Mahapatra, K; Gustavsson, L and Hemstrm, K (2012) Multi-storey wood-frame buildings in Germany, Sweden and the UK. Construction Innovation, 12(1), pp. 62-85. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the influence of regulations, perceptions, and promotions on the emergence of an innovation system for wood-framed multi-storey buildings in Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK). Design/methodology/approach - This descriptive paper made a qualitative analysis of information collected mainly from secondary sources such as reports, newspapers, journal publications, conference proceedings and general internet search. Findings - Results showed that the conditions for market growth of multi-storey construction seemed to be the most favourable in Sweden followed by the UK and Germany. The regulations are stringent in Germany, followed by the UK and Sweden. In all countries, the construction professionals seemed to have negative perceptions regarding engineering properties of wood. Similar negative perceptions exist among the general public in Germany and the UK, but not in Sweden. The wood construction promotional activities in Germany and the UK are directed to all types of houses, while in Sweden multi-storey buildings are targeted. Research limitations/implications - An important implication of this paper was that it highlighted the usefulness of cross-country surveys at the European level, in order to better understand observed differences in the adoption of innovative systems. However, there might be shortcomings in the comparability of the information across the countries analysed because it was difficult to make an objective assessment of the claims made in some of the information sources. Also, there was varying and limited information about the survey methodologies used in some of the reviewed studies. Practical implications - The study showed that market intervention is needed to promote radical or really new innovations such as wood construction. The variations in the promotional measures undertaken partly explained the variations in growth of wood construction system in the three countries. Originality/value - The paper applied a theoretical framework on technology transition to analyse emergence of wood construction system in Germany, Sweden and the UK. The framework can be applied to analyse the development of wood construction system in other countries also.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; Germany; innovation system; multi-storey buildings; Sweden; United Kingdom; wood frames; wood technology |
| Index terms: | conference, wood, Sweden, newspaper, promotion, internet, construction industry, construction professional, United Kingdom, survey, journal, innovation system, publication, construction system, emergence, variation, methodology, Germany, regulation, qualitative analysis |
| Subjects: | research dissemination and communication, data collection methods, business, research design and methodology, computing systems, building construction, sociology, industry analysis, systems engineering, political science, management, research methods, traditional and composite building materials, contractual condition, Geography, professional development |
| Topics: | Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Construction Materials, Contract Administration, Digital Applications, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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