Sharp, M (2010) Simple solutions to complex issues in the built environment. Construction Innovation, 10(2), pp. 121-125. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose – This paper purports that a holistic approach needs to be adopted in order to ensure that effective solutions can be found to enable the environment that we build is fit for purpose. Design/methodology/approach – This paper introduces complexity theory within the context of the built environment, and investigates several existing and assumed problems (e.g. sociotechnicaleconomic) using this approach in order to develop new solutions and garner deeper understanding. Findings – Many of the problems that we readily identify with are simply put down to fragmentation or the “nature of the industry”; complexity theory, however, offers the possibility of “how” to change. Originality/value – The real value of this paper is to provide readers with an alternative approach to conventional problems. This innovative approach aims to quantify why problems exist and how they can be addressed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; complexity theory; innovation |
| Index terms: | built environment, holistic approach, complexity, methodology, fragmentation |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, systems engineering, research methods, business |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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