Koch, C and Schultz, C S (2019) The production of defects in construction: an agency dissonance. Construction Management and Economics, 37(9), pp. 499-512. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The costs of defects and quality issues in construction can be significant for stakeholders and can include societal consequences. The aim is to address how failures and defects are produced and handled in the social practices of construction projects and specially to scrutinize the unintended consequences of both structured and chaotic problem solving. The argument is based on a longitudinal ethnographic study of a dwelling project, encompassing just over 100 days of fieldwork. Structuration theory was applied to understand the interrelations between project actors and structures in the handling and redressing of quality issues and to elucidate unintended consequences of the practices. The analytical strategy was abductive, allowing theory and empirical material to inform each other. Two cases were selected; the well-structured process of erecting concrete panels and the chaotic processes of building a penthouse. The results show how routine and experience are helpful, but also how they maintain an “acceptable” level of defects, which should change the widespread appreciation of experience as being positive for building quality. The unintended consequences of routinized practices are corroborated by the lack of knowledge sharing beyond the project. Both reactive and proactive problem-solving practices are important, but the reactive tend to dominate.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ethnography; building defects; quality; problem solving; structuration |
| Index terms: | knowledge sharing, strategy, routine, unintended consequence, building defect, agency, problem solving, social practice, construction project, ethnography, quality issue |
| Subjects: | quality assurance, sociology, qualitative and interpretive research, production management, social theory, management, decision-making and reasoning, knowledge management, professional practice, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management, Business Strategy, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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