Lawrence, K; Chan, P W and James, A (2016) Absorptive capacity as a basis for construction innovation: From a capabilities to a routines perspective. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
It is widely reported through both academic and practice discourse that the construction industry, in the UK and globally, suffers from low levels of innovation. At its core, scholars have argued that the temporary nature of project-based construction serves to stymie innovation and reduces the possibility for the all-important tacit knowledge to move between projects. So, although innovation and problem solving could occur routinely in individual projects, the dominant view is that new knowledge is not always effectively captured and transferred between individuals, teams, firms, alliances and the sector for re-use. Missed opportunities to exploit new knowledge, contribute to low levels of innovation as officially recorded in the sector. By definition, construction is a creative industry that often re-invents itself through the creation of bespoke products and services. Thus, in this paper, we challenge the view that construction is a low-innovation sector by re-examining the literature on absorptive capacity in the field of construction management research. Through a systematic review of the conceptualisations and applications of absorptive capacity in studying construction innovation, we argue that prevailing views of an industry that is routinely poor at recognising and applying new knowledge is too simplistic. We draw on the contemporary critique of the capabilities approach, and current scholarship on the generative capacities of organisational routines to stress the innovative power of mundane routines. Through this critical review, we call for a need to look beyond official measures of innovation and somewhat linear and static view of absorptive capacity, and for researchers and practitioners to become more sensitised to the dynamics of everyday routines and their generative capacities. Thus, what is seemingly a failure to transfer tacit knowledge and innovation in and across projects can be viewed as constant change and creativity if one delved deeper into the micro-foundational dynamics of everyday practices.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | absorptive capacity; absorptive capacity routines; construction sector; dynamic capabilities; micro foundations |
| Index terms: | management research, construction industry, systematic literature review, construction innovation, re-use, routine, organizational routine, problem solving, dynamic capability, practitioner, creativity, tacit knowledge, dynamics, absorptive capacity, low level, foundations, construction sector, critique |
| Subjects: | measurement and scaling, structural engineering, research evaluation and metrics, decision-making and reasoning, industry analysis, innovation and creative processes, evaluation and assessment methods, management, practitioner, systems engineering, professional development, business, building construction, health safety and environment, sociology, theoretical framing, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Business Strategy, Information Management |
| 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