Goodier, C; Austin, S and Guthrie, W (2009) Future scenarios for the European construction industry. In: Dainty, A R J (ed.) Proceedings of 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2009, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
The future is by its very nature uncertain and unknown, and only by discussion and debate regarding how the future may develop can we adequately prepare for what may lie ahead. A collaborative scenario development process was developed with the European Construction Institute (ECI) Industry Futures Task Force. This involved investigating and debating the range of issues and factors that might impact upon the European construction industry in the next couple of decades, which resulted in the development of four future scenarios for the European construction industry and five key characteristics for ECI s preferred future. From this the ECI identified a set of actions for its member organisations. Amongst these were the formation of two new Task Forces on People and Collaboration - a direct consequence of the work presented here.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competitiveness; construction planning; corporate strategy; energy; future studies |
| Index terms: | collaboration, competitiveness, construction industry, future study, construction planning, corporate strategy |
| Subjects: | management, market analysis, industry analysis, research design and methodology, business, construction planning |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Site Management, Research Practice, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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