Managing short-term efficiency and long-term development through industrialized construction

References

• Abdul Kadir, M.R., Lee, W.P., Jaafar, M.S., Sapuan, S.M. and Ali, A. (2006) Construction performance comparison between conventional and industrialised building systems in Malaysia. Structural Survey, 24(5), 412–424.
   Google Scholar
• Adler, P., Goldoftas, B. and Levine, D. (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alinaitwe, H.M., Mwakali, J. and Hansson, B. (2006) Assessing the degree of industrialisation in construction: a case of Uganda. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 12(3), 221–229.
   Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M. (2010) Managing innovation paradoxes: ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 104–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benner, M. and Tushman, M. (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blayse, A.M. and Manley, K. (2004) Key influences on construction innovation. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 4(3), 143–153.
   Google Scholar
• Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2001) Understanding the diffusion and application of new management ideas in construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(5/6), 335–345.
   Google Scholar
• Caerteling, J., Di Benedetto, A., Dorée, A., Halman, J. and Song, M. (2011) Technology development projects in road infrastructure: the relevance of government championing behavior. Technovation, 31(5–6), 270–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantarelli, C., van Wee, B., Molina, E.J.E. and Flyvbjerg, B. (2012) Different cost performance: different determinants? The case of cost overruns in Dutch transport infrastructure projects. Transport Policy, 22(July), 88–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin, N.K. (1978) Sociological Methods: A Source Book, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, R.B. (ed.) (1976) The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation, Vol. 1, The Management of Organization, North-Holland, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. (1989) Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elfving, J., Tommelein, I. and Ballard, G. (2005) Consequences of competitive bidding in project-based production. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 11(4), 173–181.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson, P.E. (2013) Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations: development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in construction companies. International Journal of Project Management, 31(3), 333–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, P.E. and Westerberg, M. (2011) Effects of cooperative procurement procedures on construction project performance: a conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 197–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, P.E., Nilsson, T. and Atkin, B. (2008) Client perceptions of barriers to partnering. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15(6), 527–539.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. and Buhl, S. (2003) How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects? Transport Reviews, 23(1), 71–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. and Buhl, S. (2004) What causes cost overrun in transport infrastructure projects? Transport Reviews, 24(1), 3–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gann, D. (1996) Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences between industrialized housing and car production in Japan. Construction Management and Economics, 14(5), 437–450.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W. and Wicki, B. (2008) What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giezen, M. (2012) Keeping it simple? A case study into the advantages and disadvantages of reducing complexity in mega project planning. International Journal of Project Management, 30(7), 781–790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil, N., Miozzo, M. and Massini, S. (2012) The innovation potential of new infrastructure development: an empirical study of Heathrow airport’s T5 project. Research Policy, 41(2), 452–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Girmscheid, G. and Rinas, T. (2012) Business design modeling for industrialization in construction: cooperative approach. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 18(2), 164–175.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, A., Smith, K. and Shalley, C. (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, S.H., Yun, S., Kim, H., Kwak, Y.H., Park, H.K. and Lee, S.H. (2009) Analyzing schedule delay of mega project: lessons learned from Korea Train Express. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(2), 243–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höök, M. and Stehn, L. (2008) Applicability of lean principles and practices in industrialized housing production. Construction Management and Economics, 26(10), 1091–1100.
   Google Scholar
• Kadefors, A. (1995) Institutions in building projects: implications for flexibility and change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 395–408.
   Google Scholar
• Katila, R. and Ahuja, G. (2002) Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keegan, A. and Turner, R. (2001) Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices. Management Learning, 32(1), 77–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korczynski, M. (1990) (1996) The low-trust route to economic development: inter-firm relations in the UK engineering construction industry in the 1980s and. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 787–808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minchin, E., Lewis, D. and McLeod, L. (2011) Improving productivity on a troubled bridge project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(5), 364–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. and Tushman, M. (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pakkala, P.A. (2012) Improving Productivity Using Procurement Methods: An International Comparison Concerning Roads, Produktivitetskommittén Vägar till förbättrad produktivitet och innovationgrad i anläggningsbrannschen del 2 [Roads to an improved productivity and level of innovation in civil engineering volume 2], Statens offentliga utredningar [Swedish Governmental Investigations], SOU 2012:39, Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt, M. (2009) For the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. and Tushman, M. (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riley, M. and Clare-Brown, D. (2001) Comparison of cultures in construction and manufacturing industries. Journal of Management in Engineering, 17(3), 149–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, T. and Manley, K. (2012) Adoption of innovative products on Australian road infrastructure projects. Construction Management and Economics, 30(4), 277–298.
   Google Scholar
• Tawiah, P. and Russell, A. (2008) Assessing infrastructure project innovation potential as a function of procurement mode. Journal of Management in Engineering, 24(3), 173–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiwana, A. (2008) Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 251–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. and O’Reilly, C. (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T. and Zahra, S. (2009) Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vennström, A. and Eriksson, P.E. (2010) Client perceived barriers to change of the construction process. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 10(2), 126–137.
   Google Scholar
• Winch, G. (1998) Zephyrs of creative destruction: understanding the management of innovation in construction. Building Research & Information, 26(5), 268–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winch, G. (2003) Models of manufacturing and the construction process: the genesis of re-engineering construction. Building Research & Information, 31(2), 107–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, C.-H., Hsieh, T.-Y. and Cheng, W.-L. (2005) Statistical analysis of causes for design change in highway construction on Taiwan. International Journal of Project Management, 23(7), 554–563.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. (2003) Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd edn, Sage, London.
   Google Scholar