MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4293272017 · doi:10.1108/ci-08-2017-0070

Innovation transfer in construction: re-interpreting factor-based research from the perspective of the social construction of technology (SCOT)

2022· article· en· W4293272017 sur OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Hassan Wafai, Ghassan Aouad

Notice bibliographique

RevueConstruction Innovation · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueBIM and Construction Integration
Établissements canadiensRoyal Roads University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementTechnological changeSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)Empirical researchPerspective (graphical)Management scienceBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringEpistemology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose The construction industry has shown an inherent inability to adopt advanced technological innovations. The construction innovation literature is highly fragmented and outlines an overwhelming number of factors that arguably influence the transfer of technological innovations in construction. Factor-based research in the construction innovation literature tends to set out technological innovations and their adoption as socially neutral events, overlooking the role of context in the adoption process. Hence, the authors’ understanding of how technological innovations are transferred and implemented in the construction industry remains limited by the constraints of reductionist approaches adopted by factor-based research. This paper aims to advance the authors’ understanding of the actual experiences of technological innovations transfer in construction. Instead of introducing another set of factors, the research, through empirical investigation, develops a comprehensive and holistic framework to re-interpret the existing factor-based literature taking into consideration the role of the construction context and the socially constructed nature of technological innovations. Design/methodology/approach This research uses a participatory exploratory multiple case study design strategy, which has much in common with action research. The factors that could influence the transfer of technological innovations were investigated in three selected case studies over an extended period of time. During the research, a prototype system application of construction integration was used as a basis to discuss the adoption of technological innovations. Findings The findings suggest moving from the commonly held beliefs in the rational school of technological innovation and the functionalist paradigm towards constructivist approaches to capture the role of context and the stoically constructed nature of technological innovations. It is suggested that construction companies need to develop management capabilities to manage the changing political environments of the adoption process. The research supports the emerging view of technological innovations in construction as a collaborative-based innovation, which is a function of relationships and context. Research limitations/implications The research is limited by the settings of the action research design and the use of an interpretive approach. Because the focus was on investigating the “why” question, little attention was given to the “how” question. Accordingly, the findings provide little insights into the way organizations can manage the changing political and social environment of the adoption process. The authors also acknowledge that in spite of their best efforts to build a theoretically grounded framework of factors, they may have overlooked some relevant studies. However, the objective of this research was not to conduct a systematic literature review or to come up with a framework that quantitatively captures all previous research studies; instead, the objective was to build a holistic framework that can be used as a base to analyze the role of construction context and the socially constructed nature of technological innovations in the adoption process. Practical implications The research offers several practical insights. First, it suggests that construction companies need to develop management capabilities to be able to lead the changing political environment of the adoption process successfully. Second, the research supports the emerging view of technological innovations in construction as a collaborative-based innovation that is a function of relationship. From a policy perspective, the research provides the basis to reconsider the effectiveness of federal and provincial policies that promote advanced technological Initiatives. The majority of these policies focus on the technical aspects in assessing the adoption of technological innovation, providing little incentives to companies to manage the changing political and social environment of the adoption process. Originality/value This research offers several theoretical and methodological contributions. First, it advances the authors’ understanding of the actual experiences of the transfer of technological innovations in construction organizations. Second, instead of introducing another set of factors, the research develops a framework to re-interpret the existing factor-based literature, considering the role of construction context and the socially constructed nature of technological innovations. The research uses the theoretical lens of the social construction of technology framework to analyze the adoption process. The existing literature suggests that such research is scarce and highly needed. Third, unlike the mainstream reductionist approaches, this research adopts an exploratory action research inquiry design that uses both inductive and deductive inquiry approaches to understand the socially constructed nature of innovation transfer in construction. The adopted research design offers a valuable methodological contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,030
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,996
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,157

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0300,033
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0110,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,042
Communication savante0,0140,014
Science ouverte0,0030,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,295
Écart entre enseignants0,257 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueConstruction InnovationMême sujetBIM and Construction IntegrationTravaux en français237 207