Skip to the content

The prevalent theory of construction is a hindrance for innovation

Koskela, LJ and Vrijhoef, R 2000, The prevalent theory of construction is a hindrance for innovation , in: 8th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 17th - 19th July 2000, Brighton, UK.

[img]
Preview
PDF - Published Version
Download (73kB) | Preview

    Abstract

    It is argued that construction innovation is significantly hindered by the prevalent theory of construction, which is implicit and deficient. There are three main mechanisms through which this hindrance is being caused. Firstly, because production theories in general, as well as construction theories specifically, have been implicit, it has not been possible to transfer such radical managerial innovation as mass production or lean production from manufacturing to construction. Direct application of these production templates in construction has been limited due to different context in construction in correspondence to manufacturing. On the other hand, without explicit theories, it has not been possible to access core ideas of concepts and methods of these templates, and to recreate them in construction environment. In consequence, theory and practice of construction has not progressed as in manufacturing. Secondly, it is argued that the underlying, even if implicit, theoretical model of construction is the transformation model of production. There are two first principles in the transformation model. First, the total transformation can be achieved only by realising all parts of it. Thus, we decompose the total transformation into parts, finally into tasks, ensure that all inputs are available and assign these tasks to operatives or workstations. Second, minimising the cost of each task, i.e. each decomposed transformation, minimises the cost of production. It is argued that these principles, in which uncertainty and time are abstracted away, are counterproductive, and lead to myopic control and inflated variability. Practical examples show that these deficiencies and related practical constraints hinder the top-down implementation of innovations. Thirdly, empirical research shows that also bottom-up innovation - systematic learning and problem solving - is hindered by this deficient theory. Thus, the advancement of construction innovation requires that a new, explicit and valid theory of construction is created, and business models and control methods based on it are developed.

    Item Type: Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)
    Uncontrolled Keywords: Production theory, innovation in construction, radical innovation, top-down innovation, bottom-up innovation, diffusion of manufacturing templates
    Themes: Subjects / Themes > T Technology > TS Manufactures > TS155-194 Production management. Operations management
    Subjects outside of the University Themes
    Schools: Colleges and Schools > College of Science & Technology > School of the Built Environment
    Colleges and Schools > College of Science & Technology > School of the Built Environment > Salford Centre for Research & Innovation (SCRI)
    Journal or Publication Title: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
    Refereed: Yes
    Depositing User: LJ Koskela
    Date Deposited: 29 Jun 2010 16:58
    Last Modified: 20 Aug 2013 17:19
    References: Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (1998). “Shielding production: essential step in production control.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 124 (1) 11-17. Brouseau, E. and Rallet A. (1995). “Efficacité et inefficacité de l’organisation du bâtiment: une interprétation en termes de trajectoire organisationelle.” (In French: Efficiency and inefficiency of the organisation of building: an interpretation in terms of organisational trajectories) Revue d’Economie Industrielle. 74 (4) 9-30. Carassus, J. (1998). Produire et gérer la construction: une approche économique (In French: Producing and managing construction: an economic approach). Cahiers du CSTB, Livraison 395, Cahier 3085. CSTB, Paris. 12 p. Chew, B.W., Leonard-Barton, D. and Bohn, R.E. (1991). “Beating Murphy's Law.” Sloan Management Review. Spring, pp. 5-16. Enkovaara, E., Heikkonen, A. and Taiponen, T. (1998). Rakennusalan informaatioteknologian kypsyys- ja hyötytason mittaus (In Finnish: Measurement of maturity and benefits of construction information technology). Mimeo. 7 p. Freeman, C. (1989). The economics of industrial innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge. Gilbreth, F.B. and Gilbreth, L.M. (1922). “Process charts and their place in management.” Mechanical Engineering. January (70) 38-41. Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1988). Dynamic manufacturing. The Free Press, New York. 429 p. Howard, R., Kiviniemi, A. and Samuelson, O. (1998). “Surveys of IT in the construction industry and experience of the IT barometer in Scandinavia.” Itcon. Vol. 3, pp. 45-56. Hounshell, D.A. (1984). From the American system to mass production 1800-1932: the development of manufacturing technology in the United States. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 411 p. Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: the key to Japan’s competitive success. McGraw-Hill, New York. 259 p. Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction. Technical report 72. CIFE, Stanford University. 75 p. Koskela, L. (2000). An exploration into a production theory and its application to construction. VTT Publications 408. VTT, Espoo. Lillrank, P. (1995). “The transfer of management innovations from Japan.” Organization Studies. 16 (6) 971-989. Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B. (1988). “Major characteristics of constructed products and resulting limitations of construction technology.” Construction Management and Economics. 6, 133-148. Oglesby, C.H., Parker, H.W. and Howell, G.A. (1989). Productivity improvement in construction. McGraw-Hill, New York. 588 p. Pries, F. (1995). Innovatie in de bouwnijverheid (in Dutch: Innovation in the construction industry). Eburon, Delft. 222 p. Pries, F. & Janszen F. (1995). “Innovation in the construction industry; the dominant role of the environment.” Construction Management and Economics. 13 (1) 43-51. Santos, A., dos (1999). Application of flow principles in the production management of construction sites. PhD Thesis. School of Construction and Property Management, University of Salford. 463 p. + app. Shewhart, W.A. (1931). Economic control of quality of manufactured product. Van Nostrand, New York. 501 p. Slaughter, E.S. (1998). “Models of construction innovation.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124 (3) 226-231. Tavistock Institute (1966). Interdependence and uncertainty. Tavistock Publications, London. 83 p. Taylor, F.W. (1913). The principles of scientific management. Harpers & Brothers, New York. 144 p. Van de Ven, A.H. (1986). “Central problems in the management of innovation.” Management Science. 32 (5) 570-607. Vrijhoef, R. (1998). Co-makership in construction: towards construction supply chain management. Delft University of Technology / VTT Building Technology, Espoo. 181 p. Vrijhoef, R. and Koskela, L. (1999). “Roles of supply chain management in construction.” Proc. 7th Annual Conf. of the Int. Group for Lean Constr. Berkeley, 26-27 July 1999. Pp. 133-146. Walras, L. (1952). Éléments d'économie politique pure ou théorie de la richesse sociale. (ed.) Pichon R. and Durand-Auzias, R., Paris. 487 p. Warszawski, A. (1990). Industrialization and robotics in building: a managerial approach. Harper & Row, New York. 466 p. Winch, G. (1998). “Zephyrs of creative destruction: understanding the management of innovation in construction.” Building Research and Information. 26 (4) 268-279
    URI: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/9424

    Actions (login required)

    Edit record (repository staff only)

    No Altmetrics available

    Downloads per month over past year

    View more statistics