Fixing concrete: Inquiries, responsibility, power and innovation

Clegg, S and Kreiner, K (2014) Fixing concrete: Inquiries, responsibility, power and innovation. Construction Management and Economics, 32(3), pp. 262-278. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

When public matters go spectacularly wrong an official inquiry often ensues. Such an inquiry, conducted by legal and professional personnel, is an opportunity for learning that carries an obligation to attribute responsibility. The post hoc fixing of responsibility may aid or hinder learning. Learning relates to innovation in products and organizational processes but also new mental models and realty constructions. Accidents are opportunities for such learning and innovation. The philosophical concept of responsibility is first investigated, drawing on Aristotle, before analysis of a major accident that occurred on a prestigious Danish project when fixing concrete beams and its aftermath in an official inquiry. The investigation shows how the accident constituted a watershed, substituting a logic of performativity with a logic of compliance made possible by re-invoking an old model of reality implicitly experimented with on site. Thus, while accidents offer opportunities for innovation, this case shows that they also harbour an obligation to nullify informal and incremental innovations in understanding construction.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: accidents; construction projects; organization innovation; power; responsibility
Index terms: concrete beam, construction project, personnel, compliance, harbour, drawing, investigation, Aristotle, performativity, mental model
Subjects: social theory and frameworks, technical documentation, philosopher, data collection methods, infrastructure and transport systems, cognitive psychology, production management, health safety and environment, management, structural engineering
Topics: Human Resources, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Health and Safety
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

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