Nam, C H and Tatum, C B (1992) Strategies for technology push: Lessons from construction innovations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(3), pp. 507-524. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Based on examples of successful construction innovation, this paper makes four principal arguments. First, the notion that owner's demands or problems dominate the innovation process in construction is largely a myth. Second, in most successful processes of construction innovation, technology plays a critical role in inducing owner's demands as well as in formulating problems. Third, in light of the importance of technology in the innovation process in construction, a proactive technology leadership strategy is more feasible than commonly thought. Fourth, effective implementation of technology-push strategy requires continuous research and development (R&D) efforts that are integrated but informal in nature. Implications and conclusions from these findings include: Development of technical capability in specific areas can provide a basis for innovation and competitive advantage, incremental improvement through persistant efforts at all levels of the organization can produce significant long-term advantages, and viewing technology as a broad opportunity for improvement can arm firms with solutions for project innovation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | strategy, research and development, construction innovation, implementation, competitive advantage, owner |
| Subjects: | sociology, market analysis, research management, contractual arrangements, management, building construction |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Research Practice |
| 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