'What does this mean'? Sensemaking in the strategic action field of construction

Fellows, R and Liu, A M M (2017) 'What does this mean'? Sensemaking in the strategic action field of construction. Construction Management and Economics, 35(8-9), pp. 578-596. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

Debate continues over the nature of the construction industry as a conglomeration, its boundaries (n.b., whether design is included), how it operates and with what objectives. Fragmentation remains a widely cited detriment to performance. However, the evolving development of field theory, notably, strategic action fields (SAF), provides a new and more embracing perspective that focuses on relationships and context that argues for mapping and analyses of network relationships between actors to provide a richer picture. The diversity of actors on any construction project, especially in increasingly 'enterprise' environments and the, consequent, operating processes accentuate atomism, individual goals and lack of integration. Thus, construction projects have very different meanings for each actor. The sensemaking perspective gives insights into how the actors, individually and collectively, interpret the myriad signals that they perceive to determine meaning and invoke action within their network of relationships in SAF. This study undertakes a critical review of theory and literature concerning sensemaking within networks of actors that constitute the SAF of construction to explore how those perspectives may be applied and the consequences for actors, processes and products. The underpinning concept is that those two perspectives–SAF and sensemaking–are vertically complimentary. It is found that, although little empirical study has been done in applying those bodies of theory to construction, the perspectives have considerable potential for application to enhance understanding of construction project processes and contexts, inter-relationships within and between the networks of participants, their actions and understandings–and, thereby, enhancement of performance in its broadest sense.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: field theory; meaning; projects; stakeholders
Index terms: meaning, fragmentation, sensemaking, boundaries, construction project, mapping, integration, construction industry, empirical study
Subjects: business, property law, spatial and geospatial analysis, research methods, production management, cognitive psychology, sociology, organizational analysis, industry analysis
Topics: Project Management, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Organizational Design
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