Koskela, L and Ballard, G (2012) Is production outside management? Building Research & Information, 40(6), pp. 724-737. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
It is contended that the root cause for disagreement between lean construction proponents and management scholars is related to the new direction of management research which was proposed in 1959 in two influential books, by R.A. Gordon and J.E. Howell and by F.C. Pierson. It was argued that management was to be approached through three root stems: behavioural science, economics and quantitative modelling. The mainstream academic work on management has followed the guidelines presented in these books. Unfortunately, this kind of management science has also attracted vocal and wide criticism regarding its practical relevance. The 1959 work rejected the production-centric scientific management tradition - a tradition on which lean construction has been based. Thus, the underlying disagreement is about the role of production in management: is production a starting point for management or outside management? This root disagreement is demonstrated through two research topics at the heart of the development of management science after 1959: organizational theory, as developed by J.R. Galbraith, and transaction cost economics, initiated by O. Williamson. Based on evidence from the analyses made, it is suggested that the failure to include production in theory has been one major cause for the problematic situation of management science in the last 50 years.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; lean construction; organization design theory; transaction cost economics; waste |
| Index terms: | modelling, science, lean construction, scientific management, management science, organizational theory, management research, transaction cost, evidence, heart |
| Subjects: | business, evaluation and assessment methods, building construction, financial analysis, medical science and clinical practice, management, research design and methodology, specialized education, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Site Management, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Education, Organizational Design, 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