The need for technological and administrative innovation is a recurrent theme in the UK construction reform agenda, but generic improvement recipes are beginning to give way to a more focused prescription; Building Information Modelling (BIM). The current strategy is to mandate the use of BIM for government projects as a way of integrating the design, construction and operation of publically procured buildings. This aspiration represents a partial turn away from a focus on managerialist agendas towards a belief in the power of digital practices to achieve the aspiration of integrated working, collaboration and innovation, a trend that is being reflected globally in relation to both national and firm-level policy interventions. In this paper we subject this 'BIM revolution' to critical scrutiny. By drawing on theories of the digital divide we develop a critical discourse around the ways in which political reform agendas centred on BIM might not stimulate innovation on a wider scale, but could act to disenfranchise small firms who are unable (or unwilling) to engage with them. This critical analysis presents important new research questions around the technocratic optimism which pervades the current reform discourse, the trajectory of industry development that it creates, and the policy process itself.

No abstract

Current recipes for learning across business sectors too often fail to recognize the embedded and contextual nature of management practice. The existing literature gives little emphasis to the symbiotic relationship between supply chain management and the broader dynamics of context. The aerospace and construction sectors are selected for comparison on the basis that they are so different. The UK aerospace sector has undergone extensive consolidation as a result of the imperatives of global competitive pressures. In contrast, the construction industry has experienced decades of fragmentation and remains highly localized. An increasing proportion of output in the aerospace sector occurs within a small number of large, globally orientated firms. In contrast, construction output is dominated by a plethora of small firms with high levels of subcontracting and a widespread reliance on self-employment. These differences have fundamental implications for the way that supply chain management is understood and implemented in the two sectors. Semi-structured interviews with practitioners from both sectors support the contention that supply chain management is more established in aerospace than construction. The introduction of prime contracting and the increasing use of framework agreements within the construction sector potentially provide a much more supportive climate for supply chain management than has traditionally prevailed. However, progress depends upon an improved continuity of workload under such arrangements.Consolidation, context, industry structure, sense-making, supply chain management,

Change within the construction sector has been a central concern of governments and a select few private-sector clients for a considerable time. The discourse of change emanating from organizations concerned with reform in the construction sector reflects these ongoing concerns for change in the sector. The underlying assumptions of the content of change and appropriate change mechanisms in the UK are critically examined and challenged. In particular, the limitations of measurement and best practice are explored. The allegiance to approaches based on measurement and best practice is acontextual, unreflective and insufficient in providing wholly reliable explanations for the relationship between practice and performance. Claims for the use of measurement and best practice by the reform movement must therefore be understood to have limitations and their use approached with caution. The emphasis on best practice is also understood to direct attention away from understanding the legitimacy of current practice and change within the UK construction sector. An agenda for change in the UK construction sector will need to engage with and be more reflective of current managerial practice and past change initiatives. Contextual approaches such as structuration theory offer a way in which to underpin a research framework that could support the reform movement in setting such an agenda.Depuis longtemps, les changements qui interviennent dans le secteur de la construction sont une préoccupation majeure pour les gouvernements et pour quelques clients sélectionnés du secteur privé. Le discours sur le changement émanant d'organisations préoccupées par la réforme dans la construction reflète l'inquiétude permanente causée par le changement dans ce secteur. Les hypothèses sous-jacentes portant sur le contenu et sur les mécanismes appropriés du changement au Royaume-Uni font l'objet d'un examen critique et sont mises en question. L'auteur analyse, en particulier, les limitations des mesures et des meilleures pratiques. Les positions en faveur d'approches basées sur les mesures et les meilleures pratiques sont hors contexte, non représentatives et insuffisantes puisqu'elles ne parviennent pas à fournir une explication totalement fiable des relations entre la pratique et la performance. Il est donc clair que lorsque le mouvement en faveur de la réforme encourage l'utilisation de mesures et des meilleures pratiques, celles-ci on des limites et leur utilisation doit être envisagée avec précaution. En mettant l'accent sur les meilleures pratiques, on détourne l'attention de la compréhension de la légitimité des pratiques actuelles et des changements dans le secteur de la construction au Royaume-Uni. Tout programme de changement dans le secteur de la construction au Royaume-Uni devra être associé à des pratiques de gestion plus réfléchies et tenir compte d'initiatives de changement prises dans le passé. Des approches contextuelles comme la théorie de la structuration offrent une méthode sur laquelle pourra s'appuyer un cadre de recherche ...

