Architects’ perception of the innovativeness of the Swedish construction industry

Purpose The aim of this paper is to enhance the understanding of architects’ perceptions of the propensity to adopt innovations in building construction. Design/methodology/approach Based on a theoretical underpinning of the multilevel perspective on socio-technical transitions, a web-based questionnaire (n = 412) was used to empirically investigate Swedish architects’ perceptions of innovativeness in the building construction industry. Specifically, the study looks at perceptions of the level of innovativeness (propensity to adopt innovations), relevant barriers to the adoption of innovations, the influence of different actors and ways of facilitating innovativeness. Findings Architects perceive a low level of innovativeness in the Swedish building construction industry because of a number of barriers of varying relevance. These barriers belong to interwoven regulative, normative and cognitive rules (i.e. institutions) that guide actor behaviour, which contribute to the path dependency of the industry. The site-specific nature of building construction, promotional activities from suppliers and the level of competition in the industry is perceived as being of little relevance. The findings suggest that a number of interventions are necessary to facilitate innovativeness of the Swedish construction industry. To change the lock-in mechanisms of the established cognitive and normative rules, regulative rules need to change as well. According to architects, contractors and construction clients are the most influential and therefore have the most power to change the rules associated with path dependency. Research limitations/implications The focus on a single construction professional in Sweden necessitates a discussion on these perceptions from the standpoint of other actors. Practical implications Architects perceive a need for change in the construction industry and suggest that changed regulative rules can help overcome path dependency and facilitate innovativeness. Considering the strong interrelatedness of the lock-in mechanisms that guide the actors of the industry, policies may be needed to encourage and support the establishment for more sustainable development. Originality/value A multilevel perspective is used to analyse the type of barriers to innovativeness that the architects perceive as relevant and how they contribute to the resistance to change and path dependency in the building construction sector.

[1]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  The destabilisation of existing regimes: Confronting a multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal industry (1913-1967) , 2013 .

[2]  John A. Gambatese,et al.  Factors that influence the development and diffusion of technical innovations in the construction industry , 2011 .

[3]  Audley Genus,et al.  Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions , 2008 .

[4]  E. Sarah Slaughter,et al.  Models of Construction Innovation , 1998 .

[5]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Motivating stakeholders to deliver environmental change , 2011 .

[6]  Kerry London,et al.  Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry , 2010 .

[7]  P. Abell Narrative Explanation: An Alternative to Variable-Centered Explanation? , 2004 .

[8]  Jochen Markard,et al.  Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework , 2008 .

[9]  Lars Coenen,et al.  Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources , 2012 .

[10]  Alistair G.F. Gibb,et al.  New build: materials, techniques, skills and innovation , 2008 .

[11]  Clyde B. Tatum,et al.  Major characteristics of constructed products and resulting limitations of construction technology , 1988 .

[12]  F. Geels,et al.  Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , 2007 .

[13]  Albert Faber,et al.  Co-constructing a sustainable built environment in the Netherlands—Dynamics and opportunities in an environmental sectoral innovation system , 2013 .

[14]  J. Rodney Turner,et al.  The management of innovation in project-based firms , 2000 .

[15]  Stephen Emmitt,et al.  Construction Innovation: Addressing the Project-Product Gap in the Swedish Construction Sector , 2013 .

[16]  Christopher M. Fleming,et al.  Web-based surveys as an alternative to traditional mail methods. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[17]  Ashok Jashapara,et al.  Organisational learning and inter-firm 'partnering' in the UK construction industry. , 1998 .

[18]  Martin Loosemore,et al.  Occupational stereotypes in the construction industry , 2000 .

[19]  Hyojoo Son,et al.  What drives the adoption of building information modeling in design organizations? An empirical investigation of the antecedents affecting architects' behavioral intentions , 2015 .

[20]  Jennifer Whyte,et al.  Motivations for innovation in the built environment: new directions for research , 2011 .

[21]  Mike Bresnen,et al.  Advancing a ‘new professionalism’: professionalization, practice and institutionalization , 2013 .

[22]  Martin Sexton,et al.  An evolutionary innovation perspective on the selection of low and zero-carbon technologies in new housing , 2014 .

[23]  Per Anker Jensen,et al.  Building information modelling in Denmark and Iceland , 2013 .

