Download Vassos’s presentation here:
When Vassos Chrysostomou joined members of the Masonry Association of Great Britain’s Technical Committee to talk about humanoid robotics, the room certainly had something to say.
Construction has never been renowned for being an early adopter of technology.
As an industry, we are often proud of the fact that we know what works. We have established ways of building, established trades and generations of practical knowledge behind us. Change can be slow — and understandably so.
But what happens when change is no longer something we can simply choose to adopt later?
That was the question at the heart of the latest MAGB Technical Committee meeting, where Vassos Chrysostomou, Founder of IBE Humanoids, joined members to talk about Leo — a humanoid robot being developed specifically with the built environment in mind.
And it certainly got people talking.
From science fiction to construction site reality
For many people in the room, the idea of a humanoid robot working alongside construction teams still feels like something from a science-fiction film.
But Leo is being developed around a very different proposition.
The intention is not simply to put a robot on a construction site and ask it to replace a skilled operative. IBE Humanoids describes Leo as a workforce multiplier — a machine designed to support people by taking on the dull, dangerous, dirty and physically demanding tasks that can place pressure on the human workforce.
The longer-term vision goes considerably further, with Leo potentially assisting with tasks, inspections, information gathering and reporting, while connecting into the digital systems that increasingly sit behind modern construction projects.
That is a very different conversation from simply asking whether a robot can lay bricks.
And it is one that the masonry sector needs to start having.
“But what happens to the jobs?”
It was perhaps inevitable that the conversation would turn to employment.
There was genuine concern around what increased automation could mean for the construction workforce. If machines can eventually undertake tasks currently carried out by people, does that simply add more workers to an already challenging unemployment landscape?
That is not an unreasonable question.
Technology has always changed the nature of work, but the speed at which AI, robotics and automation are developing makes this particular conversation feel different.
There was also a recognition, however, that the question cannot simply be “Do we want this to happen?”
Because the technology is already being developed.
Leo is being positioned for future construction use, with IBE Humanoids targeting wider deployment around the end of the decade. Industry discussion around humanoid robotics has already moved beyond whether the technology is theoretically possible and towards how it could be integrated safely and effectively into real construction environments.
The question for construction may therefore become less about whether robotics is coming, and more about how we choose to respond to it.
A difficult conversation — and exactly the right one
The reaction around the Technical Committee table was fascinating.
There was excitement, scepticism, curiosity and, understandably, a degree of apprehension.
And that is precisely why MAGB wanted Vassos to speak.
The Technical Committee exists to look beyond the immediate challenges facing masonry and identify issues that could shape the sector in the years ahead. Its purpose is not simply to discuss what is happening on construction sites today, but to identify emerging issues before they become widespread industry problems.
Robotics belongs firmly in that conversation.
Major contractors and parts of the supply chain are already beginning to explore how robotics and physical AI could change the way construction work is delivered. The wider industry is starting to investigate humanoids as tools for improving productivity, safety and working conditions rather than simply as replacements for people.
For an industry experiencing persistent skills shortages, an ageing workforce and pressure to improve productivity, it would be difficult to ignore that development.
The question isn’t simply “robots or people”
Perhaps the most important message to come out of the discussion was that this should not be reduced to a simple battle between humans and machines.
The more interesting question is what should humans be doing, and what should machines be doing?
There are tasks within construction that are repetitive, physically demanding, hazardous or simply unpleasant. There are also tasks where human judgement, craftsmanship, problem-solving and experience remain fundamental.
Leo’s proposed role is aimed at the first category — supporting human workers rather than removing human judgement and responsibility.
That distinction matters.
If robotics can remove some of the repetitive physical strain from construction, could it make certain careers more sustainable? Could it help people stay in the industry for longer? Could it support workers rather than simply replace them? Could it make construction more attractive to a wider workforce?
These are questions worth exploring alongside the very real concerns about employment and skills.
Construction can’t simply bolt a robot onto a broken process
There was another important point running through the wider conversation around Leo: technology on its own is not the answer.
If we simply take an inefficient construction process and put a robot into the middle of it, we haven’t necessarily solved anything.
We may simply have created an expensive robot doing an inefficient job.
The real opportunity may therefore be much bigger — to rethink how work is planned, sequenced and delivered, and to consider how humans, machines, digital information and construction processes can work together.
That is a much more uncomfortable conversation for construction.
It means challenging some of the ways we have always done things.
And perhaps that is exactly why we need to start now.
So, do we embrace it?
There was certainly no expectation around the table that everyone should suddenly become a robotics enthusiast.
Nor should they.
There are still huge questions around cost, safety, regulation, skills, training, liability, workforce impact and the practical realities of operating robotics on live construction sites.
But ignoring the conversation doesn’t make those questions disappear.
If anything, it risks leaving construction reacting to technology rather than helping to shape how that technology is introduced.
For MAGB, that is one of the reasons we wanted Vassos in front of our Technical Committee.
We don’t necessarily have to embrace every new technology. But we do need to understand it.
We need to ask difficult questions.
We need to understand what it could mean for brickwork, for masonry contractors, for manufacturers, for training and — most importantly — for the people who currently make up our workforce.
And we need to make sure that construction has a voice in deciding how these technologies are developed and implemented.
The future is coming. The question is whether construction helps shape it.
Perhaps the most valuable thing about Vassos’s presentation wasn’t that it convinced everyone in the room that humanoid robots are the answer.
It didn’t.
What it did was create a genuinely open conversation about something that many in construction would probably prefer to put off thinking about for another few years.
But that is precisely why these conversations matter.
The construction industry has often been accused of being slow to adopt new technology.
This time, we may not have the luxury of waiting until everyone else has adopted it first.
Leo might still feel like the future. But the conversation about what that future looks like is already happening.
And MAGB’s Technical Committee intends to be part of it.
