Resolving learning paradoxes within a UK new-build housebuilder

Morland, K V and Breslin, D (2024) Resolving learning paradoxes within a UK new-build housebuilder. Construction Management and Economics, 42(4), pp. 307-327. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

The build quality of new UK homes is negatively affected by poor quality management practices during the construction process. By implementing stringent quality management (QM) standards, housebuilders can improve build quality but implementing these organization-wide changes relies on housebuilder staff, designers and sub-contractors learning new working practices. This paper explores the tensions which emerge within housebuilders, as they implement new QM procedures. A longitudinal qualitative case study was conducted, where time was spent with housebuilder staff in three regional offices, two years apart. Methods include participant observation, semi-structured interviews and a review of organizational documentation. The findings highlight several learning paradoxes which arise at different stages of the housebuilding process and show how actors manage (or cope with) these paradoxes through their daily practices. This includes processes of simplifying and applying, improvising and problem-solving and aggregating and analyzing. Whilst these either-or approaches enable staff to resolve the immediate tensions that arise from different organizational processes, they often fail to meet longer-term learning objectives, detrimentally affecting build quality over time. Without structural changes to the way volume housebuilders annually report to both the UK Government and their shareholders, organizations in the UK housebuilding sector face challenges in reconciling different learning processes.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: organizational learning; paradox theory; housing; quality management; defects; routines; time
Index terms: documentation, face, routine, interview, organizational learning, observation, paradox, housing, quality management practice, sub-contractor, construction process, designer, housebuilder, working practice, case study, housebuilding, quality management
Subjects: professional development, management, construction integration, quality assurance, sociology, building construction, practitioner, profession, construction type, data collection methods, social theory and frameworks, psychology
Topics: Organizational Design, Site Management, Quality Management, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy
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