Walker, G H; Foscarin-Kosmetatou, S; Marr, S; Gillies, S and Lindsay, P (2024) Critical essay: Sociotechnical construction. Construction Management and Economics, 42(3), pp. 251-265. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The Houses of Parliament Restoration and Renewal Programme is the UK’s largest ever. The cultural value, funding model, risk profile, and fragility of the building exposes an uncomfortable truth. Construction business-as-usual has become an enterprise risk. Current levels of productivity, health, and wellbeing are not acceptable on a project of such high national importance. The Programme joins calls made in the Farmer Review, Project 13, the Construction Play Book , and now the Building Safety Bill for transformative change. It is in the unique position of being able to proactively drive this change. It is an exemplar project intended to deliver a learning legacy for the sector at large. It is also the first project to show an interest in a new approach called Sociotechnical Construction. The focus of this new approach is the joint optimization of socio/human and technical/organizational factors. The evidence points to these being instrumental in resolving the construction sector’s long-standing productivity and wellbeing paradox. This critical essay describes and defines Sociotechnical Construction, sets out the call to action, and presents the case for why it is needed now.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | sociotechnical construction; human capital; teamworking; sectoral change |
| Index terms: | well-being, evidence, restoration, construction sector, renewal, paradox, programme, funding, organizational factor, human capital, productivity |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, project controls, economics, renovation and retrofit, management, economic analysis, social theory and frameworks, business, mental health and wellbeing, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Time Control |
| 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