Root, D; Fernie, S and Baldwin, A N (1999) The languages of product and service: Barriers to the integration of construction and design. In: Hughes, W (ed.) Proceedings of 15th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September 1999, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
The desire to bring design and construction activities closer together is well established and has been generally welcomed by the industry through the adoption of concepts such as 'buildability' and the attempts to foster long term relationships between organizations up and down the 'supply' chain. This paper argues that the historical and traditional split in the construction industry between design and construction activities has given rise to separate languages derived from different meanings based on the notions of 'product' and 'service'. The existence of separate languages notably on what is being demanded of, and what is being supplied by the various parties involved in construction projects, is examined in the context of an ongoing research project focusing on integrating construction and design activities through supply chain management. The paper reflects on the project’s implicit aims of developing a common language which can underpin and integrate both design and construction activities. Initial thoughts on what might form the basis of such a common language are presented.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | language; meaning; product; service; supply chain |
| Index terms: | construction industry, design and construction, integration, construction project, meaning, buildability |
| Subjects: | organizational analysis, sociology, design efficiency, industry analysis, production management, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement, Project Management, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here