Tatum, C B (1988) Classification system for construction technology. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(3), pp. 344-363. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Better understanding of the components of construction technology and the ways in which they differ for different construction operations will support technological advancement and improve the competitiveness of the U.S. construction industry. This paper describes a classification system that includes the following components: Material and equipment resources, construction-applied resources, construction processes, and project requirements and constraints. The elements and the attributes of the classification provide a tool to measure technological change and analyze specific operations for potential improvement. The paper reviews the relevant background, develops the classification system, describes its use to define the technology for specific construction operations, and highlights conclusions regarding the components of construction technology and the potential for future use of the classification in both research and construction practice.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | technological change, competitiveness, construction technology, construction industry, construction operation, construction process |
| Subjects: | innovation studies, digital engineering, construction operations, industry analysis, building construction, market analysis |
| Topics: | Site Management, Digital Applications, Business Strategy, Research 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