Competitiveness in construction: a critical review of research

Since its popularization in the 1980s, competitiveness has received close attention from practitioners and researchers across a wide range of industries. In the construction sector, many works on competitiveness have also been published. So far, however, there seems to be no comprehensive review to summarize and critique existing research on competitiveness in construction. This research, therefore, reviews the extant literature from four aspects: concept of competitiveness, competitiveness research at the construction industry level, competitiveness research at the firm level, and competitiveness research at the project level. The review presents the state-of-the-art development of competitiveness research in construction, identifies the research gaps, and proposes new directions for further studies. Further research is recommended to validate previous studies in construction practices, identify the mechanisms that encourage mutual enhancement of competitiveness at different levels, and how to achieve its sustainability by embracing new management and/or economics techniques.

Making sense of supply chain management: acomparative study of aerospace and construction

Current recipes for learning across business sectors too often fail to recognize the embedded and contextual nature of management practice. The existing literature gives little emphasis to the symbiotic relationship between supply chain management and the broader dynamics of context. The aerospace and construction sectors are selected for comparison on the basis that they are so different. The UK aerospace sector has undergone extensive consolidation as a result of the imperatives of global competitive pressures. In contrast, the construction industry has experienced decades of fragmentation and remains highly localized. An increasing proportion of output in the aerospace sector occurs within a small number of large, globally orientated firms. In contrast, construction output is dominated by a plethora of small firms with high levels of subcontracting and a widespread reliance on self-employment. These differences have fundamental implications for the way that supply chain management is understood and implemented in the two sectors. Semi-structured interviews with practitioners from both sectors support the contention that supply chain management is more established in aerospace than construction. The introduction of prime contracting and the increasing use of framework agreements within the construction sector potentially provide a much more supportive climate for supply chain management than has traditionally prevailed. However, progress depends upon an improved continuity of workload under such arrangements.

On the discourse of construction competitiveness

It is contended that competitiveness is better understood as a discourse rather than as a characteristic that is supposedly possessed. The discourse of competitiveness derives its legitimacy from the enterprise culture that came to dominance during the 1980s. Current popularized theories of competitiveness are constituent parts of this broader discourse, which has had significant material implications for the UK construction sector. The dominant discourse of competitiveness amongst contracting firms is shaped by the need to achieve structural flexibility to cope with fluctuations in demand. Fashionable espoused improvement recipes such as total quality management, business process re-engineering, and lean construction legitimize and reinforce the material manifestations of the enterprise culture. In consequence, the UK industry is characterized by a plethora of hollowed-out firms that have failed to invest in their human capital. While the adopted model may be rational for individual firms, the systemic effect across the sector as a whole equates to a form of anorexia. However, the discourse of competitiveness is by no means monolithic and continues to be contested locally. There have also been numerous counter-discourses that have been mobilized in response to the undesirable externalities of unbridled enterprise. Currently, important counter-discourses promote the ideas of sustainability and corporate social responsibility.

Lean construction: Arenas of enactment, models of diffusion and the meaning of 'leanness'

The existing literature on lean construction is overwhelmingly prescriptive with little recognition of the social and politicised nature of the diffusion process. The prevailing production-engineering perspective too often assumes that organizations are unitary entities where all parties strive for the common goal of 'improved performance'. An alternative perspective is developed that considers the diffusion of lean construction across contested pluralistic arenas. Different actors mobilize different storylines to suit their own localized political agendas. Multiple storylines of lean construction continuously compete for attention with other management fashions. The conceptualization and enactment of lean construction therefore differs across contexts, often taking on different manifestations from those envisaged. However, such localized enactments of lean construction are patterned and conditioned by pre-existing social and economic structures over which individual managers have limited influence. Taking a broader view, 'leanness' can be conceptualized in terms of a quest for structural flexibility involving restructuring, downsizing and outsourcing. From this perspective, the UK construction industry can be seen to have embarked upon leaner ways of working in the mid-1970s, long before the terminology of lean thinking came into vogue. Semi-structured interviews with construction sector policy-makers provide empirical support for the view that lean construction is a multifaceted concept that defies universal definition.

