research agenda, publicly funded projects stand out. These projects combine visibility, accountability, and social responsibility, providing ideal conditions for examining architect-led innovation under real-world constraints. For instance, Symons’ study on large-scale hospital projects found that publicly funded buildings provided opportunities to integrate design management innovations, while also exposing gaps in regulatory coordination and evaluation frameworks [90]. This underscores the potential of public projects to serve not only as technical trials but as institutional learning environments.

Kirk emphasises the need for a more entrepreneurial profession that can capitalise on the structured nature of public projects to test experimental ideas under real-world constraints and translate them into industry-recognised standards [91]. Elvin’s work illustrates how integrated practice within publicly funded projects fosters environments conducive to innovation [92].

Beyond the practice, the concept of the entrepreneurial state, introduced by Mazzucato (2013), provides a strong theoretical foundation for the potential use of public-funded buildings as case studies for tracing design-led innovative solutions [93]. Mazzucato argues that transformative innovation often originates within publicly supported initiatives, challenging the view that private enterprise is the sole engine of technological progress. Within this perspective, architects working on publicly funded projects translate collective goals into technical and spatial solutions that advance both societal and industrial innovation [94,95]. Yet this capability of the profession remains under-realised when project processes and outcomes are not systematically recorded or shared. Much of the knowledge generated in public construction, including advances in sustainable materials, circular design, and digital fabrication, remains confined within project boundaries, limiting cumulative learning.

This review therefore supports a research agenda that moves from attributing innovation to professional groups toward tracing the mechanisms through which innovation is proposed, negotiated, and stabilised. Three priorities follow from the mapped patterns:

• Decision-chain analysis instead of phase labels: Trace how innovation decisions are made, transferred, or reinterpreted at key project’s junctures to reveal when and how architectural agency is exercised or diluted within the innovation process.
• Comparative studies of procurement routes and contractual structures: Examine how different governance and risk-sharing models redistribute decision rights and shape when architectural agency holds, transfers, or contracts across delivery systems.
• Empirical attention to delivery-phase practices: Use process tracing and archival ‘learning histories’ [96] to capture the micro-routines through which novelty is negotiated, verified, and fixed in place, making architectural innovation empirically visible and institutionally traceable.

5. Conclusions

Across the mapped literature, architects’ involvement in construction innovation is widely acknowledged, yet unevenly sustained, as projects move from design intent to delivery. Architectural agency is most influential in early project stages, when performance ambitions, partnerships, and risk positions remain open to negotiation, and is subsequently consolidated through design development and documentation. Procurement and construction emerge as decisive hinges, where innovation is either stabilised or diluted depending on contractual arrangements, risk allocation, and the continuity of coordination across project actors. Taken together, these patterns indicate that architects’ innovative contributions are not absent, but variably recognised and maintained across project lifecycles.

The central gap identified by this review is therefore not a lack of innovation activity, but a persistent difficulty in attributing, transferring, and accumulating architectural contributions to innovation in analytically robust ways. Addressing this gap, the paper’s principal contribution is a four-domain framework for analysing architect-led construction innovation across development, recognition, documentation, and evaluation. The framework provides a means to locate where architectural agency becomes visible or disappears, which artefacts and institutional checkpoints stabilise novelty, and how value and liability are ultimately assigned.

By shifting attention from broad professional attributions to the mechanisms through which innovation is proposed, negotiated, verified, and fixed in place, this framework supports a more precise understanding of architectural agency. Specifically, the review motivates further research that traces decision chains at key project junctures, compares procurement routes and contractual structures, and examines delivery-phase practices through process tracing and archival learning histories. Methodologically, the synthesis strengthens the case for comparative case study approaches capable of following innovation across its full lifecycle, enabling architectural contributions to be assessed in cumulative and policy-relevant ways. In particular, the framework is well-suited to examining innovation within complex, publicly accountable project contexts, where architectural agency intersects with institutional learning, regulation, and long-term value creation.