Murphy, M (2016) Exploration of the synergies between activity theory and the dmaic method in evaluating construction processes. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Since Taylor advocated the analysis of workflows as a means to improving efficiency and labour productivity (Taylor 1914), construction operations and processes have been evaluated using systematic techniques such as methods study, value engineering and, more recently, the Six Sigma DMAIC method. Whilst DMAIC identifies process improvements it does not take into account the effect of decisions and influences caused by worker activities on the construction process. Such influences may be the determinant of the original 'current state' of the process or, more critically, may sustain and reinforce the 'current state' in spite of improvements. It is proposed this failure to identify and address underlying human influences in construction processes can potentially render improved efficiencies from established improvement methods, unsustainable. Activity Theory is a 'framework aimed at transcending the dichotomies between the mental and material, observation and intervention in the analysis and redesign of work' (Engestrom, 2000). Activity Theory investigates human behavioural phenomena to provide detailed insights in determining the holistic evaluation of a process. This paper explores the synergies that exist between Activity Theory philosophy and the DMAIC method and their application in the evaluation of a specific construction process, namely the Reviewable Design Data (RDD) process of a construction project. It was identified that whilst the DMAIC method generated improvements, Activity Theory identified the underlying influences that were being used as tools and rules to guide workers through the RDD process, namely professional knowledge, allegiance and previous experience. It was observed that these influences have the potential to impact, for better or worse, the DMAIC outcomes. This dual-methodological approach shed light on how technical factors and people activities interact in construction processes. It is proposed that this combined approach could provide a cross check for the robustness of findings in established process improvement methods and in so doing produce more sustainable project outcomes.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | activity theory; dmaic; worker activity; methodology; process improvement |
| Index terms: | synergy, redesign, workflow, determinant, labour productivity, construction project, methodology, exploration, construction process, construction operation, professional knowledge, project outcome, philosophy, activity theory, value engineering, six sigma, process improvement, efficiency |
| Subjects: | environmental resource management, construction operations, risk assessment, project completion, design methods, value management, partnership management, building construction, philosophical studies, theoretical framing, management, performance measurement, research methods, performance management, production management, professional development |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Information Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Site Management, Design Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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