Wild, A (2002) The management college that never was. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
The article describes and interprets the attempt of Geoffrey Rippon, Minister of Public Building and Works 1961-64, to establish a “Management College for Building” in 1963-64. The attempt becomes enmeshed in: competing strands of policy making around the establishment of business schools, the expansion of management education and employee training; initiatives which flowed from the Emmerson Report (1962) and existing provision for management education in construction. It is argued that the failure of the project is properly interpreted as evidence of construction’s 'cohesive fragmentation', which is replicated in the Ministry’s policy-making process. This is justified by comparing the fate of the project to that of the Building Industry Communications Research Project (BICRP), (Higgin and Jessop 1963) and the approach adopted by Emmerson himself.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building; college; fragmentation; management; Ministry of Public Buildings and Works |
| Index terms: | building industry, evidence, public building, policy making, fragmentation |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, policy studies, business, construction type, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Construction Technology, Governance, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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