Sexton, M and Barrett, P (2003) A literature synthesis of innovation in small construction firms: Insights, ambiquities and questions. Construction Management and Economics, 21(6), pp. 613-622. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Construction firms are being challenged to be more adept at successful innovation to better meet client needs and to enhance business competitiveness. The substantial contribution that small construction firms make to the output of the industry signifies the importance for this body of firms to improve their innovation performance if the performance of the industry as a whole is to move forward. The literature on innovation in small construction firms is synthesized and structured around a generic model to provide a holistic picture of our current knowledge. Significant gaps in the understanding and practice of innovation in small construction literature are identified, which severely hamper understanding of the myriad complex and systemically interactive issues embodied within the theory and practice of innovation. The gaps identified by this literature synthesis are the basis for a number of important questions that, the authors propose, form an integrating agenda for future research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; innovation; research agenda; small firms |
| Index terms: | research agenda, construction firm, business competitivenes, innovation performance, small construction firm |
| Subjects: | organization, research management, economics, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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