K.I.S.S. This is far more complicated than what a company called Mololithic Dome for like almost 50 years.

Hate to burst your concrete bubble, but they've been inflating concrete domes since the mid 1960s. The work was pioneered by Dante Bini. In fact, there are numerous companies that design and build custom inflatables and provide materials and plans for concrete domes. To be honest, I can't see any advantage of this method over existing inflating methods. Anyone know what the advantages are?

Personally I like this method better than the one detailed in the article:
www.monolithic.org
No cracks and the entire structure is one solid piece. Plus it's been in use for years already.
Also a question - the article here states a test structure was built in approximately two hours... Does this include the time needed for the concrete to harden?

How do these domes differ from the domes that popped up like mushrooms all over the place in the 1960's called Binishell Shell Domes. And due to the lack of progress in this area they seem to have failed. http://failures.wikispaces.com/Binishell+Domes

"In a test of the system, a concrete dome measuring 2.9 meters (9.5 ft) in height was built in approximately two hours."
That statement is an outright lie. It may have taken approximately two hours to raise the structure from flat on the ground to its usable height but there is no way that everything was done in two hours.

1600 concrete structures were built with the Binishell system (patented by Dante Bini) all over the world. In my area, Tuscany, I've seen many of them (Dante Bini studied architecture in Florence): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binishell

I have to agree with other commenters here, this article is decades late and a dollar short.
The Vienna University of Technology may have added some improvements to the general technique (although they got to be fairly mild or subtle) but this entire process has been used for decades.
This article might be of some interest to those unfamiliar with this technique, but 'new', hardly.

The technique of using an inflatable rubber dome form for successive layers of Gunite applied concrete mix has been in use since the late 50's. Early on, there was some successful work done concurrently with the inflatable dome forms using a high proportion of short pieces of steel wire clippings in the mix for additional strength and cohesion, therefore leaving the traditional hand-placed and tied rebar out entirely.

This is completely different than monolithic versions with various advantages and disadvantages. Here the bag is used for lifting only vs the shape for the mono.
It's far easier to place the concrete, finished the one here simply by pouring it vs a gunnite gun, etc needed for the monolithic.
I like the Mono too but the posts here are out of line. Can't you be happy there is another choice instead?
As for the example I can think of several better ways to do structures with this raising system.
I'd go for a flat without cuts into a U /vault style building and raising to place. I'm fairly handicapped and I could do such myself in 1 day to set up, pour, another to inflate into position, put in end caps with doors, windows, etc.
Selecting the right 'cement' is key. I certainly wouldn't be using standard concrete with this.

There is an English company that has a blanket system filled with some sort of cement or concrete and fibers. The pneumatic tubes cause it to take shape and the fabric is then made wet with a garden hose. No rebar is required. I like it better as the shape looks a bit more normal than the domes shown and it is easier and faster to to erect. It is good in combat zones and is very resistant to wind storms and rather permanent in nature. Cracking is not an issue. It is also strong enough to allow a bulldozer to pile dirt several feet up the walls for extra protection.