Reichstein, T; Salter, A J and Gann, D M (2005) Last among equals: A comparison of innovation in construction, services and manufacturing in the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 23(6), pp. 631-644. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper contrasts the attitudes of firms towards innovation from the construction sector with those in services and manufacturing, using data from the UK innovation survey. We examine the liabilities that construction firms face in their innovative activities in comparison to other sectors, drawing from literature on the distinctiveness of construction as an economic activity. We find that the liabilities of immobility and unanticipated demand are among key distinguishing features that separate innovative behaviour in construction from other industries. The paper concludes with a discussion of the merits of cross-sectoral comparative research of this kind, together with issues for further research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction innovation; innovation; innovation strategy; manufacturing; services |
| Index terms: | economic activity, innovation strategy, construction innovation, construction sector, liability, survey, construction firm, comparative research, face, drawing |
| Subjects: | liability law, industry analysis, building construction, economic analysis, technical documentation, psychology, business, organization, research design and methodology, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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