Case Study — Caldwell & Sons (Construction) Ltd

Module 4, Unit 1 | Construction case study

By the end of this case, you will be able to:

• Identify the real business problem beneath competing stakeholder priorities
• Map the current workflow and mark where an AI or automation proposal might responsibly intervene
• Analyse likely human impact, including who may benefit, who may be negatively affected and who needs to be consulted
• Prepare a proposal, workflow diagram and leadership presentation without building a working technical solution

Scenario snapshot. A Leeds-based, third-generation construction firm. A recent near-miss has rattled the MD. An IT consultant is pitching £180k of AI computer-vision on site cameras. Is that the right call?

Back to the five scenarios

Your Brief

You have been asked to advise leadership on whether and how AI or automation should be used in this organisation. Your recommendation should be specific enough to act on, but restrained enough to be credible.

You are not expected to build a working solution. Use the case to prepare a one-page Opportunity Brief, a workflow diagram or process map, and a 7–10 minute presentation followed by approximately 10 minutes of Q&A.

Organisation Snapshot

Caldwell & Sons is a regional construction firm based in Leeds, founded in 1971 and currently in its third generation of family ownership. The firm delivers mixed projects: commercial fit-out, school refurbishment, and small-to-medium new build (£0.5m to £8m). It directly employs 145 staff: 28 site managers, 65 trades, 22 office/QS/contracts, and 30 labour and apprentices. In addition, it relies on a rotating pool of around 200 subcontractors. Annual revenue is approximately £24m.

Business Context

Caldwell is in a tight spot. Material costs are volatile, margins are compressing, and a recent near-miss on site (a worker narrowly avoided being struck by a falling tool) has triggered enhanced HSE scrutiny. The MD is shaken by it. A long-standing client, a local authority commissioning school refurbishments, has begun asking for monthly sustainability reporting (embodied carbon, waste, energy) that Caldwell cannot currently produce. Several senior site managers are approaching retirement and the firm is conscious it's losing institutional knowledge.

Process A — Daily site reporting (progress and H&S)

Each site manager is supposed to file a daily report via the Procore mobile app: weather, headcount, deliveries received, hazards observed, near-misses, plus photos. Reports feed a weekly client report assembled by the compliance officer. In practice, many site managers still keep paper notebooks because of patchy site broadband and because that's how they have always done it. Photos sit on personal phones for days.

Pain points

• Roughly 40% of daily reports are submitted late or incomplete.
• Photos of hazards are routinely on a site manager's personal phone, not in the system.
• Weekly client reports are assembled manually by one over-worked compliance officer.
• Near-misses are under-reported; staff worry about 'getting blamed.'

Process B — RFI (Request for Information) handling

Subcontractors and trades raise RFIs when site conditions or drawings need clarification ('which spec of brick goes here?', 'how is this beam fixed?'). RFIs are submitted via email, the Asite platform, or WhatsApp. The contracts team logs and routes them to the architect or engineer. Responses come back to the contracts team and are passed to the asker.

Pain points

• Average response time: 8 working days; site teams need 2 to 3.
• RFIs raised by WhatsApp routinely don't make it into Asite, so there's no audit trail.
• Slow RFI responses are the single biggest cause of programme slippage on three current projects.
• Multiple subcontractors raise the same RFI separately, generating duplicate work.

Voices Around the Table

These voices are evidence. They do not all agree, and that disagreement is part of the case.

Managing Director (3rd-generation owner): "I will not have another near-miss on my site. I cannot live with what nearly happened."

Operations Director: "I support the safety drive but if we don’t fix RFIs we are losing a fortune in programme slippage. That funds everything else."

Senior Site Manager (retiring in 18 months): "We’ve managed for fifty years without cameras spying on the lads. I don’t trust any of it."

Health and Safety Manager: "I want the CCTV AI. I cannot defend another near-miss to HSE without showing we acted."

Commercial Director: "Eight days to answer an RFI is killing us commercially. That is where the money is leaking."

Apprentice (in second year of this very AI apprenticeship): "I think we are about to spend £180k on the wrong thing. I’m not senior enough to say that in a meeting though."

Subcontractor foreman (external): "If they put AI cameras up watching me work, I’m off. I’ll go to a site that treats me like a human."

Proposals Already on the Table

Before your team was brought in, others in the organisation had already proposed ideas. Some may be useful. Some may be distractions. Evaluate them without getting captured by the loudest pitch.

Practical Realities You Should Know

Project drawings live in three places: Asite (the client-facing portal), a company Dropbox folder (internal), and a per-site OneDrive set up by whoever set up the site. File naming is inconsistent across site managers: "rev3," "REV 3 final," "revision_three_FINAL_v2," "Tuesdays version," "24042026." There is no agreed document-control standard, and no audit has been done of which version of any given drawing is currently authoritative on which site.

Constraints

• Year 1 budget: £50,000
• Construction (Design and Management) Regulations apply
• Site broadband is unreliable at all live sites
• Subcontractor turnover is high; consent and induction processes are already strained
• Local authority client requires explainability for any AI used on their projects
• Recent near-miss has triggered HSE engagement; nothing must increase legal exposure

Your Team Task

• Define the real business problem in measurable terms.
• Map the current workflow and mark where your proposal would intervene.
• Decide whether AI or automation is viable, and whether a lower-tech process change should come first.
• Explain likely human impact: who benefits, who may be negatively affected, and what support or consultation is needed.
• Name the risks, data limits, ethical concerns and governance requirements.
• Prepare your one-page brief, workflow diagram and 7–10 minute presentation.

Remember: This is a proposal exercise. You do not need to build a chatbot, workflow automation, dashboard, wireframe or prototype. A clear workflow diagram is enough if it helps the leadership panel understand your recommendation.

KSB evidence focus

• K22: Collaborative working principles to explore AI and automation solutions and implement prototypes, pilots or proof of concepts.
• S22: Present and communicate information including the translation of technical concepts into accessible materials to support clear dialogue with stakeholders.
• S23: Work with others to achieve agreed outcomes or outputs. Provide evidence-based analysis and insight to leaders on the likely human impacts of automation projects.
• S3: Undertake analysis to identify if automation is viable.
• S6: Review and complete workflow and process mapping.