MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122511782 · doi:10.1108/ci-11-2019-0117

Construction process innovation on Brock Commons Tallwood House

2021· article· en· W3122511782 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction Innovation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationProcess (computing)EngineeringProject teamCommonsFlexibility (engineering)Process managementEngineering managementArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceSystems engineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the construction process innovations that enabled the successful delivery of the hybrid mass timber high-rise building in Canada, the Brock Commons Tallwood House at the University of British Columbia. It is one of a set of papers examining the project, including companion papers that describe innovations in the mass timber design process and the impact of these innovations on construction performance. The focus of this paper is on innovation in the construction phase and its relationship to innovations implemented in previous project phases. Design/methodology/approach A mixed-method, longitudinal case study approach was used in this research project to investigate and document the Tallwood House project over a three-year period. Both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques were used. Members of the research team observed prefabrication and construction, conducted periodic interviews and reviewed project artefacts. Findings The research identified three innovation “clusters,” including the use of innovative tools, techniques and strategies in the design and construction processes and the role they played in delivering the project. The “clusters” were further characterized according to the type of “connectivity” they afforded, either facilitation, operationalization or materialization. These two perspectives support a compounding view on innovation and help to understand how it can flow throughout a project’s life cycle and across its supply chain. Three process-based innovations were initiated during the design phase, integrated design process, building information modeling and virtual design and construction and flowed through to the construction phase. These were seen to enable the creation of connections that were crucial to the overall success of the project. These innovations were operationalized and enacted through the construction phase as design for manufacturing and assembly and prefabrication, staged construction and just-in-time delivery, integration of safety and risk management and a rigorous quality control and quality assurance process. Finally, a full-scale mock-up was produced for practice and constructability assessment, materializing the radical product innovation that was the mass timber structure. These strategies are used together for a synergistic and integrated approach to increase productivity, expedite the construction schedule and develop an innovative building product. Originality/value This paper details an in-depth investigation into the diffusion dynamics of multiple systemic innovations for the construction process of a unique building project, the tools and techniques used by the construction manager and team, and the challenges, solutions and lessons learned.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it