Love, P E D; Heng, L I; Irani, Z and Faniran, O (2000) Total quality management and the learning organization: A dialogue for change in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 18(3), pp. 321-331. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Many construction organizations have misunderstood the reality that total quality management (TQM) based on continuous improvement requires a commitment to learning and that essentially it is the means to a learning organization. The paper argues that if the construction industry is to improve its performance and competitiveness, then there needs to be a cultural and behavioural shift in the mind-set of practitioners, academics and the professional institutions. Their focus should be on re-thinking their approaches to TQM so that learning becomes the norm. It is demonstrated that a relationship exists between the constructs of TQM, organizational learning, and the learning organization. Based on a review of existing literature, a conceptual model for a learning organization in construction is presented and discussed. The paper proposes some refinements to the concept of the learning organization, directed at clearly positioning the critical focus of learning at the organizational level in construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | change; learning organization; organizational learning; total quality management |
| Index terms: | total quality management, continuous improvement, organizational learning, construction organization, practitioner, competitiveness, commitment, construction industry |
| Subjects: | market analysis, evaluation methods, practitioner, industry analysis, performance measurement, psychology, organization, professional development |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Information Management, Research Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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