Transforming construction: the multi-scale challenges of changing and innovating in construction

References

• Addyman, S., Pryke, S., and Davies, A., 2020. Re-creating organizational routines to transition through the project life cycle: a case study of the reconstruction of London’s Bank underground station. Project management journal, 51, 522–537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aitchison, M., 2018. Prefab housing and the future of building: product to process. London, UK: Lund Humphries.
   Google Scholar
• Andreas, B., Fernie, S., and Dainty, A., 2021. Understanding policy and change: a political economy analysis framework. Construction management and economics, 40 (11–12).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arena, M., et al., 2017. How to catalyze innovation in your organisation. MIT sloan management review, 58, 39–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, D., and Chinyio, E., 2002. The client at rest. In: Understanding the construction client. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Brunet, M., and Cohendet, P., 2021. Transforming construction: heterarchical megaproject ecologies and the management of innovation. Construction management and economics, 40 (11–12).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bygballe, L.E., Håkansson, H., and Jahre, M., 2013. A critical discussion of models for conceptualizing the economic logic of construction. Construction management and economics, 31 (2), 104–118.
   Google Scholar
• Bygballe, L.E., and Ingemansson, M., 2014. The logic of innovation in construction. Industrial marketing management, 43 (3), 512–524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bygballe, L.E., and Jahre, M., 2009. Balancing value creating logics in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 27(7), 695–704.
   Google Scholar
• Bygballe, L.E., and Swärd, A., 2019. Collaborative project delivery models and the role of routines in institutionalizing partnering. Project management journal, 50 (2), 161–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacciatori, E., and Prencipe, A., 2021. Project-based temporary organizing and routine dynamics. In: M. Feldman, B. Pentland, L. D’adderio, K. Dittrich, C. Rerup, and D. Seidl, eds. Cambridge handbook of routine dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, P.W., 2020. Revisiting basics: theoretically-grounded interesting research that addresses challenges that matter. Construction management and economics, 38 (1), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, C., 1997. The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cidik, M.S., and Boyd, D., 2022. Value implication of digital transformation: the impact of the commodification of information. Construction management and economics, 40 (11–12).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, A., Brady, T., and Hobday, M., 2006. Charting a path toward integrated solutions. MIT sloan management review, 47 (3), 39–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denicol, J., Davies, A., and Krystallis, I., 2020. What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance? A systematic literature review and research agenda. Project management journal, 51 (3), 328–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois, A., and Gadde, L.-E., 2002. The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: implications for productivity and innovation. Construction management and economics, 20 (7), 621–631.
   Google Scholar
• Eklund, J., and Kapoor, R., 2019. Pursuing the new while sustaining the current: incumbent strategies and firm value during the nascent period of industry change. Organization science, 30 (2), 383–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gann, D.M., 2001. Towards an understanding of innovation processes in construction. Building research and information, 29 (3), 253–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gans, J., 2016. The disruption dilemma. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gawer, A., and Cusumano, M.A., 2014. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of product innovation management, 31 (3), 417–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gluch, P., and Svensson, I., 2018. On the nexus of changing public facilities management practices: purposive and co-creative actions across multiple levels. Construction management and economics, 36 (5), 259–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabher, G., and Ibert, O., 2011. Project ecologies: a contextual view on temporary organizations. In: P.W.G. Morris, J.K. Pinto, and J. Soderlund, eds. The Oxford handbook of project management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Green, S.D., and Schweber, L., 2008. Theorizing in the context of professional practice: the case for middle-range theories. Building research and information, 36 (6), 649–654.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood, B.N., et al., 2019. The role of individual and organizational expertise in the adoption of new practices. Organization science, 30 (1), 191–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Håkansson, H., and Ingemansson, M., 2013. Industrial renewal within the construction network. Construction management and economics, 31 (1), 40–61.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, D. M. 2018. Cracks in the Mirror: Conceptualizing the Ongoing AEC Industry Re-Organization. In: EP OC Conference Proceedings, December 2018, Brijuni, Croatia. Switzerland: ETH Zurich, pp. 458–477. Available at: https://www.researchcollection.ethz.ch:443/handle/20.500.11850/275328.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, D.M., and Bonanomi, M.M., 2021. Governing collaborative project delivery as a common pool resource scenario. Project management journal, 52, 250–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, D.M., and Scott, W.R., 2019. Early stages in the institutionalization of integrated project delivery. Project management journal, 50 (2), 128–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, D.M., Whyte, J.K., and Lessing, J., 2020. Mirror-breaking strategies to enable digital manufacturing in Silicon Valley construction firms: a comparative case study. Construction management and economics, 38 (4), 322–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havenvid, M., et al., 2019. The connectivity of innovation in the construction industry. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Henisz, W.J., Levitt, R.E., and Scott, W.R., 2012. Toward a unified theory of project governance: economic, sociological and psychological supports for relational contracting. Engineering project organization journal, 2 (1–2), 37–55.
