The prevalent theory of construction is a hindrance for innovation

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

Improving supply chain management in construction: what can be learned from the aerospace industry?

In order to provide for controllable delivery, reliable lead times and efficient customer response, lean manufacturing and platform assembly practices play an important role in supply chains in the aerospace industry. The adoption of lean manufacturing practices ensures an efficient delivery of products to the market. Benefits from the development of platform strategies are a more reliable materials supply and an improved logistics control. The aerospace industry is characterized by a small number of major global players and many small ones. A major part of the design and production has been contracted out to suppliers. In this paper the basic similarities and differences between the construction and aerospace industry and supply chains are analysed. A comparative study of aerospace and construction supply chains is presented to indicate and discuss the applicability of supply chain management concepts to construction, and the improvement potential of these concepts regarding supply chain management in construction. It is concluded that in particular the practice of platform assembly is a fruitful concept to be applied in the construction industry

The Prevalent Theory of Construction a Hindrance for Innovation

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

Revisiting the Three Peculiarities of Production in Construction

Compared to many other industries, construction is a specific type of project industry with certain pe- culiarities influencing the characteristics of constructed products, ways of production, and the indus- try itself. Previously three major peculiarities of production in construction have been discussed, i.e. site production (i.e. organising the production around the product dependent on outdoor conditions), temporary production organisation (e.g. fragmented supply chain), and one-of-a kind product (e.g. de- sign-to-order project-based production). Many times, particularly within the realms of lean construc- tion, the basic hypothesis has been that these peculiarities lead to variability and thus to waste, and low performance levels in terms of productivity and value delivery to clients. Inversely, lean construction should be aimed at the banning of waste, thus reduction of variability, and thus the reduction or even resolution of peculiarities. In this paper, the peculiarities of production in construction are discussed and whether they always cause problems, whether they are always leading to waste, and whether they always can and need to be reduced or resolved. Some examples of solutions resolving or reducing certain peculiarities are given, such as modular housing, pre-engineered buildings and off-site production. Based on the examples, the effects and costs of reduction and resolution of peculiarities are discussed. To conclude it is discussed whether construction must and can always be improved by resolving the peculiarities, and at what cost. It is concluded that peculiarities should be resolved when they are not needed. However, before to decide to do so, the additional costs or even the potential value loss that may be caused by peculiarities must always be related to the whole life costs and value of the object built, and the extra costs and efforts for resolving the peculiarities. Finally, issues for future research are given

Understanding Construction Supply Chains: An Alternative Interpretation

Much research work has assessed that construction is ineffective and many problems can be observed. Analysis of these problems has shown that a major part of them are supply chain problems, originating at the interfaces of different parties or functions. There have been several kinds of initiatives aiming at improvement and renewal of construction supply chains, but only few have a track record of consequent and significant successes. Here construction supply chains are approached from an alternative theoretical viewpoint, namely that of the language/action perspective. In this approach, organizations are seen as networks of commitments. Two avenues have been pinpointed for practical application of this approach. First, the process of requesting, creating and monitoring commitments can be facilitated by heuristic models and computer systems, when suitably designed. Secondly, people can learn to communicate for action by developing new sensibility towards the ways their language acts participate in networks of human commitments, and improving their skills in understanding requests, and making commitments. By closer study, existing empirical observations support the idea that a large share of construction supply chain problems are caused by poor articulation and activation of commitments. But would this new approach also facilitate the implementation of a new supply chain management that has proved to be so difficult in practice? In this regard, two initiatives are reviewed. The Dutch initiative to create a framework for communication in large civil engineering projects is first presented and initial experiences from its implementation are discussed. Then, Last Planner implementations are analyzed. By drawing on the concept of small wins, it is concluded that these implementations act as a stimulus for wider changes towards an environment of firm commitments and high trust. The paper ends with a review on research tasks ahead

Quality of integrated chronic care measured by patient survey: identification, selection and application of most appropriate instruments\ud

Objective  To identify the most appropriate generic instrument to measure experience and/or satisfaction of people receiving integrated chronic care.\ud \ud Background  Health care is becoming more user-centred and, as a result, the experience of users of care and evaluation of their experience and/or satisfaction is taken more seriously. It is unclear to what extent existing instruments are appropriate in measuring the experience and/or satisfaction of people using integrated chronic care.\ud \ud Methods  Instruments were identified by means of a systematic literature review. Appropriateness of instruments was analysed on seven criteria. The two most promising instruments were translated into Dutch, if necessary, and administered to a convenience sample of 109 people with a chronic illness. Data derived from respondents were analysed statistically. Focus-group interviews were conducted to assess the semantic and technical equivalence as well as opinions of people about the applicability and relevance of the translated instruments.\ud \ud Results  From 37 instruments identified, the Patients’ Assessment of Care for chronIc Conditions (PACIC) and the short form of the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire III (PSQ-18) were selected as most promising instruments. Both instruments produced similar median scores across people with different chronic conditions. The overall PACIC and its subscales and the overall PSQ-18 were highly internally consistent, but not the PSQ-18 subscales. Overall, the PACIC demonstrated better psychometric characteristics. PACIC and PSQ-18 scores were found to be moderately correlated. Whereas more respondents preferred the PSQ-18, focus-group participants regarded the PACIC to be more applicable and relevant. The technical and semantic equivalence of both instruments were sufficient.\ud \ud Conclusions  Because of its psychometric characteristics, perceived applicability and relevance, the PACIC is the most appropriate instrument to measure the experience of people receiving integrated chronic care\u

Состояние сексуального здоровья в адаптированном супружестве

Описано состояние сексуального здоровья в адаптированном супружестве и выделены его диагностические маркеры.The state of sexual health in adapted marriage is described; its diagnostic markers are emphasized