Hartwell, J (2018) Construction organisation structure and innovation adoption. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2018, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
This paper explores the sociotechnical impact of organisational structure in relation to innovation diffusion within Main Contracting in the UK construction sector. The construction sector alongside society at large is at a pivotal stage in the development of implementing innovative advancements (technological and non-technological) which promise, if utilised correctly to have an overwhelming effect on productivity of work, efficiency and consequently improving both profit margins and overall outcomes for all stakeholders. Innovative advancement has the potential to solve many of the issues highlighted in past and present research. The contemporary landscape including social, cultural and business has undergone major changes in recent years due to socio-technological and socio-economic innovation. Literature reveals the role of innovation in construction at an increasing rate of interest (Abbott, 2010), primarily due to its ability to secure a sustainable competitive advantage, improving one’s project performance and profitability (in the case of the private organization) or by adding value for money (in case of public sector client) (Davidson, 2013). In addition to this primary objective, innovation also promotes stakeholders to become “challengers” by penetrating new markets and pitting themselves against less successful “incumbents” in niche markets. The purpose of this preliminary paper is to identify the social-contagion and socio-technical aspects of intra-organizational structure towards achieving innovation diffusion – A study related to large main contractors in the UK construction industry with fragmented and consolidated organizational structures. It attempts to explore the impact of leadership and organizational culture within these types of differing organizational structures, leading to the identification of themes for further and detailed analysis. Following a literature review to elucidate parameters of existing knowledge an Inductive cross case analysis using semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher to examine two UK based main contractors with local, national and international standings of a similar size but with differing organisational structures.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | innovation adoption; organisational structure; fragmentation; collective decision making. |
| Index terms: | value-for-money, organizational culture, construction industry, construction sector, markets, profitability, cross-case analysis, project performance, niche market, decision-making, profit, productivity, public-sector client, fragmentation, literature review, socio-technical, innovation adoption, organizational structure, society, main contractor, construction organization, efficiency, innovation diffusion, competitive advantage, interview |
| Subjects: | management, performance management, research methods, project management theory and practice, evaluation, market analysis, decision analysis, sociology, industry analysis, communities and social development, data collection methods, organization, business, practitioner, innovation studies, data analysis and analytics, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Quality Management, Value Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| 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