   Google Scholar
• Jansson, G., Johnsson, H., and Engström, D., 2014. Platform use in systems building. Construction management and economics, 32 (1–2), 70–82.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, K., et al., 2021. Addressing specialization and fragmentation: product platform development in construction consultancy firms. Construction Management and Economics, 40 (11–12).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kedir, F., et al., 2022. Formative scenario analysis of the factors influencing the adoption of industrialised construction in countries with high housing demand – the cases of Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa. Construction management and economics, 40 (9), 690–710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., 2003. Is structural change the primary solution to the problems of construction? Building research & information, 31 (2), 85–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lessing, J., and Brege, S., 2018. Industrialized building companies’ business models: multiple case study of Swedish and North American Companies. Journal of construction engineering and management, 144 (2), 15–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt, R.E., 2012. The virtual design team: designing project organizations as engineers design bridges. Journal of organization design, 1 (2), 14.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblad, H., and Gustavsson, T.K., 2021. Public clients’ ability to drive industry change: the case of implementing BIM. Construction management and economics, 39 (1), 21–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingard, H., et al., 2021. What have we learnt from the COVID-19 global pandemic: improving the construction industry’s abilities to foresee, respond to and recover from future endemic catastrophes. Construction management and economics, 39 (2), 192–197.
   Google Scholar
• Loosemore, M., 2015. Grassroots innovation in the construction industry. In: F. Orstavik, A. Dainty, and C. Abbott, eds. Construction innovation. New York: Wiley, 65–78.
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, O., Nylen, D., and Sandberg, J., 2021. Unpacking construction site digitalization: the role of incongruence and inconsistency in technological frames. Construction management and economics, 40 (11-12).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manseau, A., and Shields, R., 2005. Building tomorrow: innovation in construction and engineering. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• McKinsey Global Institute 2017. Reinventing construction: a route to higher productivity. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/reinventing-construction-through-a-productivity-revolution
   Google Scholar
• Meacham, B.J., and Van Straalen, I.J., 2018. A socio-technical system framework for risk- informed performance-based building regulation building regulation. Building research & information, 46 (4), 444–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, M., and Langford, D. A., 2003. Construction reports 1944–1998. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Ninan, J., Sergeeva, N., and Winch, G., 2022. Narrative shapes innovation: a study on multiple innovations in the UK construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 40 (11–12).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obstfeld, D., 2017. Getting new things done: networks, brokerage, and the assembly of innovative action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Orstavik, F., Dainty, A.R.J., and Abbott, C., eds. 2015. Construction innovation. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E., 2015. Governing the commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pan, W., Chen, L., and Zhan, W., 2019. PESTEL analysis of construction productivity enhancement strategies: a case study of three economies. Journal of management in engineering, 35 (1), 05018013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellicer, E., et al., 2014. Model for systematic innovation in construction companies. Journal of construction engineering and management, 140 (4), B4014001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulkka, L., et al., 2016. Applicability and benefits of the ecosystem concept in the construction industry. Construction management and economics, 34 (2), 129–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullen, T., Hall, D., and Lessing, J., 2019. White paper: a preliminary overview of emerging trends for industrialized construction in the United States version 1. Zurich. https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/331901
   Google Scholar
• Rosander, L., 2022. Same, same but different: dynamics of a pre-procurement routine and its influence on relational contracting models. Construction management and economics, 40 (11–12).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sage, D., et al., 2021. Towards a new theory of construction innovation: a socio-material analysis of classification work. Construction management and economics, 39 (8), 637–651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmi, A., Jussila, J., and Hamalainen, M., 2022. The role of municipalities in transformation towards more sustainable construction: the case of wood construction in Finland. Construction management and economics, 40 (11–12).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandberg, R., Löwstedt, M., and Räisänen, C., 2021. Working in a loosely coupled system: exploring practices and implications of coupling work on construction sites. Construction management and economics, 39 (3), 212–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweber, L., 2015. Putting theory to work: the use of theory in construction research. Construction management and economics, 33 (10), 840–860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seaden, G., and Manseau, A., 2010. Public policy and construction innovation. Building research and information, 29 (3), 182–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaughter, E.S., 2000. Implementation of construction innovations. Building research & information, 28 (1), 2–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinhardt, D., et al., 2019. The structure of emergent prefabricated housing industries: a comparative case study of Australia and Sweden. Construction management and economics, 38 (6), 483–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, L.D.W., Autio, E., and Gann, D.M., 2014. Architectural leverage: putting platforms in context. Academy of management perspectives, 28 (2), 198–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, C.S., Karrbom Gustavsson, T., and Karvonen, A., 2021. Grand challenges facing our cities: where construction management research meets the urban field. Construction management and economics, 39 (10), 874–878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations (2019) World population prospects 2019. (ST/ESA/SE, World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights, (ST/ESA/SE). New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12283219
   Google Scholar
• Whyte, J., 2019. How digital information transforms project delivery models. Project management journal, 50 (2), 177–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willems, T., et al., 2020. Practices of isolation: the shaping of project autonomy in innovation projects. International journal of project management, 38, 215–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winch, G.M., 1998. Zephyrs of creative destruction: understanding the management of innovation in construction. Building research & information, 26 (5), 268–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar