The futures of construction: a critical review of construction future studies

Harty, Chris; Goodier, Chris I.; Soetanto, Robby; Austin, Simon A.; Dainty, Andrew R.J.; Price, Andrew D.F.

doi:10.1080/01446190600879117

Cited by 60 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Particular emphasis is given to the development of a 'competitiveness index'. For details on other strands of research within the Big Ideas project see: Green et al (2008a), Green et al (2008b), Harty et al (2007), Goodier et al (2007Goodier et al ( , 2009.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding construction competitiveness: the contribution of system dynamics

Dangerfield¹,

Green

Austin

2010

Construction Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeConstruction sector competitiveness has been a subject of interest for many years.Research too often focuses on the means of overcoming the 'barriers to change' as if such barriers were static entities. There has been little attempt to understand the dynamic interrelationship between the differing factors which impinge upon construction sector competitiveness. The paper outlines the benefits of taking a systems approach to construction competitiveness research. Design/methodology/approachThe System Dynamics (SD) modelling methodology is described. This can provide practitioners with 'microworlds' within which they can explore the dynamic effects of different policy decisions. The data underpinning the use of SD was provided by interviews and case study research which allowed an understanding of the context within which practitioners operate. FindingsThe over-riding conclusion is that the system dynamics methodology has been shown to be capable of providing a means to assess the forces which shape the sustained competitiveness of construction firms. As such, it takes the assessment of strategic policy analysis in the construction sector onto a higher plane. The need to collect data and make retrospective assessments of competitiveness and strategic performance at the statistical level is not now the only modus operandi available Originality/value 2 Novel research methodology which points towards an alternative research agenda for construction competitiveness research. Within the scope of a single paper it is not possible to describe in detail the project, colloquially known as the 'Big Ideas', in its entirety. The purpose of the current paper is to focus on the contribution offered by the work package which focused on system dynamics. Initially, the broad background to the project is described followed by an overview of the adopted research methodology. The origins and nature of system 3 dynamics are then described prior to a detailed description of how competitiveness was modelled for a typical contracting firm. Particular emphasis is given to the development of a 'competitiveness index'. For details on other strands of research within the Big Ideas project see: Green et al (2008a), Green et al (2008b), Harty et al (2007), Goodier et al Keywords

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This resulted in a revised set of targets for achieving industry reform by the end of 2007(Strategic Forum, 2002. More recently the time horizon has been extended through to the 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding construction competitiveness: the contribution of system dynamics

Dangerfield¹,

Green

Austin

2010

Construction Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is familiar territoryconstruction is recognised as being a conservative industry, and this relates in part to the recognition that buildability, building quality and product longevity are essential. Construction is accustomed to asking difficult questions or to resisting new innovations in order to avoid the possible hazards or unpredictability of the unfamiliar (Harty et al, 2007). However, designers and contractors cannot ask the right questions if they do not realise that they are working with new products; a questioning approach can only go so far if there is uncertainty about what should be questioned.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing the unknown – Addressing the potential health risks of nanomaterials in the built environment

Jones

Gibb

Goodier

et al. 2016

Construction Management and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanomaterials offer significant potential for high performing new products in the built environment and elsewhere. However, there are uncertainties regarding their potential adverse health effects and the extent to which they are currently used. A desk study and interviews with those working across the construction, demolition and product manufacture sectors (n=59) identified the current state of knowledge regarding nanomaterial use within the built environment. Some nanomaterials are potentially toxic, particularly those based on fibres; others are much less problematic but the evidence base is incomplete. Very little is known regarding the potential for exposure for those working with nano-enabled construction materials. Identifying which construction products contain nanomaterials, and which nanomaterials these might be, is very difficult due to inadequate labelling by product manufacturers. Consequently, those working with nanoenabled products typically have very limited knowledge or awareness of this. Further research is required regarding the toxicology of nanomaterials and the potential for exposure during construction and demolition. Better sharing of the information which is already available is also required through the construction, demolition and manufacture / supply chains. This is likely to be important for other innovative products and processes in construction, not just those which use nanomaterials.

show abstract

“…That is, compared to studies examining the constraints for wood supply (e.g., Verkerk et al 2011), few studies have considered the plethora of drivers and constraints for the demand for wood-based products and services. Indeed, the mainstream forest sector outlook studies could be criticised for their methodoriented and data-oriented approach, as opposed to a problem-oriented approach (see also Harty et al 2007;Toppinen and Kuuluvainen 2010), although in some cases this may be due to the lack of available resources. Even though some of the issues with the forest sector outlook methodology have been commonly acknowledged, they have not been previously critically reviewed nor taken into account by attempting to modify the approaches.…”

Section: Contribution Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term outlook for wood construction in Europe

Hurmekoski¹

2016

Diss. For.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study is to examine the factors affecting the market potential of wood construction in Europe towards 2030. The study takes three complementary perspectives: Past trends and current structures, future trends and uncertainties and measures required to meet the long-term targets of the industries.The methodological framework builds on combining quantitative, descriptive and participative research approaches. By adopting methods and approaches from the field of foresight, the study aims to contribute also to the methodology development for long-term forest sector outlook studies.The trends and pressures in the operating environment of construction were found to primarily relate to the need for reducing the environmental impact of construction and improving the quality and productivity of construction. However, few of the trends would appear to have decisive impact on the diffusion of wood construction. That is, the positive drivers might not translate into improved competitive advantage for wood construction to the extent often expected, due to the lack of willingness or ability to pay for the attributes exceeding the requirements posed by the building regulations. Instead, the cultural and structural hindrances culminating to the fragmented structure and risk-averse characteristics of the construction and wood products industries seem to create significant inertia for the diffusion of wood construction.Based on scenario analysis, the outlook would appear to be dependent on the possible regulatory push for green building and on the possible changes in the strategic orientations of the industries. However, the empirical part indicated that the short-term strategy and policy measures suggested by experts are regarded either as unlikely or as unattractive by the industry stakeholders. The results therefore suggest that the diffusion of wood construction in Europe is likely to be a gradual process, subject to significant inertia, and restricted to a few niche sub-sectors and regions towards 2030.

show abstract

The futures of construction: a critical review of construction future studies

Cited by 60 publications

References 5 publications

Understanding construction competitiveness: the contribution of system dynamics

Understanding construction competitiveness: the contribution of system dynamics

Managing the unknown – Addressing the potential health risks of nanomaterials in the built environment

Long-term outlook for wood construction in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About