Tookey, J E; Bowen, P A and Hardcastle, C (2005) Concurrent engineering: A comparison between the aerospace and construction industries. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 3(1), pp. 44-55. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
The construction industry in the UK has been subject to frequent reports over recent years, all focusing on perceived inefficiencies within the industry and how processes can be improved to deliver construction projects on time, and within cost and quality targets. Most notable of these reports have been Latham (1994) and Egan (1998), which contend that construction should come closer to manufacturing in design, development and supply chain practices to achieve ambitious improvement targets. The most frequently mentioned industries for such “benchmarking” are the aerospace and automotive industries. Concurrent Engineering (CE) appears to offer significant potential to the construction industry as a means to achieve these targets. This paper identifies key aspects of CE practice in aerospace manufacturers and, in the spirit of the Egan report, possibilities for their adoption in UK construction projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | aerospace; concurrent engineering; expertise transfer; knowledge sharing; knowledge transfer |
| Index terms: | manufacturer, knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, construction project, benchmarking, Latham, automotive industry, concurrent engineering, construction industry |
| Subjects: | knowledge management, research dissemination and communication, practitioner, industry policy reports, industry analysis, engineering methods, performance measurement, production management |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Governance, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management |
| 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