Improving construction management with decentralised production planning and control: Exploring the production crew and manager perspectives through a multi-method approach

Lehtovaara, J; Seppänen, O and Peltokorpi, A (2022) Improving construction management with decentralised production planning and control: Exploring the production crew and manager perspectives through a multi-method approach. Construction Management and Economics, 40(4), pp. 254-277. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

Decentralised, autonomous planning and control is a potential avenue of improvement in several fields, including construction. However, research on this topic, particularly involving the production crew viewpoint, remains scarce within the construction production management domain. This study explores the effects of decentralisation (and in contrast, effects of centralisation) for construction production planning and control (PP&C) from the combined perspectives of production crews and managers, and utilises these viewpoints to suggest improvements for PP&C practices. The study answers the following research questions: How do decentralisation/centralisation affect construction PP&C practices when considering both the production crew and manager perspectives? and Based on the aforementioned perspectives, how may construction PP&C practices overall be improved? To achieve holistic assessment, the research is conducted as a multi-method comparative case study using survey-based social network analysis (SNA) and semi-structured interviews. The results show that decentralised PP&C offers several benefits—such as improved transparency, conflict resolution, commitment, and lower stress—while allowing a proactive building of resilience, trust, ownership and autonomy for crews. In its current applied form, however, the approach does not fully reach the worker level. Regardless of the approach that is used, production crews perceive PP&C as decentralised, while managers perceive PP&C as having centralised structures. This gap between perceptions forms barriers for effective PP&C that must be properly addressed. Eight improvement suggestions are constructed to improve PP&C, that generally emphasise more deliberate decentralisation but that also indicate the necessity of partial central planning and control.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: case study; construction production management; decentralisation; production planning and control; social network analysis
Index terms: survey, production planning, commitment, social network analysis, manager, interview, conflict resolution, case study, decentralization, central planning, transparency, construction production, ownership
Subjects: psychology, operations management, economic analysis, project delivery, data collection methods, practitioner, conflict resolution, political science, economics, research methods, professional development
Topics: Site Management, Organizational Design, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Governance
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTE

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