‘What does this mean’? Sensemaking in the strategic action field of construction

Abstract

Debate continues over the nature of the construction industry as a conglomeration, its boundaries (n.b., whether design is included), how it operates and with what objectives. Fragmentation remains a widely cited detriment to performance. However, the evolving development of field theory, notably, strategic action fields (SAF), provides a new and more embracing perspective that focuses on relationships and context that argues for mapping and analyses of network relationships between actors to provide a richer picture. The diversity of actors on any construction project, especially in increasingly ‘enterprise’ environments and the, consequent, operating processes accentuate atomism, individual goals and lack of integration. Thus, construction projects have very different meanings for each actor. The sensemaking perspective gives insights into how the actors, individually and collectively, interpret the myriad signals that they perceive to determine meaning and invoke action within their network of relationships in SAF. This study undertakes a critical review of theory and literature concerning sensemaking within networks of actors that constitute the SAF of construction to explore how those perspectives may be applied and the consequences for actors, processes and products. The underpinning concept is that those two perspectives – SAF and sensemaking – are vertically complimentary. It is found that, although little empirical study has been done in applying those bodies of theory to construction, the perspectives have considerable potential for application to enhance understanding of construction project processes and contexts, inter-relationships within and between the networks of participants, their actions and understandings – and, thereby, enhancement of performance in its broadest sense.

Keywords:

• Field theory
• meaning
• projects
• stakeholders

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. These issues, and methods of their investigation, are contested and discussed in the extensive and growing literature on ‘organisational ecology’.

2. Traditionally, the primary logics in the construction SAF comprised functionality and aesthetics (effectiveness) in design and technical coherence and efficiency in construction. The turbulence of construction markets promotes the power/impact of major customers (n.b., government), and large industry actors, such that the logics of successive policy/strategic initiatives are temporarily dominant – e.g. benchmarking, KPIs, Privatization, PFI, PPP and partnering – (as discussed by, n.b., Fernie et al. 2006, Kao et al. 2009, Green 2011). These practice initiatives have exacerbated change in the underpinning episteme throughout the industry from professional/technical to enterprise/financial – exemplified in pervasive ‘calls’ and pressures for reductions in prices (and durations) of projects but with increasing product quality and profitability of suppliers.

3. Ambiguity (low quality of information) is a property of the situation (disruptive event(s); cue(s)) such that the meaning, cause(s) and appropriate remedies are uncertain and may be multiple and complex; equivocality concerns how such events may be perceived, interpreted and enacted in various, alternative (plausible) ways. (See, n.b., Colville et al. (2012, p. 7) regarding reduction of ambiguity and of equivocality in sensemaking).

4. Interpretation implies a positivistic approach – that things exist in the world to be discovered while sensemaking is constructivist – as the actors generate the situations which they interpret (Weick 1995) and so, sensemaking comprises both discovery and invention.

5. Risk is where the probability of occurrence of a future event is statistically predictable; uncertainty is where such probability is unknown, although it may be assessed subjectively – as in folklore.