Winch, G (1998) Zephyrs of creative destruction: Understanding the management of innovation in construction. Building Research & Information, 26(5), pp. 268-279. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to propose a comprehensive framework for the management of innovation in construction, addressing the construction innovation problem in two distinctive ways at the institutional and firm levels. First, an institutional perspective derived from research on complex systems industries is developed which provides an alternative to the volume production model for construction innovation research. The roles of the innovation infrastructure, innovation superstructure and systems integrator are all identified and applied to construction. The paper then moves on to the firm level where the two key innovation dynamics - the top-down adoption/implementation dynamic and the bottom up problem solving/learning dynamic are identified. The paper ends by calling for more case studies of the trajectories of construction innovations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adoption/implementation; complex product system; construction innovation; problem solving/learning; systems integrator |
| Index terms: | complex system, complex product system, case study, construction innovation, implementation, problem solving, dynamics |
| Subjects: | building construction, systems engineering, decision-making and reasoning, contractual arrangements, innovation and technology management, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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