Green, S D (1996) A metaphorical analysis of client organizations and the briefing process. Construction Management and Economics, 14(2), pp. 155-164. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper reviews and critiques the current practice of classifying building clients according to their 'type'. An alternative approach to understanding organizations is developed in accordance with the principles of naturalistic inquiry. It is contended that the complex pluralistic clients of the 1990s can only really be understood 'from the inside'. The concept of organizational metaphors is introduced as the basis for a more sophisticated way of thinking about organizations. The various strands of organizational theory are also analysed in terms of their underlying metaphors. Different theories are seen to bring different insights. The implicit metaphors adopted by practitioners are held to be important in that they tend to dictate the adopted approach to client briefing. This contention is illustrated by analysing three different characterizations of the briefing process in terms of their underlying metaphors. Finally, the discussion is placed in a contemporary UK context by comparing the dominant paradigm of practice during the 1980s to that of the 1990s.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | briefing; clients; naturalistic inquiry; organizational metaphors |
| Index terms: | paradigm, critique, briefing, practitioner, client organization, organizational theory |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, client relations, business, practitioner, scope management, education and knowledge transfer |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management |
| 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