Loosemore, M and Holliday, S (2012) Pro-innovation bias in construction- enablers and risks. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
The term innovation has become ubiquitous in modern business and political circles in recent years. Innovation is increasingly seen as essential for commercial success and as a means to increase living standards, competitiveness and productivity in a world of depleting resources. By thinking more creatively about the risks and opportunities they face, it is argued widely that individuals, organizations and nations can get ahead of their competitors. But is innovation always positive and what are the enablers of innovation which determine its success? We explored these questions through interviews and focus groups with thirty thought leaders in the UK construction sector. From our analysis we conclude that there are four main enablers of innovation in the construction sector, namely: collaboration, regulation, skills, education and research and, leadership. Recommendations are made to capitalize on them.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | innovation; bias; risk; barriers; enablers |
| Index terms: | regulation, competitiveness, collaboration, bias, construction sector, focus group, interview, face, productivity |
| Subjects: | political science, industry analysis, market analysis, probability and distributions, management, psychology, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 CTEA |
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