Lichtenberg, J (2005) Slimbouwen®: A strategy for innovation. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, London, UK.
Abstract
Slimbouwen® (SLIM in Dutch stands for both smart and lean, BOUWEN is the Dutch word for 'to build') starts from the appointment that the traditional way of building does not fit the today's requirements anymore. Building does substantially affect the environment in many ways and the building process became quite complex. In the last century step by step services were added to the already known building structure, without re-evaluating the building tradition. Slimbouwen® is based on a skeleton structure and the separation of services from the building structure. A crucial development for this approach is a floor system which enables the installers to mount their prepared and prefabricated services as a whole. The separation of services facilitates a simplification of the process and a substantial gain of time. Slimbouwen® is a new approach and source for research in the frame of the chair 'product development' at the Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building strategy; industrial; efficiency; flexibility; innovation; product development |
| Index terms: | efficiency, product development, simplification, building process, strategy, installer |
| Subjects: | management, performance management, practitioner, innovation studies, building construction |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Site Management |
| 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