Building constructive innovation networks: Role of relationship management

Keast, R and Hampson, K (2007) Building constructive innovation networks: Role of relationship management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(5), pp. 364-373. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

In response to the growing demands for innovation, networked arrangements that draw together and synthesize the knowledge resources of multiple organizations and sectors have come to the fore-front within the construction arena. Because they are based on a relational governance principal, these new arrangements require management strategies and techniques that may not be synonymous with conventional approaches. Drawing on the Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation as an example of an interorganizational innovation network, this case study examines its formation and operation to determine the role that relational governance plays in these new arrangements and to provide insights into the relationship-based management strategies employed. The case study indicates that although a mix of governance modes supplements the relational approach, network management remains a critical, if often overlooked, function. Based on the findings, a preliminary relationship management framework is presented as well as some key lessons for those responsible for the architecture, operation, and administration of these innovation networks.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Australia; innovation
Index terms: Australia, management strategy, construction innovation, relationship management, research centre, case study, governance, drawing, interorganizational
Subjects: management, technical documentation, data collection methods, Geography, construction type, building construction, business
Topics: Construction Technology, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Human Resources, Governance, Design Practice, Research Practice, Engineering Principles
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