Larsen, G D and Ballal, T M A (2005) The diffusion on innovations within a UKCI context: An explanatory framework. Construction Management and Economics, 23(1), pp. 81-91. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The UK Construction Industry has been criticized for being slow to change and adopt innovations. The idiosyncrasies of participants, their roles in a social system and the contextual differences between sections of the UK Construction Industry are viewed as being paramount to explaining innovation diffusion within this context. Three innovation diffusion theories from outside construction management literature are introduced, Cohesion, Structural Equivalence and Thresholds. The relevance of each theory, in relation to the UK Construction Industry, is critically reviewed using literature and empirical data. Analysis of the data results in an explanatory framework being proposed. The framework introduces a Personal Awareness Threshold concept, highlights the dominant role of Cohesion through the main stages of diffusion, together with the use of Structural Equivalence during the later stages of diffusion and the importance of Adoption Threshold levels.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | awareness threshold; cohesion; diffusion of innovations; networks; polymorphic; structural equivalence; thresholds |
| Index terms: | innovation diffusion, cohesion, social system, construction industry, diffusion of innovation |
| Subjects: | structural engineering, professional development, social theory, sociology, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice |
| 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