Eaton, D (2001) A temporal typology for innovation within the construction industry. Construction Innovation, 1(3), pp. 165-179. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Without innovation a business does not have a rational source of competitive advantage in construction (CAC), necessary for appropriating added value. Various management research papers have identified factors that may create innovation conditions. Other researchers have shown how industries have innovated through time. This paper draws upon both sources to show a temporal development for the strategic introduction of innovation within the construction industry. This paper develops the temporal typology as a model for identifying and developing potential sources of innovation. The model (which consists of an ordered set of four epochs) provides a typology of innovation based on different routes through the epochs that together describe the different innovation (business cycle) contexts which can be utilised to identify which sources of innovation may be most appropriate in order to create a further (and higher) source of added value. This paper illustrates the representativeness of the model to “real-life” businesses.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competitive advantage; construction; innovation; sector classification; temporal typology |
| Index terms: | management research, added value, competitive advantage, construction industry |
| Subjects: | market analysis, industry analysis, research design and methodology, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CTA |
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