In many parts of the world, and particularly here in Australia, we are seeing labour pipeline pressures intensifying as the imbalance between design and delivery capability continues to widen, alongside ageing populations and other factors.
In Australia, providers estimate that the number of entrants into the construction industry is not sufficient to offset the number of leavers due to retirement, alongside increased demand through the supply chain. Most states and territories are recognised as being in shortage for most construction trades. Further to this, advocacy groups such as Engineers Australia suggest that labour market demand for engineers (civil and structural) is growing at a rate three times faster than for other skill sets.
I would further argue that common educational methodologies and approaches are not appropriately upskilling graduates and tradespeople in “softer” skill sets, such as clear communication, collaboration, the application of practical judgement, adaptability, and resilience.
Put simply, we are not producing enough skilled labour with the appetite and capability for both design and delivery, nor the softer skills required to fast-track success in the early stages of a career.
Much to the chagrin of many in our industry, and more broadly, this isn’t a problem an AI tool can solve. I believe we can address some of the key issues in the above problem statement (the overall size of construction cohorts, cross-skilling between design and delivery, and soft-skill development) by challenging current educational paradigms—starting earlier than university, and valuing delivery literacy and influence skills alongside design and technical depth.
Blending Learning Pathways, and Earlier on
Currently, most young minds are introduced to the construction industry at high school, if not earlier should they have a familial connection. Schools provide theoretical upskilling at the expense of practical problem-solving, while universities often pigeonhole students into pathways far too early, with only a small requirement for practical, “on-the-job” experience—often ambiguous in its required outcomes. There is a need to prioritise earlier engagement in practical learning and pathways, which would help overcome prejudice or negative perceptions about pursuing them, rather than sticking to traditional theoretical learning.
Put simply, all mainstream learning providers should offer trade pathways from age 14 and above, as well as science subjects more deeply aligned to engineering design and construction methodologies. There must be better integrated government involvement that connects established trade schools with preparatory and tertiary education providers, to ensure transparency in pathways and career opportunities.
One of the current difficulties (speaking to the Australian experience) is that, due to a lack of support and opportunities within mainstream education, trade pathways are generally disregarded or poorly considered in favour of mainstream, classroom-based learning. By increasing both the volume and visibility of coursework such as carpentry, plumbing, electrical engineering, and civil and structural engineering, we would increase the total number of students engaged in both design and construction pathways.
Further to this, tertiary education providers—particularly in civil and structural departments—need to ensure a greater frequency and diversity of “on-the-job” placements throughout a student’s undergraduate studies. Too often, theoretical study is prioritised over real-world application; as a result, students emerge from their undergraduate studies with little appreciation or understanding of their desired pathway in the broader workforce. Even at the expense of shorter study periods, students should be expected to rotate through a variety of career pathways, such as design houses, contractors/builders, and the public and private sectors, across varying scopes, to give them the best appreciation of the construction sector’s diversity.
These practical placements should be governed by a set of assessment criteria designed by national construction authorities to ensure that both theoretical and practical outcomes are addressed and met. These criteria should focus not only on practical experience, but also on the student’s engagement and behaviour against key soft-skill metrics such as communication and objection management, so they can be appropriately mentored before entering the workforce on a full-time basis.
What Does ‘Good’ Look Like?
In summary, we need to get students involved in construction earlier, across a variety of trade and engineering pathways, which are then nurtured in the early stages of their careers.
Pillar 1:
- Academic institutions, trade schools, and national authorities opening career pathways from the early teens.
Pillar 2:
- Integrated learning methodologies that build relationships between design and construction, from school into university.
Pillar 3:
- Greater diversity in practical experience that is guided and assessed by national authorities.
How Do We Build the Roadmap?
As is the case in most great projects, success comes from a division of labour and responsibilities—preferably through a top-down approach.
For national construction institutions or authorities, there needs to be agreement on metrics for total labour market participation (increase in population by %, etc.), assessment criteria for curricula, and incentives for education providers to align quickly. There also needs to be clear ownership of outcomes at a national level to ensure genuine program governance.
Industry bodies then need to be engaged to align expectations and outcomes for mutual buy-in. This opportunity should then be extended to large industry employers, who will inevitably be the ones engaging with students throughout their study pathways and beyond.
Universities’ adherence to updated curriculum structures, practical placements, and related requirements can be ensured by aligning educational design with national standards. For example, a student cannot graduate and be nationally recognised with a bachelor’s (or equivalent) in civil or structural engineering without completing the new frameworks.
Preparatory environments and trade schools can then embed updated curricula and learning pathways to align with tertiary and national goals and standards.
In Conclusion
The construction skills gap won’t be solved by producing more graduates who can only design or only deliver. We need blended, job-ready cohorts built through earlier exposure to trades and engineering, genuinely integrated pathways, and the assessed development of communication and influence skills alongside technical capability. The payoff is clear: more constructable designs, stronger site leadership, and fewer costly interface failures.
