Sergeeva, N and Radosavljevic, M (2010) Radicality of ideas: Challenging radical versus incremental changes in construction. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
It has been suggested in key governmental reports and recent research findings that radical changes are needed for construction industry along with a continuous flow of incremental improvements. The majority of the literature on radicalness has been primarily focused on innovations, i.e. final result of innovative process; whereas radicality of ideas – the beginning of this process – was out of the scope of researchers. The aim of current study is, therefore, to investigate innovative ideas and their radicality. We have classified ideas by their radicality degrees, identified and highlighted the importance of radical ideas in construction industry, found out barriers and ways for managing them towards successful implementation into innovations. An experimental framework which reveals the correctness of the proposed ideas was conducted. In order to achieve this the following factors were chosen to explore – peoples' perception of radicality, in other words what people take into account in order to evaluate ideas by their radicality degrees and their preferred rewards. The preliminary results shows that suggested definition and classification of radicality of ideas is matched with peoples' perceptions. Intrinsic rewards are more preferable than extrinsic ones for contribution of ideas and solutions to problems. Some managerial implications are provided.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | idea; innovation; management; radicality |
| Index terms: | Construction IT, implementation, construction industry |
| Subjects: | information systems, industry analysis, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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