A dual-functional social innovation process model for low-cost houses through university-enabled initiative

Belayutham, S; Che Ibrahim, C K I; Zulkifli, A R and Ibrahim, N (2019) A dual-functional social innovation process model for low-cost houses through university-enabled initiative. Construction Innovation, 19(2), pp. 126-148. ISSN 1471-4175

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to develop a dual-functional university-enabled social innovation process model on the subject of low-cost houses that addresses the distinct elements of social obligation and university teaching–learning. Design/methodology/approach: This study has predominantly adopted a longitudinal single case study approach, where data have been collected through interviews, survey, participant observation, direct observation and document review. The case study details on the social innovation processes, which was conducted by Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. Findings: This study has demonstrated the social innovation processes toward addressing the issue of insufficient low-cost houses, concurrently benefitting the teaching–learning dimension. Three sub-innovations have been highlighted in the developed social innovation process model, which are collaboration process, teaching–learning and design-construct innovation. Research limitations/implications: Because the study has been based on a single prototype project, further investigation is necessary to confirm the applicability of the full-fledged model. The established social innovation process model is also suggested to be tested in other social fields. Practical implications: The established social innovation process model has created a new perspective that enables universities to contribute in providing shelter for low-income families, simultaneously enhancing the teaching–learning dimension through experiential learning. Social implications: The dual-functional social innovation process model provides a synergistic relationship between the university and the society. Ultimately, the model could address social issues pertaining to low-income families with the built of low-cost houses, concurrently preparing graduates who are highly marketable, which could reduce the rate of graduate unemployment in the country. Originality/value: The development of the social innovation process model for low-cost houses through university-enabled initiative is a novel establishment, particularly for developing nations, as limited studies have been conducted in this regard. The significant insights into how university could play a role in addressing major social issues, along with their core focus (teaching–learning and research development), is a breakthrough for further diffusions of social innovation by universities.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: low-cost houses; Malaysia; process model; social innovation; teaching and learning; university
Index terms: collaboration, survey, prototype, investigation, developing nation, direct observation, methodology, experiential learning, unemployment, case study, income, interview, observation, Malaysia, society, dimension, social innovation
Subjects: economic analysis, development economics, learning methods, communities and social development, Geography, modelling and simulation, health monitoring assessment and metrics, research methods, data collection methods, management
Topics: Organizational Design, Education, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, International Construction, Business Strategy, Geographical Context
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