Tatum, C B; Bauer, M F and Meade, A W (1989) Process of innovation for up/down construction at Rowes Wharf. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 115(2), pp. 179-195. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
There are many demands for technological advancement in construction but the mechanisms to bring this about are not well understood. This paper describes the process that resulted in an example of construction innovation, the use of the “up/down” construction method on the Rowes Wharf project. The first section includes a review of alternative methods for foundation construction, a description of the innovation, an explanation of the process of innovation, and a summary of the results. The description of the process gives the background of the project team, reviews the alternatives considered, identifies the steps in evaluation and implementation, and gives the problems. The second section then compares this innovation with a model of the process of innovation on a construction project and presents conclusions and practical applications for industry professionals seeking to increase the rate of innovation in their firms and researchers seeking to better understand this complex process. The major insights from this example of innovation concern the owner’s organization, concurrent conceptual and detailed planning, and the need for iteration in selecting design approaches and construction methods.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | owner, implementation, project team, construction method, construction innovation, construction project |
| Subjects: | project delivery, contractual arrangements, building construction, sociology, production management |
| Topics: | Site Management, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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