> most of them basically imply that construction is inefficient because contractors are dumb.
I don't think contractors are dumb. But I do think that they don't accumulate productivity efficiencies the way other industries do. There's a rule in economics that every X units of a product that gets made, manufacturers tend to improve by Y% percent efficiency. Because they learn by doing, and the more experience the industry accumulates the more chances it has to make continuous improvements off gradual innovation.
Moore's Law is probably the most extreme example. But it's well known in virtually every industry. For example Toyota kept getting repeatedly better at building cars more efficiently and reliably because they carefully observed the process and kept making improvements.
The problem with the contractor model is this doesn't happen, because you don't have large firms that can exploit economies of scale. At anything above lower management, every one is in their own isolated fiefdom where they can keep making the same mistakes and not learning from each other. If one contractor is 20% more efficient, it's difficult to grow fast into a national brand and export those productivity improvements.
Simple example. Copper plumbing is still widely used in most parts of the country. Pex plumbing is strictly superior. It’s much cheaper, easier to install, more reliable, and less likely to damage the framing. Despite being around for decades, most contractors still use copper.
If you really want to see gains in construction, I think you'll need a large Amazon-like org where every one on site works directly for the company and they're all centrally managed. As soon as you're outsourcing something, you should no longer expect to have it done efficiently. This is fine when it's something ancillary to your business. But when you're a homebuilder, especially a homebuilder aiming to achieve sustained productivity improvements, everything being done on site is core and should be directly under your management team.