Modern methods of construction (MMC) and innovation negativism in the UK public sector

IF 1.9 Q3 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
A. Saad, M. Dulaimi, Suhaib Arogundade, S. Zulu, Chris Gorse
{"title":"Modern methods of construction (MMC) and innovation negativism in the UK public sector","authors":"A. Saad, M. Dulaimi, Suhaib Arogundade, S. Zulu, Chris Gorse","doi":"10.1108/bepam-06-2023-0108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe recent failures and insolvencies of organisations related to the modern methods of construction (MMC) have gained increased attention and controversy across the UK construction sector. Such failures are linked to their inability to achieve an economy of scale and drive key clients to accept the MMC as an alternative to traditional methods. This paper aims to unravel whether a phenomenon of “innovation negativism” has manifested and is contributing to public clients' indecision towards broader MMC, whether this is only linked to past negative experiences formed after the Second World War or whether additional contributing reasons exist to influence adoption.Design/methodology/approachThis study focusses on exploring the decision-making of the UK public construction sector; therefore, this paper adopts a qualitative approach, utilising interviews with 14 carefully selected MMC experts, government advisors and public clients. The phenomenological stance adopted herewith enables the authors to make better sense of the perceptions of the interviewees, leading to the conceptualisation of the innovation negativism phenomenon.FindingsThe paper identifies nine themes that may be argued to promote a profound understanding of the MMC negativism influencing public clients' decision-making. The study has found that more than just the previous negative perceptions formulated post Second World War are driving innovation negativism in the UK public sector. Notably, the emerging themes are incomprehension, lacking evidence, communication, relationship history, bad experiences, uncertainty, inadequate experimentation, the business case and localism.Originality/valueThis study is the first construction management research that acts as a fair departure point to conceptualise the reasoning behind innovation negativism in the construction setting. Through mirroring demand's unipolarity for traditional methods, policy and decision-makers can now rely on the conceptualised reasoning to determine practical solutions to overcome clients' indecisions towards MMC.","PeriodicalId":46426,"journal":{"name":"Built Environment Project and Asset Management","volume":"61 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Built Environment Project and Asset Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/bepam-06-2023-0108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThe recent failures and insolvencies of organisations related to the modern methods of construction (MMC) have gained increased attention and controversy across the UK construction sector. Such failures are linked to their inability to achieve an economy of scale and drive key clients to accept the MMC as an alternative to traditional methods. This paper aims to unravel whether a phenomenon of “innovation negativism” has manifested and is contributing to public clients' indecision towards broader MMC, whether this is only linked to past negative experiences formed after the Second World War or whether additional contributing reasons exist to influence adoption.Design/methodology/approachThis study focusses on exploring the decision-making of the UK public construction sector; therefore, this paper adopts a qualitative approach, utilising interviews with 14 carefully selected MMC experts, government advisors and public clients. The phenomenological stance adopted herewith enables the authors to make better sense of the perceptions of the interviewees, leading to the conceptualisation of the innovation negativism phenomenon.FindingsThe paper identifies nine themes that may be argued to promote a profound understanding of the MMC negativism influencing public clients' decision-making. The study has found that more than just the previous negative perceptions formulated post Second World War are driving innovation negativism in the UK public sector. Notably, the emerging themes are incomprehension, lacking evidence, communication, relationship history, bad experiences, uncertainty, inadequate experimentation, the business case and localism.Originality/valueThis study is the first construction management research that acts as a fair departure point to conceptualise the reasoning behind innovation negativism in the construction setting. Through mirroring demand's unipolarity for traditional methods, policy and decision-makers can now rely on the conceptualised reasoning to determine practical solutions to overcome clients' indecisions towards MMC.
英国公共部门的现代施工方法(MMC)和创新消极主义
目的最近的失败和破产的组织有关建设(MMC)的现代方法已经获得了越来越多的关注和争议在整个英国建筑部门。这种失败与他们无法实现规模经济和推动关键客户接受MMC作为传统方法的替代方案有关。本文旨在揭示“创新消极主义”现象是否已经表现出来,并正在导致公共客户对更广泛的MMC犹豫不决,这是否仅与第二次世界大战后形成的过去负面经验有关,或者是否存在影响采用的其他贡献原因。设计/方法/方法本研究的重点是探索英国公共建设部门的决策;因此,本文采用定性方法,利用14位精心挑选的MMC专家,政府顾问和公共客户的访谈。本文采用的现象学立场使作者能够更好地理解受访者的看法,从而将创新消极主义现象概念化。研究发现本文确定了九个主题,这些主题可以促进对MMC负面影响公共客户决策的深刻理解。该研究发现,不仅仅是二战后形成的负面看法推动了英国公共部门的创新消极主义。值得注意的是,新出现的主题是不理解、缺乏证据、沟通、关系历史、糟糕的经历、不确定性、不充分的实验、商业案例和地方主义。原创性/价值本研究是第一个建筑管理研究,它作为一个公平的出发点,概念化了建筑环境中创新消极主义背后的原因。通过反映传统方法的需求单极性,政策和决策者现在可以依靠概念化的推理来确定实际的解决方案,以克服客户对MMC的优柔寡断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
41
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信