![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
Isomorphic pressures are thought to stimulate change and adoption of best practice in risk management (RM). Although this certainly occurs in most industries, it is not occurring in the construction industry. This research investigates institutional isomorphism in the Australian construction industry. In-depth interviews and surveys about the use of current risk tools and techniques (RT&T) by 25 experienced construction project managers (CPMs) were used to examine existing practice. A Delphi survey was conducted to validate these interviews using 11 experienced CPMs. These CPM reconfirmed that coercive and normative pressures created institutional isomorphism and a common approach in managing occupational health and safety (OH&S) risks. In contrast, for other categories of risk, CPMs have decoupled their practice from stipulations in standards by adopting a limited range of predominantly qualitative risk tools and techniques. CPMs, consider it more efficient and effective to rely on accrued experience, teams and external experts because of the unique constraints in construction projects. This research challenges the notion that CPMs are deficient in adopting new paradigms and opens an academic discourse on whether industry-specific project RM standards should be developed.
Acknowledgements
This paper presents outcomes of research included in the PhD Thesis of Dr Jacqueline Jepson conducted at the University of South Australia. We would also like to express our gratitude to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their time and the valuable comments, which have helped significantly to improve this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).