Loosemore, M (2014) Rebalancing the construction productivity debate. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
Subcontracting is a common aspect of all construction markets but is a particular feature of countries like the UK, Italy and Australia, where similar statutory, political and regulatory changes have reduced the number of vertically integrated firms and driven increased fragmentation and self-employment in the industry. While subcontracting has produced many advantages, particularly around flexibility, it has also led to many challenges around coordination and productivity. It is therefore surprising that subcontractors have been missing from the productivity debate. To rebalance the debate, eight focus groups were conducted with seventy one of AustraliaÕs leading tier-one subcontractors. The results indicate that from a subcontractorÕs perspective productivity could be improved significantly by fairer and more inclusive workplace practices which provide more opportunities for subcontractorÕs to innovate and to share risk and reward.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | productivity; subcontractor; fairness; trust; risk; innovation |
| Index terms: | coordination, construction productivity, subcontractor, self-employment, Italy, fairness, productivity, subcontracting, Australia, construction market, focus group, fragmentation |
| Subjects: | operations management, management, Geography, business economics, leadership, data collection methods, practitioner, organization, business, market analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Supply Chain Management, Project Management, Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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