Is technology a new challenge for the field of construction management?

The central theme in Construction Management (CM) and CM research is improving\ud the performance of construction industry. Much effort and thought is given to improving\ud project performance. Within CM there is a natural inclination to focus on projects\ud and project management (PM). Companies in the construction industry also see project\ud management as their key competence. Both have little appreciation for technologies\ud other than those that support project management tasks. Technology – other than\ud PM support – is often seen as an outside resource that is "contracted in". By taking\ud such a neutral position regarding technology, CM and construction companies not\ud only disregard the potential of these technologies, but also fail to notice the adverse\ud effects when new technologies are "contracted in". This paper argues that CM as well\ud as companies in construction can gain by reconsidering their stance towards technology.\ud This argument is built on the case of road construction – in particular the asphalt\ud paving process. The case shows that development of the new technologies and the development\ud of the skills and operational practice of the people that are expected to use\ud the technologies are not in harmony. Projections for the upcoming decade indicate a\ud sharp rise and proliferation of SMART technologies – this too for the construction industry.\ud Construction companies need to take a more proactive and involved stance\ud towards these technologies to be able to reap the benefits. If not, then the gap between\ud technologies and construction will grow and the risks for the companies increase with\ud it. CM and CM research needs to address this gap, support the introduction of new\ud technologies and the synchronisation of new technology development and the development\ud of skills and working. If it fails to do so CM and CM research will struggle to\ud maintain its meaningful contribution in the improvement of the construction industry

Quasi-firms for real innovations

The construction industry is notorious for its (lack of) innovativeness. Many papers, reports\ud and articles have been written on this subject already for more than three decades.\ud The explanations presented can be summarized by such terms as fragmentation,\ud segmentation and segregation when referring to the industries’ structure and by qualifications\ud such as opportunistic, hostile, antagonistic and conflictive when referring to its\ud culture. In this paper it is argued that the main reason for the innovation status quo is\ud the fact that the construction industry, when compared to other industries, lacks real\ud producers- producers who develop products and compete with each other in terms of\ud these products. It is particularly this kind of competition which is identified as a source\ud to stimulate innovation. In construction, production capabilities are tested on the market\ud and not product capabilities. As a result, design decisions are not tested on the market.\ud It is this flaw which is examined in this paper, and possible improvements are suggested.\ud Endurable strategic alliances, as quasi-firms, are proposed as the equivalent of\ud producers. Essential herein is the pivotal position of design. An organizational innovation\ud as such could change the way business is done in the construction industry. It\ud would alter its structure as well as its culture

An evaluation of performance information procurement system (PIPS)

Since procurement is seen as crucial for project success, many\ud methods have been developed and papers written about this issue. A remarkable\ud contribution in this field comes from Dean Kashiwagi (Arizona State University,\ud USA) who underpins his support for the Performance Information Procurement\ud System (PiPS) with claims of high project performance and client satisfaction.\ud Kashiwagi’s explanation for PiPS’s effects is based upon a theoretical\ud framework that relates to staff members’ ability to deal appropriately with\ud information by making sound decisions based not just on implicit expectation\ud and tacit experience. This is not, however, a satisfactory explanation. This paper\ud provides an overview of New Institutional Economics perspectives which are\ud better able to explain the effects of PiPS. The linking of these theories to\ud innovative PiPS elements clears the path to effectively select and apply PiPS\ud elements within suitable projects in the Dutch construction industry. This will\ud enhance industry performance and is of interest to all stakeholders

Cie Vos kan de problemen niet oplossen, maar kan wel een aanzet geven tot hervorming

Vandaag begint de parlementaire enquête naar de onregelmatigheden in de bouw met openbare verhoren. Wat mogen we daarvan verwachten? Krijgt de enquête commissie boven tafel dat de bouw structureel in de fout gaat, of zal zij blijven steken in twistgesprekken over incidenten? Tot voor kort was ik daarover sceptisch. Het beperkte politieke prestige van de enquête, de onduidelijke slagkracht van de commissie, en het probleem nieuwe feiten te vinden, werken niet in het voordeel van het onderzoek. De gang van zaken en uitkomsten bij andere enquêtes heeft cynisme gezaaid

How companies without the benefit of authority create innovation through collaboration

To create new business firms develop and provide systems that are new to the market.\ud However, if a firm wants to achieve this goal but does not possess all required resources\ud and capabilities, it needs cooperation from other organizations. This study focuses\ud on how firms that lack authority to compel such cooperation, gain and foster\ud commitment from other organizations to cooperate. To develop a model that addresses\ud this question two cases of interorganizational innovation from the Dutch construction\ud industry were studied. In both cases an organization set up and coordinated a\ud network of organizations to jointly develop and market a new system. The cases suggest\ud that, in particular, three types of activities of such leading organizations affect\ud other organizations' commitment to cooperate. These include two types of activities\ud that correspond with two extensively researched constructs, champion behavior and\ud supportive leadership, and one type of activity whose influence is more indirect, value\ud proposition management. Overall, both cases can be regarded as examples of innovation\ud and value chain integration, two issues identified as industry deficiencies in various\ud countries