Love, P E D and Matthews, J (2023) Hold-ups and failures in negotiated order: Unearthing the nuances of rework causation in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(3): 06023001, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Despite the significant amount of research undertaken to determine the causes of rework, construction organizations still struggle to mitigate its occurrence. This paper presents research from an ongoing longitudinal study using a sense-making lens to examine rework causation in a transport megaproject. It was observed that rework often emerges as a consequence of hold-ups, which are failures in negotiated order stemming from misunderstandings, misinterpretations, role ambiguity, and breakdowns in communications and interactions between project participants. Rather than adopting a reductionist view of rework causation that focuses on the use of prefixes such as poor, limited, inadequate, and lack of, which abounds in the construction and engineering management literature, this research unearths the nuances associated with errors and rework, enabling a richer understanding of the context within which it manifests in projects. The upshot is that a new theoretical framing is presented to understand better the why and how of rework causation in construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | errors; hold-ups; negotiated order; rework; sense-making; social disorganization |
| Index terms: | rework, interaction, engineering management, megaproject, construction organization, framing |
| Subjects: | control systems, behavioral psychology, strategic project management, conceptual models, operations management, organization |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, 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