MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189806257 · doi:10.1108/ci-11-2019-0116

Design process innovation on brock commons tallwood house

2021· article· en· W3189806257 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
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Project teamProcess managementProduct (mathematics)New product developmentQuality (philosophy)EngineeringProduct designEngineering managementKnowledge managementSystems engineeringComputer scienceBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the design process innovations that enabled the successful delivery of a 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 used during the mass timber construction process and the impact of these innovations on construction performance. 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. Graduate student researchers were embedded within the project team to observe meetings and decision-making and to conduct periodic interviews. Findings The research highlights a case of a balanced triple-helix system that provided a context for the successful “clustering” of product and process innovation, which were developed and implemented to flow throughout the project’s lifecycle and across its supply chain to provide benefits at each stage. Four significant process-based innovations were implemented at the design phase of the building project to support radical product innovation: an integrated design process, virtual design and construction, designing for manufacturing and assembling and a rigorous quality control and quality assurance process. The product innovations developed through these process innovations were the structural system and the prefabricated envelope system. The context of innovation was seen to allow this “clustering,” which is believed to be a key condition of success and enabled the efficient and successful delivery of the project. Generally, the approach was successful; however, some factors including the number of stakeholders and good-faith collaboration may limit the replicability of these strategies. Originality/value This paper presents an in-depth investigation into the instantiation of an innovation system, identified as a balanced triple-helix system, which enabled and facilitated the design and decision-making process for a radical product innovation. Moreover, this paper describes the deployment of a “cluster” of process innovations that flowed throughout the project’s lifecycle and across the project supply chain. This was seen as a key factor in ensuring the successful delivery of the project.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.240 · 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