The institutionalization of benchmarking in the Danish construction industry
In: Rasmussen , G M G & Gottlieb , S C 2013 , The institutionalization of benchmarking in the Danish construction industry . DTU Management Engineering .
Denne afhandling tager et teoretisk udgangspunkt i institutionel teori og omhandler institutionaliseringen af benchmarking i den danske byggebranche. Ved besvarelse af følgende tre forskningsspørgsmål, afdækker denne afhandling et studie af institutionaliseringen af benchmarking: • Hvordan og til hvilke formål er benchmarking blevet introduceret som løsning til politiske problemstillinger i den danske byggebranche? • Hvordan har politiske kampe og forhandlinger haft indflydelse på institutionaliseringen af benchmarking? • Hvordan har dette studie bidraget med anbefalinger til, hvordan nye strukturer kan institutionaliseres i den danske byggebranche? I metodekapitlet udfolder jeg, hvordan institutionel teori muliggør nye og vigtige undersøgelser til forståelse af institutionalisering af benchmarking. Jeg redegør for, hvordan teorivalget påvirker min analytiske tilgang til studiet, og yderligere hvordan institutionel teori kan bidrage med vigtig indsigter i forhold til dette studie. I metodekapitlet præsenteres tre modeller som anvendes i denne afhandling: "Three Pillars of Institutions," "contradictions," og "framings." Yderligere vil kapitlet redegøre for de anvendte metoder til dataindsamlingen og de valg, som er foretaget i forhold til at analysere institutionaliseringsprocesser. Analysen folder sig ud over syv kapitler, startende med en redegørelse for det politiske grundlag, der var årsag til at benchmarking blev et politisk forslag til en fremtidig institution i den danske byggebranche. Det andet kapitel demonstrerer, hvordan benchmarking blev introduceret i slutningen af 1990'erne som en teknologi, der kunne adressere politiske fokusområder fra to udviklingsprogrammer fra slut-halvfemserne. I det tredje kapitel demonstreres, hvordan private aktører fra byggeriet forsøgte at tage kontrol over institutionalisering af benchmarking ved at etablere Byggeriets Evaluerings Center (BEC), som skulle udvikle og udbrede benchmarking til byggeriet. Det fjerde kapitel redegør for, hvordan benchmarking blev konkretiseret i form af et benchmarkingsystem og formuleret til at adressere flere politiske fokusområder i byggeriet. På denne måde blev BEC til en politisk arena, hvor mange lokale perspektiver og strategiske interesser skulle håndteres. Det femte kapitel omhandler operationalisering af benchmarking, og viser hvordan konkretiseringen og implementering af benchmarking gav anledning til reaktioner fra aktører med forskellige og divergerende interesser i benchmarkinginitiativet. Politiske kampe opstod i takt med, at aktører udtrykte forskellige politiske interesser i institutionaliseringen af benchmarking. De politiske kampe, der bliver redegjort for i kapitel fem, konstituerede et stærkt politisk pres og påkrævede transformationer af institutionaliseringen, for at benchmarking kunne bevare institutionel legitimitet. Det politiske pres resulterede i radikale transformationer af institutionaliseringen af benchmarking. Denne transformation bliver der redegjort for i kapitel seks. Som resultat af transformationen fik private virksomheder i byggeriet forøget mulighed for at få indflydelse på den fremtidige institutionalisering. Derudover, og relateret til virksomhedernes indflydelse på institutionaliseringen, kom der konkurrenter til BEC på markedet. Denne konkurrence resulterede i implikationer i forhold til at forstå de instrumentelle formål og overordnede ambitioner for benchmarking. Det sidste analysekapitel afdækker, hvordan benchmarking bliver forstået og fortolket blandt praktikerne i byggeriet, der var blevet centrale aktører i institutionaliseringen. Dette kapitel viser, hvordan benchmarking som institution bliver integreret i praktikernes oplevede virkelighed og demonstrerer det samspil og fortolkninger, som benchmarking giver anledning til. Med udgangspunkt i de tre forskningsspørgsmål, diskuterer og konkluderer det sidste kapitel af afhandlingen på analysen. I kapitlet fremføres en forståelse af institutionaliseringsprocesser som værende højpolitiske og afhængig af aktørers politiske motivationer for at transformere de fremvoksende institutioner. Baseret på resultaterne fra analysen, konkludere jeg afhandlingen med anbefalinger til, hvordan man kan bygge og understøtte nye institutioner i den danske byggebranche. ; With a theoretical point of origin in contemporary institutional theory, this thesis is about the institutionalization of benchmarking in the Danish construction industry. By answering the following three research questions, the thesis embraces over an enquiry of the institutionalization of benchmarking: ‐ How and for what purposes has benchmarking originally been introduced as a solution to political issues in the Danish construction industry? ‐ How have political struggles and negotiations affected the institutionalization of benchmarking? ‐ How has the study contributed with recommendations on how to institutionalize new structures in the Danish construction industry? In the methodology chapter, I outline how institutional theory facilitates new and important inquiries into understanding institutionalization of benchmarking. I account for how the choice of theory is influencing my analytical approach to conduct this study and how institutional theory is providing important insight in this study of benchmarking. In the methodology chapter, I present three analytical models that are applied in the study; "Three Pillars of Institutions," "contradictions," and "framings." Further, the chapter accounts for the data collection methods used to conduct the empirical data collection and the appertaining choices that are made, based on the account for analyzing institutionalization processes. The analysis unfolds over seven chapters, starting with an exposition of the political foundation from which benchmarking originally arose as a political proposal for a future institution in the Danish construction industry. The second chapter demonstrates how benchmarking was introduced in the late 1990s as a technology addressing political focus areas from two development programs in the late 1990s. In the third chapter, it is demonstrated how private actors from the construction industry attempted to take control over the institutionalization of benchmarking by establishing an Evaluation Centre (Byggeriets Evaluerings Center, BEC) from which benchmarking was to be developed and disseminated to the construction industry. The fourth chapter demonstrates how benchmarking was concretized into a benchmarking system and articulated to address several political focus areas for the construction industry. BEC accordingly became a political arena where many local perspectives and strategic interests had to be managed. The fifth chapter is about the operationalization of benchmarking and demonstrates how the concretizing and implementation of benchmarking gave rise to reactions from different actors with different and diverse interests in the benchmarking initiative. Political struggles emerged as actors expressed diverse political interests in the institutionalization of benchmarking. The political struggles accounted for in chapter five constituted a powerful political pressure and called for transformations of the institutionalization in order for benchmarking to attain institutional legitimacy. The political pressures ended up radically transforming the institutionalization of benchmarking. This transformation is accounted for in chapter six. As a result of the transformation, private construction companies were provided an opportunity to influence the future institutionalization. Additionally, and related to the construction companies' influence on the institutionalization, competitors to BEC emerged. This competition entailed implications for how to perceive the instrumental purposes and overall objectives for benchmarking. Having the construction companies as important carriers of the institutionalization, the final chapter of the analysis uncovers how benchmarking is understood and interpreted among the practitioners in the construction industry. The chapter reveals how the benchmarking institution is incorporated in their experienced reality and demonstrates the interplay between and different interpretations among practitioners benchmarking gives rise to. With a point of departure in the three research questions, the final chapter discusses and concludes on the analysis. Here I advance an understanding of institutionalization processes as being highly political and reliant on actors' political motivations to transform the rising institution. Based on the finding from the analysis, I conclude the thesis with recommendations for how to construct and carry institutions in the Danish construction industry.