Learning across business sectors: Knowledge sharing between aerospace and construction

This report addresses the extent that managerial practices can be shared between the aerospace and construction sectors. Current recipes for learning from other industries tend to be oversimplistic and often fail to recognise the embedded and contextual nature of managerial knowledge. Knowledge sharing between business sectors is best understood as an essential source of innovation. The process of comparison challenges assumptions and better equips managers to cope with future change. Comparisons between the aerospace and construction sectors are especially useful because they are so different. The two sectors differ hugely in terms of their institutional context, structure and technological intensity. The aerospace sector has experienced extensive consolidation and is dominated by a small number of global companies. Aerospace companies operate within complex networks of global interdependency such that collaborative working is a commercial imperative. In contrast, the construction sector remains highly fragmented and is characterised by a continued reliance on small firms. The vast majority of construction firms compete within localised markets that are too often characterised by opportunistic behaviour. Comparing construction to aerospace highlights the unique characteristics of both sectors and helps explain how managerial practices are mediated by context. Detailed comparisons between the two sectors are made in a range of areas and guidance is provided for the implementation of knowledge sharing strategies within and across organisations. The commonly accepted notion of ‘best practice’ is exposed as a myth. Indeed, universal models of best practice can be detrimental to performance by deflecting from the need to adapt continuously to changing circumstances. Competitiveness in the construction sector too often rests on efficiency in managing contracts, with a particular emphasis on the allocation of risk. Innovation in construction tends to be problem-driven and is rarely shared from project to project. In aerospace, the dominant model of competitiveness means that firms have little choice other than to invest in continuous innovation, despite difficult trading conditions. Research and development (R&D) expenditure in aerospace continues to rise as a percentage of turnovers. A sustained capacity for innovation within the aerospace sector depends crucially upon stability and continuity of work. In the construction sector, the emergence of the ‘hollowed-out’ firm has undermined the industry’s capacity for innovation. Integrated procurement contexts such as prime contracting in construction potentially provide a more supportive climate for an innovation-based model of competitiveness. However, investment in new ways of working depends upon a shift in thinking not only amongst construction contractors, but also amongst the industry’s major clients.

The futures of construction: A critical review of construction future studies

Anticipating the future is increasingly being seen as a useful way to align, direct and improve current organizational strategy. Several such 'future studies' have been produced which envision various construction industry scenarios which result from technological and socio-economic trends and influences. Thirteen construction-related future studies are critically reviewed. Most studies fail to address the complexities and uncertainties of both the present and the future, and fail to explore the connections between global, local, construction-specific and more widespread factors. The methodological approaches used in these studies do not generate any significantly different advice or recommendations for the industry than those emerging from the much larger canon of non-future oriented construction research. As such, these reports are less about the future than the present. If future studies are to make a worthwhile contribution to construction, it is critical that they develop our appreciation of the practical ability of stakeholders to influence some aspects of the future and not others, and an awareness of the competing agendas and the relative benefits and disadvantages of specific futures within the construction sector. Only then can future studies provide insights and help in preparing for the opportunities and threats the future may bring.

Communities of practice in construction case study organisations: questions and insights

