Gerwick, B C (1990) Implementing construction research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(4), pp. 556-563. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
There has been a great deal of concern expressed in recent years that the United States construction industry is falling behind in international competition through lack of adequate research. However, innovation continues to abound, especially in the United States, but development, the D of R & D, is increasingly hindered by the application of short-term business economics. This paper examines the various existing institutions for the promotion of research and development and briefly evaluates their successes and limitations. The most effective R & D appears to be that in which an individual construction company and the research organization are closely involved all the way through to field application. While isolated R & D projects may not always show significant economic justification; a series of related innovations can be synergistic and lead to major gains. Innovation, with follow-up development, is a policy that does pay off; it may even be the determinant between success and failure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction company, United States, construction industry, determinant, research and development, promotion, competition |
| Subjects: | research management, Geography, industry analysis, market analysis, organization, management, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Risk Management, Geographical Context, Human Resources, Business Strategy |
| 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