Hartmann, T and Levitt, R E (2010) Understanding and managing three-dimensional/four-dimensional model implementations at the project team level. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(7), pp. 757-767. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper introduces an extant, theoretical, social-psychological model that explains the sense-making processes of project managers confronted with a new technology to improve our understanding of project-based innovation processes. The model represents the interlinked processes through which project managers decide to implement new technologies on their projects according to the outcomes of these sense-making processes. The paper validates the model against observations gathered in four case studies of technology implementation on construction projects. Doing so, it assesses the general usefulness of the model to explain the success of technology implementation dynamics in project teams. The paper also derives a number of management suggestions from the model: for example, project managers should focus squarely on the immediate benefits of the technology in improving work processes on the project instead of focusing on long-term strategic firm or industry benefits.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case reports; decision support systems; implementation; social factors; technology |
| Index terms: | decision support, construction project, project manager, case study, new technology, social factor, dynamics, project team, implementation |
| Subjects: | production management, decision analysis, sociology, systems engineering, data collection methods, profession, innovation and technology management, contractual arrangements, project delivery |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| 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