Tzortzopoulos, P and Sexton, M (2007) An investigation on the implementation of product development process models in construction companies. Construction Management and Economics, 25(11), pp. 1153-1164. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Process models have been developed by academia and industry to enhance design and construction activities. However, effective and widespread adoption and use of such models in practice has been limited. This research investigated the dynamics of product development process (PDP) models implementation in construction companies. Four case studies were undertaken, and key findings emphasize the need to consider the design and implementation of PDP models in an integrated fashion within the organizational context in which it takes place; and the need for a shift in the role of PDP models from a rational 'planning and control' perspective to a softer 'learning' approach.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction companies; implementation; process modelling; product development process |
| Index terms: | product development process, case study, design and construction, dynamics, implementation, investigation, process modelling, construction company, academia |
| Subjects: | design analysis, educational institutions, data collection methods, organization, innovation studies, systems engineering, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Education, Procurement, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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