A Powerhouse Sequel - The return of sensors is building better claims outcomes on the job site

Rose Hall, PE | Frank Dobosz | June 29, 2026 | Originally published in CLM

Ten years ago, the construction industry was promised a revolution. We were told the job site of the future would be blanketed in Internet-of-Things (IoT) sensors that would solve all our environmental-control concerns by tracking humidity, temperature, dust, VOCs, light, and noise; and feeding that data into a central dashboard that would reduce risk, improve working conditions, and streamline operations.

However, those early sensors never quite became part of the job site’s DNA the way we anticipated. The industry experienced what can only be described as “digital organ rejection.” Despite the clear value proposition on paper of detecting and preventing environmental hazards, early adoption was an uphill battle. However, the tide is turning. IoT is making a resurgence—not as a shiny gadget, but as a critical operational and claims management tool.

To understand why contractors and claims professionals should take a second look at this technology, we must first understand why it stalled in the first place, and what has changed to make it viable today.

The Anatomy of Failure: Why Early IoT Stalled

In the mid-2010s, the primary reason for slow adoption was not that the technology did not work; it was that the incentives were misaligned, the delivery was cumbersome, and the alerts did not autonomously trigger mitigation or optimization. Contributing factors to slow adoption included:

• The “not my problem” syndrome. Initially, contractors viewed sensors as a line-item cost rather than a savings tool. If a sensor could prevent a $1 million water leak, that was great in theory. In practice, the general contractor (GC) was already paying for insurance to cover that leak. Until insurance companies began offering significant premium credits or lower deductibles for using IoT (which took years to even begin to standardize, and still struggles), there was no immediate return on investment (ROI) for the builder. The sensor was largely solving the insurance carrier’s frequency and severity problem; not the contractor’s problem.
• Insights without action. Perhaps the most dangerous flaw of early sensors was that they offered insight without action. A sensor might alert a superintendent or project manager (PM) at 2:00 a.m. that humidity was spiking, or elevated carbon monoxide levels were detected. If the superintendent was asleep, or if the site was closed, the condition persisted. Worse, this created a liability paradox. The sensor created a discoverable record of a “hazardous condition” that went unmitigated. By installing the sensor, contractors could inadvertently increase their liability profile by documenting a problem they failed to fix immediately. For claims and litigation professionals handling negligence or defect allegations, this discoverable data without corresponding action was a nightmare.
• The “all or nothing” fallacy. Early tech startups often pushed for enterprise-wide adoption, insisting their solution was an essential ingredient on every single project. This attempt at “world domination” left contractors with only two options: engage everywhere or nowhere. Because these early IoT companies failed to guide contractors on which specific projects would actually benefit from the technology, contractors took the easy path and chose “nothing.”

The reality of the construction industry is that a client does not need these sensors and services on every job. However, contractors do need the capability to seamlessly plug-and-play this technology on any job when the risk profile demands it. The modern approach moves away from a forced enterprise mandate and instead sets up a flexible enterprise program with bi-directional communication about which projects exceed a risk threshold. Project teams can deploy sensors and services on demand, specifically in the following cases:

• Tech-enabled prevention. Programs that satisfy best practices for water damage prevention and moisture mitigation that protect quality and drive schedule assurance.
• High-risk environments. Projects that require strict climate control or sensitive materials (e.g., data centers, mass timber, hospital environments).
• Post-loss events. Rapid deployment of water damage restoration support based on instant alerts that reduce damage, recovery time, and claims costs.
• Compliance phases. Periods that require specific environmental management, such as VOC flushing.

The Resurgence: The Era of “Invisible Integration”

Today, the landscape has shifted. Advances in connectivity (including 5G cellular networks and LoRaWAN) have addressed many of the battery and range limitations that plagued early devices. But more importantly, the business model has evolved. The new generation of environmental control follows a strategy of being “invisibly integrated.” Widgets and data fatigue are replaced with only the critical information needed for meaningful action.

Here is why contractors—and the claims community that supports them— are taking a second look.

• From “risk mitigation” to “schedule insurance.” The biggest cost on a job site isn’t a leak; it’s a delay. Modern solutions have pivoted from selling safety to selling speed and certainty.
• The concrete example: acceleration. Instead of just monitoring temperature to prevent freezing, modern sensors monitor concrete maturity and substrate dryness. This data allows the GC to prove that the concrete has cured and materials have dried sufficiently to strip forms days earlier than the standard schedule dictates. The sensor is no longer just a safety cost; it is a profit-protection tool that reduces schedule risk.
• The mass timber example: the digital chain of custody. Mass timber represents perhaps the most critical use case for the modern sensor stack. Unlike concrete, where the goal is speed, mass timber requires equilibrium. If the engineered wood dries too quickly or unevenly, it can suffer from “checking” (cracking) and warping, which can compromise the structural integrity and void the manufacturer’s warranty.

On these projects, sensors are not optional; they are the defense mechanism for the “moisture management plan” (MMP) required for insurability. The new generation of sensors provides a “digital chain of custody,” creating an immutable record that the wood moisture content (WMC) levels remained within strict manufacturer specifications from the moment the material left the factory, through transport, and during installation. This data protects the contractor against warranty claims and defect allegations, proving that the asset was stabilized correctly every step of the way—which is invaluable for early claim assessment and resolution.

Closing the Loop: From Alert to Control

The most significant leap forward is the move from passive monitoring to active control. We are moving away from devices that simply scream for help and toward systems that solve the problem.

Modern environmental control systems integrate the sensors with the machinery. If a leak is detected, the system shuts off the water valve. If humidity spikes in a mass timber project, the system does not just send a text; it turns on the dehumidifiers and adjusts the heaters to maintain that critical equilibrium. This “end-to-end” approach mitigates the risk of inaction and prevents the very losses that typically result in costly litigation.

IoT is no longer a single sensor measuring a single parameter, but a multi-risk solution for the life of the project. Ten years ago, IoT was showing PMs how to get alerts on humidity spikes. Now, IoT companies are working directly with GC clients on demonstrating cross-functional value with these systems on their highest-risk projects. The right systems on the right projects translate to faster deliveries with controlled quality.

The story of early construction IoT was one of a great solution looking for the wrong problem. The future of the industry belongs to solutions that hide the tech inside the workflow and the machinery.

For contractors and claims professionals alike, the question is no longer “Should we reengage with sensors and systems to monitor and manage water and environmental conditions?” The question is, “How do we ensure project certainty?” If a solution can guarantee your schedule, protect your mass timber warranty, autonomously control your job site environment, and provide ironclad data for claims defense, it is no longer a gadget. It is a critical risk management and litigation tool.

This article was original published in Claims and Litigation Management Alliance here: A Powerhouse Sequel - The return of sensors is building better claims outcomes on the job site