Mahapatra, K and Gustavsson, L (2008) Multi-storey timber buildings: Breaking industry path dependency. Building Research & Information, 36(6), pp. 638-648. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The Swedish legal restriction on construction of multi-storey timber buildings was imposed in 1888 and repealed in 1994. The subsequent emergence of such a timber building system in Sweden is analysed in the context of the existing concrete-based construction system. The characteristics of the construction industry and its path dependency over the past century hamper the development of a timber building system. However, government policies and funding, the wood industry's interest in an enhanced market for value-added wood products, and involvement of the wood research community has helped develop such a construction system. Investments in knowledge creation, incentives for the entry of new firms, and increased prefabrication may facilitate a transition from this formative phase to a growth phase in the diffusion of timber buildings.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | innovation system; lock-in; multi-storey buildings; path dependency; Sweden; technology systems; timber frame; wood buildings |
| Index terms: | Sweden, wood, technology system, innovation system, knowledge creation, emergence, construction system, prefabrication, construction industry, path dependency, building system, funding, government policy |
| Subjects: | traditional and composite building materials, Geography, building construction, systems engineering, industry analysis, business, strategic management, engineering systems, public policy, economic analysis, knowledge management, innovation and technology management |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Governance, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Information Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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