Tombesi, P (2006) Good thinking and poor value: On the socialization of knowledge in construction. Building Research & Information, 34(3), pp. 272-286. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Chapter 7 of the Pearce Report (2003) elaborates succinctly on the role that technical progress should fulfil within a construction sector committed to the sustainable generation of social and economic value. Caught between technological macro-analysis and policy-steering objectives, and possibly overwhelmed by the difficulty of treating the subject within the limited scope of the report and time available, the chapter offers a few aggregate industrial data and some commendable, albeit generic, recommendations about innovation. Yet, as part of work conceived under the aegis of a strategic and development initiative, the chapter underplays the opportunity of highlighting two issues that have and should condition the policy debate on construction innovation in the future. The first issue is concerned with the project-based nature of the sector and its consequent ability to spur or thwart change. The second involves the definition or indication of practical institutional strategies that can trigger the changes foreseen or promoted within such a context. Based on this critique, a rationale is developed in the present paper for the strategic creation of technical progress by drawing attention to two specific elements: (1) the cost-benefit equation in the generation of new knowledge, and (2) the possible qualitative distribution of research investment opportunities in the industry. It is shown that although construction-related innovation and project-based innovation are naturally connected, a critical difference exists between the two. For the latter to develop and have an impact on the industry, both political support and wilful patronage are required.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | change management; construction value; industrial ecology; innovation; innovation leadership; patronage; productivity; public knowledge; public policy; research strategy; social investment; technological progress; technology transfer |
| Index terms: | public policy, technology transfer, construction sector, construction innovation, change management, drawing, productivity, aggregate, strategy, ecology, critique |
| Subjects: | management, industry analysis, building construction, materials science, evaluation and assessment methods, environmental science, knowledge management, technical documentation, public policy |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Design Practice, Sustainability, Governance, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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