Wild, A (2001) The Phillips Report on building: 1950. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
The article reviews and interprets the "Phillips Report" of 1950 the first "post war" report on construction. This reviews attempts to realize aspirations and plans for reconstruction derived from the Simon Report(1944) and the climate of "planning for post war Britain" (Simon 1945). Phillips is a 'Discourse of Hope' based on the experiences of a group of 'Keynesian planners' from the public and private sectors who collaborated within the wartime value consensus. Phillips shows that by 1950 the context and practices of construction had begun to diverge from their assumptions. The discourse evolved until Crichton (1966) but relied on: an assumption of the manageability of construction established in Phillips and reflected in attention to the supply rather than demand side; and a concept of contracts let in a setting of collaboration facilitated by extensive but unrealisable degrees of information. Phillips is compared to Emmerson (1962), one of a set of reports and research which attempted to develop the concept of planning and assumption of manageability in the face of changes in construction. These split the theme of contracts, (Banwell 1964), and communications, (Higgin and Jessop 1963, Crichton 1966), which dominate official reports since 1944; communications signifying problems of co-ordination.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communications; contracts; management; planning; phillips report |
| Index terms: | reconstruction, private sector, face, collaboration, war, planner |
| Subjects: | profession, psychology, management, conflict and crisis studies, building construction, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| 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