Said, H; Rajagopalan, A and Hall, D M (2025) Longitudinal analysis of interorganizational collaborative networks of cross-laminated timber (CLT) construction. Construction Innovation, 25(6), pp. 1840-1864. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is an innovative construction material that provides a balanced mix of structural stiffness, fabrication flexibility and sustainability. CLT development and innovation diffusion require close collaborations between its supply chain architectural, engineering, construction and manufacturing (AECM) stakeholders. As such, the purpose of this study is to provide a preliminary understanding of the knowledge diffusion and innovation process of CLT construction. Design/methodology/approach The study implemented a longitudinal social network analysis of the AECM companies involved in 100 CLT projects in the UK. The project data were acquired from an industry publication and decoded in the form of a multimode project-company network, which was projected into a single-mode company collaborative network. This complete network was filtered into a four-phase network to allow the longitudinal analysis of the CLT collaborations over time. A set of network and node social network analysis metrics was used to characterize the topology patters of the network and the centrality of the companies. Findings The study highlighted the scale-free structure of the CLT collaborative network that depends on the influential hubs of timber manufacturers, engineers and contractors to accelerate the innovation diffusion. However, such CLT supply collaborative network structure is more vulnerable to disruptions due to its dependence on these few prominent hubs. Also, the industry collaborative network's decreased modularity confirms the maturity of the CLT technology and the formation of cohesive clusters of innovation partners. The macro analysis approach of the study highlighted the critical role of supply chain upstream stakeholders due to their higher centralities in the collaborative network. Stronger collaborations were found between the supply chain upstream stakeholders (timber manufacturers) and downstream stakeholders (architects and main contractors). Originality/value The study contributes to the field of industrialized and CLT construction by characterizing the collaborative networks between CLT supply chain stakeholders that are critical to propose governmental policies and industry initiatives to advance this sustainable construction material.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction technology; innovation; knowledge management; organizational learning; social network analysis; supply chain management |
| Index terms: | engineer, interorganizational, main contractor, fabrication, construction technology, cross-laminated timber, architect, construction material, social network analysis, modularity, project data, sustainable construction, longitudinal analysis, manufacturer, innovation diffusion, organizational learning, publication, knowledge management, topology, methodology, collaboration |
| Subjects: | research dissemination and communication, digital engineering, practitioner, manufacturing engineering, research methods, geometry and topology, sustainable construction, data collection methods, profession, business, building materials, data analysis and analytics, management, professional development, sociology, design flexibility |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Sustainability |
| 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