Bröchner, J; Josephson, P E and Alte, J (2005) Identifying management research priorities. Construction Management and Economics, 23(8), pp. 793-796. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
An agenda for management research can be set by the academic community with more or less input from practising managers. The purpose of this note is to describe a model for collecting, structuring and analysing practitioner views of what should be the priorities for construction management research. A meeting with construction sector participants gave rise to proposals that were consolidated into 20 management themes. Next, a questionnaire sent to 260 individuals received 140 responses where these themes had been ranked and the strength of recent industry development for each theme assessed. Results show that high priority was assigned to leadership issues and identification of customer needs. The process should be possible to replicate abroad, although cultural differences are expected to influence priorities.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; management research; research priorities |
| Index terms: | industry development, practitioner, questionnaire, construction sector, manager, proposal, management research, cultural difference |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, organization, research design and methodology, practitioner, project planning, cross-cultural studies, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, International Construction |
| 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