[24]  Donald R. Cooper,et al.  Business Research Methods , 1980 .

[25]  Kristina Grange Arkitekterna och byggbranschen : om vikten av att upprätta ett kollektivt självförtroende , 2005 .

[26]  Malena Ingemansson,et al.  Industrial renewal within the construction network , 2013 .

[27]  P. G. Taylor,et al.  Construction sector views on low carbon building materials , 2016 .

[28]  Carina Unger,et al.  Industrialised house building : fundamental change or business as usual? , 2006 .

[29]  Lars-Erik Gadde,et al.  The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: implications for productivity and innovation , 2002 .

[30]  A. Kadefors Institutions in building projects: Implications for flexibility and change , 1995 .

[31]  Kristian Bysheim,et al.  Overlay of Eucalyptus urophylla cement-bonded particleboard for application as flooring panels. , 2009 .

[32]  Graham Brewer,et al.  Innovation and attitude: mapping the profile of ICT decision-makers in architectural, engineering and construction firms , 2009 .

[33]  Stephen Emmitt The construction design manager – a rapidly evolving innovation , 2016 .

[34]  Per Erik Eriksson,et al.  Effects of cooperative procurement procedures on construction project performance: A conceptual framework , 2011 .

[35]  D. Gann,et al.  Last among equals: a comparison of innovation in construction, services and manufacturing in the UK , 2005 .

[36]  Lars Stehn,et al.  Business models in industrialized building of multi-storey houses , 2014 .

[37]  Chris Harty,et al.  Implementing innovation in construction: contexts, relative boundedness and actor‐network theory , 2008 .

[38]  Lars Stehn,et al.  Applicability of lean principles and practices in industrialized housing production , 2008 .

[39]  Finn Orstavik,et al.  Innovation as re-institutionalization: a case study of technological change in housebuilding in Norway , 2014 .

[40]  Stephen Emmitt,et al.  Component manufacturers' perceptions of managing innovation , 2006 .

[41]  Frens Pries,et al.  Innovation in the construction industry: the dominant role of the environment , 1995 .

[42]  R. Cole,et al.  Motivating change: shifting the paradigm , 2011 .

[43]  Per Erik Eriksson,et al.  Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations: Development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in construction companies , 2013 .

[44]  Harald Rohracher,et al.  Managing the Technological Transition to Sustainable Construction of Buildings: A Socio-Technical Perspective , 2001, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[45]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[46]  Steven Davis,et al.  Conceptualising information and equipment technology adoption in construction , 2016 .

[47]  Paul Dewick,et al.  Sustainable technologies and the innovation–regulation paradox , 2002 .

[48]  B. Truffer,et al.  Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects , 2012 .

[49]  F. Geels Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study , 2002 .

[50]  Adrian Leaman,et al.  A new professionalism: remedy or fantasy? , 2013 .

[51]  P. Quintas,et al.  Knowledge across cultures in the construction industry: sustainability, innovation and design , 2006 .

[52]  Richard A. Parker,et al.  Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide , 1992 .

[53]  Robert A. Kozak,et al.  Wood use in nonresidential buildings: Opportunities and barriers , 2004 .

[54]  Anders Ekholm,et al.  Applying social sciences to inspire behavioural change in the construction sector: an experimental study , 2015 .

[55]  F. Geels The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms , 2011 .

[56]  A. Kadefors Trust in project relationships-inside the black box , 2004 .

[57]  Leif Gustavsson,et al.  Multi‐storey wood‐frame buildings in Germany, Sweden and the UK , 2012 .

[58]  Per-Erik Josephson,et al.  Swedish construction culture, management and collaborative quality practice , 2002 .

[59]  Christian Rammel,et al.  Evolutionary policies for sustainable development: adaptive flexibility and risk minimising , 2003 .

[60]  F. Geels From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory , 2004 .

[61]  J. Swan,et al.  Implementing change in construction project organizations: exploring the interplay between structure and agency , 2005 .

[62]  Julie Pallant,et al.  SPSS survival manual : a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows , 2001, Behaviour Change.

[63]  Karen Manley,et al.  Key influences on construction innovation , 2004 .

[64]  F. Geels,et al.  Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways , 2010 .

[65]  Tim O'Neill,et al.  Perceived obstacles to multi-storey timber-frame construction: an Australian study , 2014 .