Edum-Fotwe, F T; Gibb, A G F and Benford-Miller, M (2004) Reconciling construction innovation and standardisation on major projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(5), pp. 366-372. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The concepts underlying innovation and standardisation presents an apparent divergence in what each strives to achieve. In the view of the authors, this has contributed in no small measure to the low take-up of standardisation within the construction sector as organisations strive to be innovative to improve on their performance and attain continuous improvement in their processes and operations as well as design solutions. The paper presents as a case, how one major public sector outfit is striving to achieve innovation within an agenda that involves a widespread adoption of standardisation. It presents the motivations for adopting an organisation-wide agenda on innovation and standardisation, identifies the elements of apparent incongruity between the concepts, and outlines how the case organisation has resolved the divergences.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; design; industry; innovation; standardization |
| Index terms: | motivation, construction innovation, construction sector, major project, public sector, continuous improvement, standardization |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, administrative law, building construction, performance measurement, strategic project management, psychology |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Quality Management, Human Resources, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles |
| 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