“It's your fault!” – said a public client to modernity advocates: an exploration of UK public sector’s viewpoints on the modern methods of construction

IF 3.1 Q2 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY Construction Innovation-England Pub Date : 2023-04-07 DOI:10.1108/ci-11-2022-0282
{"title":"“It's your fault!” – said a public client to modernity advocates: an exploration of UK public sector’s viewpoints on the modern methods of construction","authors":"","doi":"10.1108/ci-11-2022-0282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe staggering demand for construction projects to meet a spectrum of public needs is projected to outstrip the industry’s supply capability. The modern methods of construction (MMC) offers wider control due to shifting key construction processes offsite. Public clients play a significant role due to their purchasing power; however, their uptake of MMC is low, despite the benefits. The purpose of this study is to reveal the reasoning behind such low adoption. The research gap, herewith, is our lack of understanding of the influence of public clients perceptions on their adoption’s indecision.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study used a qualitative approach to investigate the motives behind the public sector’s low MMC adoption. Semi-structured interviews with 14 of the United Kingdom’s public sector decision-makers, industry leaders and experts have been conducted. Perspectives were argued against the diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory.\n\n\nFindings\nOverall, the innovation’s attributes informed the authors of the positive perceptions from the public sector, demonstrating that the low adoption of MMC is not linked to any embedded issues with the innovation itself rather being predominantly related to the dynamics between supply and demand. The former (supply), reflected a failure in communicating confidence, and the latter (demand), attained characteristics that are limiting wider uptake.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to apply the DOI theory to reveal the relationship between UK public clients’ perceptions and their decision-making. Moreover, this paper addresses the scant attention to the use of theories to explain the flow of innovations in the construction context.\n","PeriodicalId":45580,"journal":{"name":"Construction Innovation-England","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Construction Innovation-England","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-11-2022-0282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose The staggering demand for construction projects to meet a spectrum of public needs is projected to outstrip the industry’s supply capability. The modern methods of construction (MMC) offers wider control due to shifting key construction processes offsite. Public clients play a significant role due to their purchasing power; however, their uptake of MMC is low, despite the benefits. The purpose of this study is to reveal the reasoning behind such low adoption. The research gap, herewith, is our lack of understanding of the influence of public clients perceptions on their adoption’s indecision. Design/methodology/approach This study used a qualitative approach to investigate the motives behind the public sector’s low MMC adoption. Semi-structured interviews with 14 of the United Kingdom’s public sector decision-makers, industry leaders and experts have been conducted. Perspectives were argued against the diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory. Findings Overall, the innovation’s attributes informed the authors of the positive perceptions from the public sector, demonstrating that the low adoption of MMC is not linked to any embedded issues with the innovation itself rather being predominantly related to the dynamics between supply and demand. The former (supply), reflected a failure in communicating confidence, and the latter (demand), attained characteristics that are limiting wider uptake. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to apply the DOI theory to reveal the relationship between UK public clients’ perceptions and their decision-making. Moreover, this paper addresses the scant attention to the use of theories to explain the flow of innovations in the construction context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“这是你的错!”——现代性倡导者的一位公众客户说道:英国公共部门对现代建筑方法的观点探索
目的为了满足一系列公众需求,对建筑项目的惊人需求预计将超过该行业的供应能力。由于关键施工过程转移到场外,现代施工方法(MMC)提供了更广泛的控制。公众客户由于其购买力而发挥着重要作用;然而,尽管有好处,他们对MMC的吸收还是很低。这项研究的目的是揭示这种低采用率背后的原因。因此,研究的差距在于,我们缺乏对公众客户认知对其收养犹豫不决的影响的理解。设计/方法/方法本研究采用定性方法来调查公共部门低MMC采用率背后的动机。对14名联合王国公共部门决策者、行业领袖和专家进行了半结构化访谈。有人反对创新扩散理论。发现总体而言,创新的属性使作者了解了公共部门的积极看法,表明MMC的低采用率与创新本身的任何嵌入式问题无关,而主要与供需之间的动态有关。前者(供应)反映了沟通信心的失败,而后者(需求)则获得了限制更广泛接受的特征。独创性/价值据作者所知,这是第一项应用DOI理论来揭示英国公众客户认知与其决策之间关系的研究。此外,本文还解决了在建筑环境中使用理论来解释创新流动的不足。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Construction Innovation-England
Construction Innovation-England CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
12.10%
发文量
71
期刊最新文献
Usage of digital technology in improving the mental health of workers on construction sites Uncertainties affecting the offsite construction supply chain resilience: a systematic literature review Developing an interactive pile training module for construction risk management and gaging users’ intentions Impact of trust in virtual project teams: structural equation modelling approach Customized shading solutions for complex building façades: the potential of an innovative cement-textile composite material through a performance-based generative design
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1