Bygballe, L E; Håkansson, H and Jahre, M (2013) A critical discussion of models for conceptualizing the economic logic of construction. Construction Management and Economics, 31(2), pp. 104-118. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The construction industry has developed a certain economic logic that reflects the way in which tasks, parts, and units are organized and related to each other in order to create economic benefits in the construction process. Four different models in the literature portray this logic. We examine how they complement and constitute alternatives to understandings of the economic logic of the construction industry. Along with transaction cost economics, we have identified three more empirically based models: a project-oriented model, a supply-chain-oriented model, and a network-oriented model. Associated with different streams of research, these models are discussed in terms of the typical problems and key interdependencies in the construction process they address, and the type of solutions they suggest, including organizing principles for how construction parties should relate to each other. The findings show how examining different models provides a comprehensive, albeit non-exhaustive overview and an explanation of why the construction process is organized in the way it is. There is a need for increased awareness of the utilization of models (or combinations of models) and the models must also be seen as arguments in a broader discussion of how the construction process could or should function.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; economic logic; interdependencies; models; relationships |
| Index terms: | transaction cost, construction process, stream, construction industry |
| Subjects: | water management, building construction, financial analysis, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Site Management, Sustainability, Cost Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PT |
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