Winch, G M (2000) Innovativeness in British and French construction: The evidence from transmanche-link. Construction Management and Economics, 18(7), pp. 807-817. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper addresses the 'innovativeness' (the extent to which the design of the organization facilitates or inhibits innovation) of French and British project organizations. Following a review of the literature on organization design and innovativeness, data from a comparative organizational assessment of the British and French approaches to managing the Channel Tunnel construction project by Transmanche-Link are presented. These show that the British approach could well have less capacity for innovation than the French. The available evidence on the relative levels of innovation on the two sides of the Channel Tunnel are reviewed, showing that the predicted effects are found.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | British construction; channel tunnel; construction innovation; french construction; major projects |
| Index terms: | evidence, construction innovation, tunnel, project organization, tunnel construction, major project |
| Subjects: | civil engineering, organizational theory, building construction, infrastructure and transport systems, evaluation and assessment methods, strategic project management |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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