Suchergebnisse

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Construction Management and Economics on 10th October 2013, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/01446193.2013.830186. ; Largely taken for granted within the UK construction sector has been a view that supply chain management theory is robust, relevant and reliable. As such it has formed a substantial aspect of previous and contemporary policy and government funded research. Despite this, the general view of its development and diffusion over the last 15 years within the construction industry has been problematic. Coincidentally, prevailing debates within the supply chain management academic community point to the lack of unified theory, models of diffusion and strong connections to organization theory. Using Straussian grounded theory, iterations between data and organization theory provided a fresh perspective on the development and diffusion of supply chain management in construction. This inductive research provided contextually rich explanations for development and diffusion that explicitly connected with and drew upon robust, relevant and reliable theories of institutions, innovation diffusion, triads, quasifirms and mechanisms of organizational governance. These explanations challenge the simplistic assumption that chains and networks of organizations are holistically managed and controlled by any single organization or institution in the construction industry. The debate therefore shifts away from proselytizing supply chain management towards research that explores the rigour, relevance and reliability of supply chain management assumptions in construction. The gap between industry practice and policy is exposed and the question is posed: to what extent policy and practice do, or should, constitute a recursive relationship.© 2013 Taylor & Francis.

This is the Submitted Version of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Quality in Higher Education on 12th November 2009, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13538320903343099. ; Arguments for National Qualification Frameworks (NQF) are compelling. Indeed, such frameworks are now an international phenomenon. Yet, few studies take a critical perspective and challenge the broad assumptions underpinning NQF. Arguments presented in this paper attempt to open a debate within the higher education community that draws attention to conflicts and tensions regarding the diffusion and use of NQF. The emphasis of the debate is on the use of the Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework (SCQF) within higher education. The SCQF is used in this paper as an exemplar to explore and highlight these conflicts and tensions. The critique is based on a historical and managerialist view that forms the basis of a number of research propositions regarding the future of NQF. Specifically, four distinct yet interrelated research perspectives requiring future attention are proposed: political; innovation–diffusion; normative; and consistency. Such perspectives are argued to provide a more robust and reliable basis for developing NQF. The paper thus contextualises the SCQF within the recent 'global tsunami' of NQF and uses the SCQF as an exemplar to open up a wider debate about NQF.

Sustainability is associated with many contemporary challenges facing society, prompting sustainability initiatives and research in this field. An emerging strand of research has sought to investigate sustainability as a function of values. Given that values determine and predict perceptions, attitudes and behaviors, understanding employees' underlying values would provide important insights on how values relate to sustainability-related actions. However, there is a gap in knowledge around individual actors' roles as influencers or change agents for sustainability, particularly in a construction project context. Drawing on values theory, this exploratory research addresses this gap by conceptualizing the relationship between personal values and sustainability performance. A Temporary Multiple Organization (TMO) (a major infrastructure project in the UK) was used as the case study. An adapted version of Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) was used to measure and analyze the personal values of employees with professional and managerial roles. Statistical and multidimensional scaling analysis were deployed to analyze the responses. Given the lack of theory and research in a construction management context, the potential significance and implications of the findings were explored and analyzed by drawing on existing empirical studies around values. This enabled the development of six theoretical concepts ('Feeling of Oneness', 'Moral Obligation', 'Creativity', 'Challenge', 'Change' and 'Compliance') latterly expressed as propositions. This novel conceptualization has the potential to explain and articulate the relationship between personal values and sustainability performance. This research has both practical and theoretical implications, as it is the first to explain the role of personal values in enabling projects to deliver sustainability in a TMO context.

The complexity of contemporary higher education policy making and the multitude of evidences and actors in policy networks mean that relationships between higher education researchers, policy makers and research evidence are not straightforward. In this article, we use a theoretical lens of time, Adams' Timescapes, to explore this relationship and better understand why the research and policy worlds are frequently described as divided. Drawing on in-depth interviews with higher education researchers, policy makers and research funders, we show how research and policy have different interpretations of time. We discuss the Timeframes, or lengths, of work and career, the Temporality, or complexity, of 'evidence', of networks and relationships, and the importance of elements such as Timing, or synchronisation, and Tempo, or pace. We conclude that policy makers and higher education researchers may be better able to make sense of the problematic nature of aligning their concerns, interests and actions through understanding different Timescapes.

This conference paper was presented at the 30th Annual ARCOM Conference held on the 1st-3rd September 2014, in Portsmouth. ; One of the defining characteristics of the modern era has been the ascendency and privileging of an instrumental version of reason at the expense of other, competing forms of rationality. Now deeply established and an integral component of Neoliberal discourse, it forms the dominant form of reasoning for many planners, policy-makers, academics and laypersons alike. Drawing on the works of Max Horkheimer and Max Weber, this paper considers the ways in which instrumental reason diminishes policy formulations and undermines democratic culture. It achieves this through a consideration of the exclusion of 'deep' green activists from policy formulation and an examination of the Capital approach to sustainability popularised by David Pearce. Recognising instrumental reason as a culturally specific value-laden ideal, this paper teases out the assumptions behind such thought and highlights the potential for alternatives. Such a realisation has important consequences, as the ability for built environment policy-makers to reimagine theory and practice becomes possible only when the veil of instrumental reason, cloaked and presented as a value-neutral ideal, is lifted. It is hoped that such a perspective will contribute to the growing theoretical and philosophical debate in Construction Management research.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Construction Management and Economics on 8th May 2014, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/01446193.2014.909049 ; Attempts to drive change and reform of the UK construction industry have been an ongoing concern for numerous stakeholders, both in government and across industry, for years. The issue is a seemingly perennially topical one which shows little sign of abating. Scholarly analyses of the reform agenda have tended to adopt a Critical Theory perspective. Such an approach, however, lacks a certain nuance and perhaps only reveals one layer of social reality. What is arguably lacking is a more fundamental exposition concerning the historical, social and cultural explanatory forces at play. While it is illuminating to expose vested interests, ideology and power, what has led to the development of various views? How have they come to achieve such high accord in discussions? Drawing on the works of Max Weber, Georg Simmel and Barbara Adam, this paper seeks to develop a broader theoretical lens. It considers the wider socio-cultural structures and forces that influence behaviour, shape and constrain these views. This approach will contribute to a much needed broader philosophical and theoretical debate within the construction management community (and beyond) on the need to better engage with, and understand, the sources influencing the issue of policy formulation and diffusion. © 2014 Taylor & Francis.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the EPOC Conference 2015. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Building Research and Information on 1 March 2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09613218.2017.1293940. ; The need for technological and administrative innovation is a recurrent theme in the UK construction reform agenda, but generic improvement recipes are beginning to give way to a more focused prescription; Building Information Modelling (BIM). The current strategy is to mandate the use of BIM for government projects as a way of integrating the design, construction and operation of publically procured buildings. This aspiration represents a partial turn away from a focus on managerialist agendas towards a belief in the power of digital practices to achieve the aspiration of integrated working, collaboration and innovation, a trend that is being reflected globally in relation to both national and firm-level policy interventions. In this paper we subject this 'BIM revolution' to critical scrutiny. By drawing on theories of the digital divide we develop a critical discourse around the ways in which political reform agendas centred on BIM might not stimulate innovation on a wider scale, but could act to disenfranchise small firms who are unable (or unwilling) to engage with them. This critical analysis presents important new research questions around the technocratic optimism which pervades the current reform discourse, the trajectory of industry development that it creates, and the policy process itself.