Control and emergence: The paradox of construction management

Bentley, D (2000) Control and emergence: The paradox of construction management. PhD thesis, University of Hertfordshire, UK.

Abstract

The dominant discourse on the management of the construction is rooted in an assumption of control which is reflected in the predominance of procedures, schedules and programmes. The understanding that lies behind that discourse is of linear cause and effect systems. This thesis challenges this understanding by exploring the paradox which arises when these linear reductionist assumptions are applied to a situation which is, in reality, messy, unpredictable and non-linear. In this study I reflect on this paradox drawing on my own experience, and that of my colleagues, in the industry, and explore how the construction process may be seen as a self-organising and emergent process. Starting from the foundations of the dominant discourse in the scientific management and human relation schools, this study reframes the construction process from a complexity science perspective. This perspective draws on the work of Kaufmann (1985), on the behaviour of non-linear complex adaptive systems and their demonstration of a self-organising emergent nature at the edge of chaos, and Stacey (1996) in mapping this process in organisations. From this point of view, I have re-interpreted the construction process in a way which encompasses the intuitive, non-linear and qualitative way in which managers deal with the unpredictable situations that they face on a daily basis. Applying a complexity science perspective reveals the construction process as the interaction of networks of complex adaptive systems. Focusing on the estimating, planning, design and risk management aspects of construction shows that solutions are emergent from the function of an interactive non-linear process. In the lived experience, contained in the narratives of construction managers, we see that construction projects are also emergent phenomena where creative and novel solutions are found close to the edge of chaos. A complexity perspective provides an understanding of the existing process that puts the paradox of control and emergence into context. Through this understanding we can recognise and accept the unpredictable and emergent nature of the industry and embrace, within the dominant discourse, the use of non-incremental, non-linear, intuitive processes to seek to novel solutions.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Uncontrolled Keywords: complexity science; scientific management; complexity; construction project; estimating; foundations; risk management; complex adaptive system; emergence
Index terms: interaction, face, drawing, human relation, emergence, mapping, scientific management, complexity, complex adaptive system, paradox, self-organizing, risk management, manager, construction manager, construction process, estimating, narrative, foundations, construction project, science, programme
Subjects: project controls, risk assessment, profession, qualitative and interpretive research, structural engineering, practitioner, business, building construction, sociology, psychology, social theory and frameworks, spatial and geospatial analysis, production management, financial and cost management, specialized education, behavioral psychology, systems engineering, technical documentation, management
Topics: Project Management, Human Resources, Cost Management, Education, Site Management, Business Strategy, Time Control, Research Practice, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

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