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of the paper is to explore the process of change within organisations in the construction sector related to the content of change called for by reformers such as Egan, Latham, Constructing Excellence and the "rethinking construction" movement. The concept of supply chain management is used within the research to facilitate this kind of exploration. Design/methodology/approach -The broad framework adopted in the paper is contextual in nature and informed by structuration theory and new institutionalism. The approach followed is a case study method that looks for literal replication across a number of cases. Findings -Supply chain management is found to be both synonymous with the concept of partnering and particularly problematic for organisations to implement within the construction sector due to specific contextual factors. Research limitations/implications -All methodological positions have limitations. Like all research this piece of work is the product of choices that could have been different and achieved different outcomes. Originality/value -The findings support a view that contextual approaches provide greater insight into the problematic nature of change in the construction sector and concerns regarding the development of a robust, relevant and sustainable agenda for change within the sector.

Supply chain management in construction continues to attract considerable academic and industry interest. With its origin in manufacturing, successful implementation of supply chain management is argued to enhance customer value whilst simultaneously reducing business costs. In the UK construction industry, supply chain management strategies remain largely synonymous with best practice initiatives such as construction partnering, strategic alliances and more recently construction framework agreements. In contrast to this arguably misleading and impoverished viewpoint, the purpose of this research is to develop fresh perspectives and present a contextually sympathetic typology of supply chain management in construction.Drawing on new organizational institutionalism, economic governance and transactional cost economics (TCE), the utility and performance of supply chain management in construction is portrayed as rational choice among multiple strategies, instrumentally bound by contract and context. This contextually sensitive interpretation of supply chain management captures complex, diverse and often unique characteristics of construction practice. Challenging mainstream assessment of supply chain management can clearly help construction stakeholders focus attention on discrete supply chain strategies that best suit their organizational and project needs.

Largely taken for granted within the UK construction sector has been a view that supply chain management theory is robust, relevant and reliable. As such it has formed a substantial aspect of previous and contemporary policy and government funded research. Despite this, the prevailing view of its development and diffusion over the last 15 years within the construction industry has been problematic.Coincidentally, prevailing debates within the supply chain management academic community point to the lack of unified theory, models of diffusion and strong connections to organisation theory. Using Straussian grounded theory; iterations between data and organisation theory provided a fresh perspective on the development and diffusion of supply chain management in construction. This inductive research provided contextually rich explanations for development and diffusion that explicitly connected with and drew upon robust, relevant and reliable theories of institutions, innovation diffusion, triads, quasifirms and mechanisms of organizational governance. These explanations challenge the simplistic assumption that chains and networks of organisations are holistically managed and controlled by any single organisation or institution in the construction industry. The paper therefore shifts the debate away from proselytising supply chain management towards research that explores rigor, relevance and reliability of supply chain management assumptions in construction. The paper also exposes the gap between industry practice and policy and, questions the extent to which policy and practice do, or should, constitute a recursive relationship.

Purpose Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a prominent topic of debate, and yet remains subject to multiple interpretations. Despite this ambiguity, organisations need to communicate their CSR activity effectively in order to meet varied stakeholder demands, increase financial performance and in order to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of clients and various stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to explore how CSR is communicated, and the impact such communication methods have on CSR practice. More specifically, it examines the disconnect between the rhetoric espoused in CSR reports and the actualities of the ways in which CSR is practiced. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative content analysis of 100 CSR reports published by nine construction contractors informed the design of qualitative interviews. In total, 17 interviews were then conducted with contractors and public body clients. Findings Strategic ambiguity explains how contractors circumvent the problem of attending to conflicting stakeholder CSR needs. However, this results in a paradox where CSR is simultaneously sustained as a corporate metric and driver, whilst being simultaneously undermined in being seen as a rhetorical device. By examining this phenomenon through the lens of legitimacy, the study reveals how both the paradox and subsequent actions of clients that this provokes, act to restrict the development of CSR practice. Originality/value This is the first study to use the lens of legitimacy theory to analyse the relationship between CSR reporting and CSR practice in the construction industry. In revealing the CSR paradox and its ramifications the research provides a novel explanation of the lack of common understandings and manifestations of CSR within the construction sector.