De La Garza, J M and Mitropoulos, P (1991) Technology-transfer (t2) model for expert systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(4), pp. 736-755. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Increased complexity of facilities, owners' changing needs, inadequate construction methods, and international competition have created strong demands for advanced construction technology. Recent developments in computer-aided design and expert systems provide the architecture-engineering-construction (AEC) industry with significant potential for innovation. However, adoption of these computer technologies by a majority of AEC firms faces many hurdles. This paper describes, refines, and expands the process of technology transfer in an organization. The process focuses on the transfer of expert-systems technology and is based on the models of innovation developed by Rogers, Shaffer, and Tatum, and on case studies of expert systems technology adoption in several industries. Understanding the technology transfer process, recognizing its players, and identifying the critical factors affecting it will lead to practical recommendations for increasing the rate of construction innovation and technology transfer.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction innovation, owner, construction method, competition, expert system, technology adoption, computer aided design, face, advanced construction technology, case study, complexity, critical factor, technology transfer |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, data management, innovation and technology management, market analysis, building construction, knowledge management, sociology, psychology, computational design, manufacturing engineering, risk assessment, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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