Author:
Dangerfield Brian,Green Stuart,Austin Simon
Abstract
PurposeConstruction sector competitiveness has been a subject of interest for many years. Research too often focuses on the means of overcoming the “barriers to change” as if such barriers were static entities. There has been little attempt to understand the dynamic inter‐relationship between the differing factors which impinge upon construction sector competitiveness. The purpose of this paper is to outline the benefits of taking a systems approach to construction competitiveness research.Design/methodology/approachThe system dynamics (SD) modelling methodology is described. This can provide practitioners with “microworlds” within which they can explore the dynamic effects of different policy decisions. The data underpinning the use of SD was provided by interviews and case study research which allowed an understanding of the context within which practitioners operate.FindingsThe over‐riding conclusion is that the SD methodology has been shown to be capable of providing a means to assess the forces which shape the sustained competitiveness of construction firms. As such, it takes the assessment of strategic policy analysis in the construction sector onto a higher plane. The need to collect data and make retrospective assessments of competitiveness and strategic performance at the statistical level is not now the only modus operandi available.Originality/valueThe paper describes a novel research methodology which points towards an alternative research agenda for construction competitiveness research.
Subject
Building and Construction,Architecture,Civil and Structural Engineering,General Computer Science,Control and Systems Engineering
Reference38 articles.
1. Bajracharya, A., Ogunlana, S.O. and Bach, N.L. (2000), “Effective organizational infrastructure for training activities: a case study of the Nepalese construction sector”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 16, pp. 91‐112.
2. Best, M.H. (1990), The New Competition: Institutions of Industrial Restructuring, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
3. Bosch, G. and Philips, P. (Eds) (2003), Building Chaos: An International Comparison of Deregulation in the Construction Industry, Routledge, London.
4. Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.
5. Coyle, R. and Alexander, M. (1997), “Two approaches to qualitative modelling of a nation's drug trade”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13, pp. 205‐22.
Cited by
21 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献