Pries, F and Dorée, A (2005) A century of innovation in the Dutch construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 23(6), pp. 561-564. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
In recent years, the number of publications on innovation in the construction industry has increased. Many of these documents address qualitative issues, e.g. policies for innovation and present case studies. A more quantitative approach is taken in this paper, which is the continuation of a previous study. It focuses on main types and sources of innovation in the construction industry, and includes an analysis of 55 years of publications in two leading Dutch professional journals. The results show a recent increase in innovation, with two-thirds of innovations coming out of supplying industries. Construction companies contribute mainly in process innovations. Innovation in construction remains to be technology- rather than market-driven. Regulations have a surprising impact, as over one-third of all counted new innovations are related to new regulations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; innovation; management |
| Index terms: | construction company, journal, regulation, documents, publication, case study, construction industry |
| Subjects: | organization, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, political science, industry analysis, professional development |
| Topics: | Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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