Nam, C H (1990) The process of product innovation in the building and heavy sectors of the U.S. construction industry. PhD thesis, Stanford University, USA.
Abstract
The peculiar characteristics of constructed products significantly differentiate construction from manufacturing; this suggests that the innovation process in construction and, specifically, the factors governing this process will differ in many aspects from those of manufacturing. The purpose of this research is to decipher the process of product innovation in construction, which has been neglected by researchers despite its immense importance to the technological advancement of construction. This investigation considers ten successful product innovations in the building and heavy sectors of the U. S. construction industry. These innovations occurred on different construction projects across the U. S. Each project is the subject of an individual case study; the research as a whole uses a multiple-case design. The close scrutiny of what really happened in the processes of ten successful product innovations produced some interesting findings. In these examples of product innovations, technology often led rather than followed the problems. In the ten cases, most new ideas did not come directly from external sources. They came predominantly from either earlier technologies the designers or contractors had used in their previous projects or existing technologies which the construction professionals called common knowledge. Most owners in the ten innovative projects displayed high levels of both involvement in the project and commitment to innovation. Furthermore, the data suggest that there might be a close relationship between the owner's technical competence and his active participation in the project, or at least a better understanding of technical matters for timely approval of innovative ideas. Also, most top managers involved in the ten product innovations were the working engineers who brought up the basic concepts for the key ideas used in the innovations. Despite the unfavorable contractual system of the U. S. construction industry, many cases demonstrated that there were ways to innovate. The disintegration of the design from the construction functions under the current competitive bidding system could be corrected not only through some contractual provisions, but also through some non-contractual means such as the owner's leadership, the long-term relationship between organizations, employing integration champions, and the professionalism of the many project participants.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Tatum, C B |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; case study; competence; competitive bidding; innovation; integration; leadership; manufacturing; owner; participation; professionalism |
| Index terms: | professionalism, bidding, integration, construction project, competence, commitment, approval, top manager, competitive bidding, construction industry, disintegration, construction professional, investigation, owner, engineer, designer, product innovation, case study |
| Subjects: | contractual role, innovation studies, practitioner, psychology, bidding, production management, data collection methods, profession, material degradation and durability, professional development, personnel development, sociology, organizational analysis, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Project Management, Procurement, Human Resources, Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Construction Materials, Information Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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