The technocratic totalitarianism of construction process improvement: a critical perspective

The current research agenda for construction process improvement is heavily influenced by the rhetoric of business process re-engineering (BPR). In contrast to the wider literature on BPR, there is little evidence of critical thought within the construction management research community. A postmodernist interpretation is advocated whereby the reality of management practice is defined by the dominant management discourse. The persuasiveness of BPR rhetoric is analysed with particular reference to the way in which it plays on the insecurity of modern managers. Despite the lip service given to ‘empowerment’ and ‘teamwork’, the dominant theme of the re-engineering movement is that of technocratic totalitarianism. From a critical perspective, it is suggested that BPR is imposed on construction organizations to ensure continued control by the industry's dominant power groups. Whilst industry leaders are fond of calling for ‘attitudinal and cultural improvement’, the language of the accepted research agenda continually reinforces the industry's dominant culture of ‘control and command’. Therefore, current research directions in process improvement perpetuate existing attitudes rather than facilitating cultural change. The concept of lean construction is seen to be the latest manifestation of this phenomenon.

The future of lean construction: a brave new world

Lean construction is considered from a human resource management (HRM) perspective. It is contended that the UK construction sector is characterised by an institutionalised regressive approach to HRM. In the face of rapidly declining recruitment rates for built environment courses, the dominant HRM philosophy of utilitarian instrumentalism does little to attract the intelligent and creative young people that the industry so badly needs. Given this broader context, there is a danger that an uncritical acceptance of lean construction will exacerbate the industry's reputation for unrewarding jobs. Construction academics have strangely ignored the extensive literature that equates lean production to a HRM regime of control, exploitation and surveillance. The emphasis of lean thinking on eliminating waste and improving efficiency makes it easy to absorb into the best practice agenda because it conforms to the existing dominant way of thinking. 'Best practice' is seemingly judged by the extent to which it serves the interests of the industry's technocratic elite. Hence it acts as a conservative force in favour of maintaining the status quo. In this respect, lean construction is the latest manifestation of a long established trend. In common with countless other improvement initiatives, the rhetoric is heavy in the machine metaphor whilst exhorting others to be more efficient. If current trends in lean construction are extrapolated into the future the ultimate destination may be uncomfortably close to Aldous Huxley's apocalyptic vision of a Brave New World. In the face of these trends, the lean construction research community pleads neutrality whilst confining its attention to the rational high ground. The future of lean construction is not yet predetermined. Many choices remain to be made. The challenge for the research community is to improve practice whilst avoiding the dehumanising tendencies of high utilitarianism.

The effect of BREEAM on clients and construction professionals

The effects and influence of the Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Methods (BREEAM) on construction professionals are examined. Most discussions of building assessment methods focus on either the formal tool or the finished product. In contrast, BREEAM is analysed here as a social technology using Michel Foucault’s theory of governmentality. Interview data are used to explore the effect of BREEAM on visibilities, knowledge, techniques and professional identities. The analysis highlights a number of features of the BREEAM assessment process which generally go unremarked: professional and public understandings of the method, the deployment of different types of knowledge and their implication for the authority and legitimacy of the tool, and the effect of BREEAM on standard practice. The analysis finds that BREEAM’s primary effect is through its impact on standard practices. Other effects include the use of assessment methods to defend design decisions, its role in both operationalizing and obscuring the concept of green buildings, and the effect of tensions between project and method requirements for the authority of the tool. A reflection on assessment methods as neo-liberal tools and their adequacy for the promotion of sustainable construction suggests several limitations of lock-in that hinder variation and wider systemic change.

Energy savings in buildings or UHI mitigation? Comparison between green roofs and cool roofs

The intensification of the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) is a problem that involves several fields, and new adequate solutions are required to mitigate its amplitude. The construction sector is strictly related with this phenomenon; in particular, roofs are the envelope components subject to the highest solar irradiance, hence any mitigation strategy should start from them and involve their appropriate design process. For this purpose, cool materials, i.e. materials which are able to reflect a large amount of solar radiation and avoid overheating of building surfaces have been deeply analyzed in the last years both at building and urban scales, showing their benefits especially in hot climates. However, green roofs also represent a possible way to cope with UHI, even if their design is not straightforward and requires taking into account many variables, strictly related with the local climatic conditions. In this context, the present paper proposes a comparison between cool roofs and green roofs for several Italian cities that are representative of different climatic conditions. In search of the most effective solution, the answers may be different depending on the perspective that leads the comparison, i.e. the need to reduce the energy consumption in buildings or the desire to minimize the contribution of the UHI effect.