Saad, A M; Dulaimi, M; Arogundade, S; Zulu, S L and Gorse, C (2024) Modern methods of construction (MMC) and innovation negativism in the UK public sector. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 14(2), pp. 147-163. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose: The recent failures and insolvencies of organisations related to the modern methods of construction (MMC) have gained increased attention and controversy across the UK construction sector. Such failures are linked to their inability to achieve an economy of scale and drive key clients to accept the MMC as an alternative to traditional methods. This paper aims to unravel whether a phenomenon of “innovation negativism” has manifested and is contributing to public clients' indecision towards broader MMC, whether this is only linked to past negative experiences formed after the Second World War or whether additional contributing reasons exist to influence adoption. Design/methodology/approach: This study focusses on exploring the decision-making of the UK public construction sector; therefore, this paper adopts a qualitative approach, utilising interviews with 14 carefully selected MMC experts, government advisors and public clients. The phenomenological stance adopted herewith enables the authors to make better sense of the perceptions of the interviewees, leading to the conceptualisation of the innovation negativism phenomenon. Findings: The paper identifies nine themes that may be argued to promote a profound understanding of the MMC negativism influencing public clients' decision-making. The study has found that more than just the previous negative perceptions formulated post Second World War are driving innovation negativism in the UK public sector. Notably, the emerging themes are incomprehension, lacking evidence, communication, relationship history, bad experiences, uncertainty, inadequate experimentation, the business case and localism. Originality/value: This study is the first construction management research that acts as a fair departure point to conceptualise the reasoning behind innovation negativism in the construction setting. Through mirroring demand's unipolarity for traditional methods, policy and decision-makers can now rely on the conceptualised reasoning to determine practical solutions to overcome clients' indecisions towards MMC.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; construction industry; innovation negativism; modern methods of construction; public sector |
| Index terms: | business case, public client, construction industry, history, construction sector, built environment, evidence, methodology, decision-making, localism, war, public construction, experiment, public sector, qualitative approach, insolvency, management research, modern methods of construction, reasoning, interview |
| Subjects: | conflict and crisis studies, research methods, political science, liability law, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, administrative law, sociology, decision analysis, building construction, cognitive psychology, research design and methodology, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, strategic project management, architectural and construction history |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Urban Studies, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Risk 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