Chancellor, W; Abbott, M and Carson, C (2015) Factors promoting innovation and efficiency in the construction industry: A comparative study of New Zealand and Australia. Construction Economics and Building, 15(2), pp. 63-80. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
There have been numerous concerns about the lack of productivity improvement in the New Zealand construction industry. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to determine the main drivers of productivity in the industry. The research used is a two-staged data envelopment analysis approach to achieve the aim. In terms of improvements to the productivity of construction in New Zealand, the study found that although there is a potential for gains through the greater use of research and development, apprentice training and degree education, as well as the consolidation of some building companies, there will be some limits to the gains that might be made. One main implication of the findings of the study, therefore, is that a renewed focus on education and skills training should be a priority of companies and policy makers in New Zealand.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; data envelopment analysis; productivity |
| Index terms: | Australia, data envelopment analysis, construction industry, productivity, New Zealand, research and development, efficiency, comparative study |
| Subjects: | Geography, performance management, research design and methodology, management, industry analysis, data analysis and analytics, research management |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy |
| 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