Wild, A (2002) The unmanageability of construction and the theoretical psycho-social dynamics of projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 9(4), pp. 345-351. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The article researches' construction fragmentation from the assumption that construction projects are unmanageable' (Mintzberg, 1982) in conventional terms, in an attempt to give thematic unity to this problem. Socio-technical analysis which underlay the Building Industry Communications Research Project (BICRP) (Higgin & Jessop, 1963, 1965; TIHR, 1965; Chrichton, 1966) conducted by the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations (TIHR) from 1963 to 1965 is explored and developed, supplemented other relevant authors. The argument is conducted formally without reference to particular examples and develops the debate provoked by Connaughton (2000). Formal statement of the problem assists reinterpretation (Boyd & Wild, 1999; Wild, 2001 a) of existing material and new enquiry to clarify the conditions, if any, both necessary and sufficient, for the manageability of construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | boundaries; fragmentation; instability; role; role-set |
| Index terms: | dynamics, building industry, socio-technical, construction project, boundaries, human relation, fragmentation |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, industry analysis, production management, research methods, management, property law, business |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Human Resources, Organizational Design |
| 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