Purpose – At the heart of knowledge management (KM) are the people – an organisation's important knowledge asset. Although this is widely acknowledged, businesses seldom understand this axiom in terms of the communities through which individuals develop and share the capacity to create and use knowledge. It is the collective learning that takes place within the social systems, i.e. communities of practice (CoP) that are of particular significance to an organisation from a KM perspective. This paper aims to review, critique, and raise some pertinent questions on the role of CoPs; and with the help of case studies shed light on the “goings-on” in construction practices. Design/methodology/approach – After critically reviewing the literature on CoPs and querying some underlying assertions, this research investigates how these issues are addressed in practice. A case study approach is adopted. Three organisations operating in the construction sector are interviewed for the purpose of this paper. Findings – Case study findings highlight the potential challenges and benefits of CoPs to a construction organisation, the role they play in generating and delivering value to the organisation and their contribution towards the collective organisational intelligence. From the findings, it is clear that the question is not whether communities exist within organisations, but how they deliver value to the organisation. From an organisational perspective, the key challenge is to provide an environment that is conducive to developing and nurturing such communities as opposed to merely creating them. Practical implications – Challenges and benefits demonstrated through the case studies should be taken in context. The findings are not intended to be prescriptive in nature, but are intentionally descriptive to provide contextual data that allow readers to draw their own inferences in the context of their organisations. They should be applied taking into account an organisation's unique characteristics and differentiators, the dynamics of the environment in which it operates and the culture it harbours within. Originality/value – Investigating the role of CoPs in the context of case study construction organisations forms the prime focus of this paper.

Learning across business sectors: facets of innovation in aerospace and construction

Innovation is notoriously difficult to define and is invariably intertwined with issues of knowledge creation, continuous improvement and organisational change. An extensive literature classifies numerous types of innovation and militates against any simplistic attempt at definition. It is widely accepted that innovation is at least partly dependent upon the surrounding environment. Industry recipes and institutionally embedded practices shape the environment within which innovation occurs. Recent research directions have addressed the diffusion of innovation and its dependence upon social and institutional structures. In this respect, it is highly pertinent to compare the way that innovation is interpreted and enacted in different industrial sectors. The comparison between UK aerospace and construction is especially revealing because the two sectors are so different and therefore constitute radically different climates for innovation. Empirical research is reported based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners from both sectors. Interpretations of innovation are found to differ dramatically between aerospace and construction. Within the context of an ongoing struggle to define innovation, both industries are striving to become more innovative. The aerospace sector is found to emphasise technical innovation whereas the construction sector emphasises process innovation. An overriding cultural bias in Western economies towards technological innovation results in the common perception that aerospace is much more innovative than construction. The experienced realities of practitioners in the two sectors are much more complex.

Risk pricing practices in finance, insurance and construction

A review of current risk pricing practices in the financial, insurance and construction sectors is conducted through a comprehensive literature review. The purpose was to inform a study on risk and price in the tendering processes of contractors: specifically, how contractors take account of risk when they are calculating their bids for construction work. The reference to mainstream literature was in view of construction management research as a field of application rather than a fundamental academic discipline. Analytical models are used for risk pricing in the financial sector. Certain mathematical laws and principles of insurance are used to price risk in the insurance sector. construction contractors and practitioners are described to traditionally price allowances for project risk using mechanisms such as intuition and experience. Project risk analysis models have proliferated in recent years. However, they are rarely used because of problems practitioners face when confronted with them. A discussion of practices across the three sectors shows that the construction industry does not approach risk according to the sophisticated mechanisms of the two other sectors. This is not a poor situation in itself. However, knowledge transfer from finance and insurance can help construction practitioners. But also, formal risk models for contractors should be informed by the commercial exigencies and unique characteristics of the construction sector.

Understanding construction competitiveness: the contribution of system dynamics

Purpose – Construction sector competitiveness has been a subject of interest for many years. Research too often focuses on the means of overcoming the “barriers to change” as if such barriers were static entities. There has been little attempt to understand the dynamic inter-relationship between the differing factors which impinge upon construction sector competitiveness. The purpose of this paper is to outline the benefits of taking a systems approach to construction competitiveness research. Design/methodology/approach – The system dynamics (SD) modelling methodology is described. This can provide practitioners with “microworlds” within which they can explore the dynamic effects of different policy decisions. The data underpinning the use of SD was provided by interviews and case study research which allowed an understanding of the context within which practitioners operate. Findings – The over-riding conclusion is that the SD methodology has been shown to be capable of providing a means to assess the forces which shape the sustained competitiveness of construction firms. As such, it takes the assessment of strategic policy analysis in the construction sector onto a higher plane. The need to collect data and make retrospective assessments of competitiveness and strategic performance at the statistical level is not now the only modus operandi available. Originality/value – The paper describes a novel research methodology which points towards an alternative research agenda for construction competitiveness research.

