Orstavik, F (2018) Negotiating and knowing built quality. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2018, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Considering construction an assembly process, the obvious precondition for achieving high quality outcomes is managerial coordination and control. Only management can temper the fragmentation effected by specialization and division of labour. Doing ethnographic research on “the sharp end” in building sites – work operations rather than administration, that is – it is soon realized that building work really is not so much about assembly as it is about giving form and shape to what is produced. As Styhre has pointed out, aesthetical talents, creative powers and skills have to be mobilized for such work to be successful. This paper focus on the world of creative activity underlying the systemic level of elements and linkages modelled by engineers, architects and project planners. In this world of practice, “knowing” is the outcome of efforts as much as a precondition for efforts. Each worker and each team have to take into account that situations are complex and that no contributor in the project has a full overview of the process and future developments. What is enacted by some has implications for what can be enacted later, and by others. Creating the micro-conditions for efficient operations and high quality solutions (on the level underlying managerial coordination) depends on continuous monitoring and negotiations. Such negotiations are ongoing within and between teams but also between workers and material elements. Essentially, dealing with the material reality is not assembly; it is an ongoing struggle against stubborn resistance. While ANT concerns innovation, this paper deals with production of built objects. Based on fresh ethnographic data it is shown how tending to deviations, inaccuracies, errors and contradictions in the emerging built object is at the core of the production process. Understanding how high quality operational outcomes are achieved in this process, the irrelevance of formal quality systems also becomes obvious.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | aesthetics; knowing; practice; project based production; quality control |
| Index terms: | monitoring, fragmentation, quality control, engineer, production process, negotiating, aesthetic, negotiation, division of labour, specialization, coordination, planner, linkage, building site, deviation, architect |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, management, business economics, conflict resolution, manufacturing engineering, profession, business, site and location studies, factor and component analysis, control systems, project delivery |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Quality Management, Stakeholder Management, Site Management, Geographical Context, Cost Management, Design Practice, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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