Ruddock, L and Ruddock, S (2009) Reassessing productivity in the construction sector to reflect hidden innovation and the knowledge economy. Construction Management and Economics, 27(9), pp. 871-879. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
With the development of a knowledge economy, it is reasonable to assume that the level of innovation should be particularly high and that it should have a major effect on investment and productivity across all sectors, including the construction industry. For a valid assessment of the economic performance of the construction sector in terms of its productivity, it is important that the economic benefits for the sector from technological change are properly recognized but the impact of such benefits may be 'hidden' due to measurement issues, as innovative activity and investment in intangible assets have both gone unrecognized in official statistics. Much of the innovation in the construction sector is hidden from conventional measures and, for the UK economy, there is evidence that investment in intangibles may be even greater than tangible investment, if a definition of intangible assets incorporating spending on a broad range of knowledge-based assets including organizational capital, human capital, etc. is taken. While accurate data are difficult to determine, an appraisal of the potential for utilizing existing data sources and for improved measurement is presented.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | economic performance; innovation; intangible investment; knowledge economy; productivity |
| Index terms: | construction sector, appraisal, evidence, productivity, human capital, construction industry, statistics, technological change |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, factor and component analysis, management, economics, evaluation and assessment methods, mathematical modelling, innovation studies |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| 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