Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 8 results ...

Ayinla, K O, Cheung, F and Tawil, A (2019) Demystifying the concept of offsite manufacturing method. Construction Innovation , 20(02), 223–46.

Hamidavi, T, Abrishami, S, Ponterosso, P, Begg, D and Nanos, N (2020) OSD. Construction Innovation , 20(02), 149–69.

Khan, M W and Ali, Y (2020) Sustainable construction. Construction Innovation , 20(02), 191–207.

Lenderink, B, Halman, J I, Boes, H and Voordijk, H (2020) A method to encourage and assess innovations in public tenders for infrastructure and construction projects. Construction Innovation , 20(02), 171–89.

Saka, A B and Chan, D W (2020) Profound barriers to building information modelling (BIM) adoption in construction small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Construction Innovation , 20(02), 261–84.

Sergeeva, N and Liu, N (2019) Social construction of innovation and the role of innovation brokers in the construction sector. Construction Innovation , 20(02), 247–59.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Innovation; Construction management; System; Social constructivism; Innovation broker; Social construction of technology (SCOT);
  • ISBN/ISSN: 1471-4175
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-02-2019-0016
  • Abstract:
    The purpose of this paper is to re-visit social construction of technology (SCOT) framework in understanding of innovation in the construction sector and unpack the role of innovation brokers in this context. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper adopting SCOT framework to understand innovation in the context of the construction sector. The role of innovation brokers is unpacked in the paper, currently under-explored in the construction innovation studies. Findings The authors suggest SCOT framework as a useful overarching frame through which to understand construction innovation. The authors argue that innovation brokers should be positioned to oversee the interface of multiple social groups. Research limitations/implications Further empirical research is proposed to test the theoretical assumptions outlined in the paper. The research agenda is to conduct further empirical research adopting a socio-technical theoretical lens and appropriate qualitative or mixed-design methodologies. There are other socio-technical theoretical frameworks that could be used to explore socio-technical interactions in different ways, e.g. socio-technical systems theory, sociomateriality, actor-network theory, etc. Practical implications Three propositions are developed regarding the position of an innovation broker from the perspectives of multi-social-groups interfaces, shifting significance of the roles of innovation broker and the collaboration with government. Originality/value The authors outline the value of SCOT framework for innovation study within project-based construction sector. The authors contribute to better understanding of the role of innovation brokers in the system of construction innovation.

Utomo, C and Rahmawati, Y (2020) Agreement options for negotiation on material location decision of housing development. Construction Innovation , 20(02), 209–22.

Van Oorschot, J A, Halman, J I and Hofman, E (2020) Getting innovations adopted in the housing sector. Construction Innovation , 20(02), 285–318.