The challenge of organizational design for manufactured construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address an aspect of the innovation process leading to manufactured construction, which is often ignored, namely the organizational changes that necessarily accompany major innovations such as manufactured construction, calling for systemic organizational design. Design/methodology/approach The information for the case histories was obtained over a number of years by embedded research, where the researcher played an essential role in the projects described, thus allowing access to unpublished information. This observation‐based information was compared to other cases reported in the literature or about which knowledge was obtained though other means, enabling analytical generalizations to be drawn. Findings Results confirm the initial expectations. In a context of minimum state intervention, e.g. through mechanisms of market aggregation (in UK and the USA for example), namely where the internal forces of the building sector act upon each participant (including manufactured construction innovators), the design of an appropriate organization with its accompanying novel relationships is essential. Originality/value This paper makes it possible to show that contemporary manufactured construction innovators should recognize the importance of up front organizational design as a co‐requisite for technical design. This phase is often overlooked, exposing the innovator to unnecessary risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".