Shen, F and Stewart, I (2022) Argument mapping of the proposed benefits of agility and agile practice adoption in construction projects. In: Tutesigensi, A and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 38th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2022, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
Some agile methods and practices have been argued to have potential benefits for construction, but those arguments have not been analysed critically. Argument mapping analysis, based on the Toulmin (1958) model of argument, is used to examine how research has constructed arguments about the benefits of agility in construction and whether the adopted agile practices have met the proposed benefits. Results showed that pro-agile arguments were constructed around flexibly responding to changes in construction management. However, some of these lack empirical evidence. Organisational and project-level barriers to agile adoption were claimed in con-agile arguments. Studies also showed negative attitudes towards agile practice adoption and resistance to the pro-agile arguments. Findings are relevant to construction managers considering agile solutions for better performance. In addition, identifying how claims surrounding agile are constructed can also lead to an evaluation of the influence of these accounts on researchers and practitioners.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | agile supply chain; agile methods; agility; construction management. |
| Index terms: | construction manager, practitioner, evidence, mapping, construction project |
| Subjects: | profession, evaluation and assessment methods, practitioner, spatial and geospatial analysis, production management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PA |
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