Achieving whole-life value: The challenges of service-led construction

Major construction clients are increasingly looking to procure built facilities on the basis of added value, rather than capital cost. Recent advances in the procurement of construction projects have emphasised a whole-life value approach to meeting the client’s objectives, with strategies put in place to encourage long-term commitment and through-life service provision. Construction firms are therefore increasingly required to take on responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the construction project on the client’s behalf - with the emphasis on value and service. This inevitably throws up a host of challenges, not the least of which is the need for construction firms to manage and accommodate the new emphasis on service. Indeed, these ‘service-led’ projects represent a new realm of construction projects where the rationale for the project is driven by client’s objectives with some aspect of service provision. This vision of downstream service delivery increases the number of stakeholders, adds to project complexity and challenges deeply-ingrained working practices. Ultimately it presents a major challenge for the construction sector. This paper sets out to unravel some of the many implications that this change brings with it. It draws upon ongoing research investigating how construction firms can adapt to a more service-orientated built environment and add value in project-based environments. The conclusions lay bare the challenges that firms face when trying to compete on the basis of added-value and service delivery. In particular, how it affects deeply-ingrained working practices and established relationships in the sector.

SPICE: a business process diagnostic tool for construction projects

The construction sector is under growing pressure to increase productivity and improve quality, most notably in reports by Latham (1994, Constructing the Team, HMSO, London) and Egan (1998, Rethinking Construction, HMSO, London). A major problem for construction companies is the lack of project predictability. One method of increasing predictability and delivering increased customer value is through the systematic management of construction processes. However, the industry has no methodological mechanism to assess process capability and prioritise process improvements. Standardized Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises (SPICE) is a research project that is attempting to develop a stepwise process improvement framework for the construction industry, utilizing experience from the software industry, and in particular the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), which has resulted in significant productivity improvements in the software industry. This paper introduces SPICE concepts and presents the results from two case studies conducted on design and build projects. These studies have provided further in-sight into the relevance and accuracy of the framework, as well as its value for the construction sector.

Rethinking construction: the Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol

The complexity of construction projects and the fragmentation of the construction industry undertaking those projects has effectively resulted in linear, uncoordinated and highly variable project processes in the UK construction sector. Research undertaken at the University of Salford resulted in the development of an improved project process, the Process Protocol, which considers the whole lifecycle of a construction project whilst integrating its participants under a common framework. The Process Protocol identifies the various phases of a construction project with particular emphasis on what is described in the manufacturing industry as the ‘fuzzy front end’. The participants in the process are described in terms of the activities that need to be undertaken in order to achieve a successful project and process execution. In addition, the decision-making mechanisms, from a client perspective, are illustrated and the foundations for a learning organization/industry are facilitated within a consistent Process Protocol.

IT implementation in the construction organization

Organizational issues are inhibiting the implementation and strategic use of information technologies (IT) in the construction sector. This paper focuses on these issues and explores processes by which emerging technologies can be introduced into construction organizations. The paper is based on a case study, conducted in a major house building company that was implementing a virtual reality (VR) system for internal design review in the regional offices. Interviews were conducted with different members of the organization to explore the introduction process and the use of the system. The case study findings provide insight into the process of change, the constraints that inhibit IT implementation and the relationship between new technology and work patterns within construction organizations. They suggest that (1) user-developer communications are critical for the successful implementation of non-diffused innovations in the construction industry; and (2) successful uptake of IT requires both strategic decision-making by top management and decision-making by technical managers.

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.