John Rooke

The culture of the industry and the culture of research

Culture is increasingly cited as being in need of change if the UK construction industry is to improve its efficiency and productivity. The paper argues that the concept of culture is amenable to radically different treatments and that the research community must recognize the consequences of this choice if it is to make a useful contribution to bringing about the desired change. The dominant research paradigm in construction management is examined and compared to an alternative approach. The consequences attendant upon the choice between these two are explored with reference to four phenomena: a study of quality in the construction industry, Japanese innovation in management, Demings concept of total quality management and the situation of the site engineer. It is concluded that the dominant rationalist paradigm tacitly endorses existing attitudes and that if researchers are to have a role in changing the culture of the industry, then the culture of research must change also.

The role of theory in construction management: a call for debate

We raise a number of questions concerning the theoretical basis of construction management, and enquire into the nature of construction management theory. We highlight the dominant research paradigm in construction management, and call for attention to be paid to alternative research paradigms. We call for a scholarly debate to investigate these issues.

Planning for claims: an ethnography of industry culture

Claims by contractors for additional payments have been identified by commentators as a major source of difficulty in the industry. Ethnographic research with industry members reveals some key features of planning practices that underlie such events. Claims are sometimes planned at tender stage and sometimes during the course of a project. One practice at tender stage is a pricing technique that minimizes the tender price while maximizing the out‐turn cost of a contract by exploiting mistakes in the bill of quantities. Another is the programming of work to maximize its vulnerability to delay. More reactive techniques may be employed during the course of the project, often to make up for an unanticipated increase in costs. These and other similar practices may be reported as features of an integrated culture, defined in such a way as to encompass activity and reject Cartesian dualism. The unique adequacy requirements of methods are suitable criteria for the evaluation of such reports. The claims culture arises from economic conditions in the industry, which include low entry barriers and competitive tendering. However, removal of these conditions alone cannot guarantee that the practices will cease.

The claims culture: a taxonomy of attitudes in the industry

This paper presents an analysis of a familiar aspect of construction industry culture that we have dubbed ‘the claims culture’. This is a culture of contract administration that lays a strong emphasis on the planning and management of claims. The principal elements of the analysis are two sets of distinctions. The first comprises economic and occupational orders, referring to two kinds of control that are exercised over the construct ion process; predicated respectively on economic ownership and occupational competence. The second refers to contrasting attitudes towards relationships and problem solving within these orders: respectively ‘distributive’ and ‘integrative’. The concepts of economic and occupational order entail further sub-categories. The various attitudes associated with these categories and sub-categories are described. They are assessed as to their consequences for change initiatives in the industry.

Learning, Knowledge and Authority on Site: a Case Study of Safety Practice

The ethnographic research reported here reveals patterns of authority and learning on an experimental construction site that are significant for the promotion of a safety culture. It seeks to display the methods of understanding used by site personnel to constitute the construction site as a local work site. In making these explicit, an alternative is offered to recent suggestions that critical studies of situated learning demand recourse to historical or macro resources. Findings confirm insights from previous studies, detailing in addition: the role of trial and error; alternative bodies of knowledge underpinning competing authority structures; and complex and subtle patterns of the informal authority of elite manual workers, its ambiguity and its limitations. The experiential knowledge valued by site personnel forms a basis for the recognition of authority on site that can conflict with that of construction professionals. The conflict between forms of authority and knowledge can inhibit the dissemination of good safety practice: initiatives will meet significant resistance if they contradict the experiential knowledge of site operatives; if they do not make use of this experiential knowledge, they may fail to address hazards fully; methods of site learning, particularly in the development of innovative practice, are inherently hazardous.

A complex systems theory perspective of lean production

Lean production (LP) has been increasingly adopted in complex systems, such as healthcare and construction sites. However, little is known of the extent to which the lean philosophy matches the nature of those systems, which have different characteristics of complexity in comparison with manufacturing plants, in which LP was originated. This article analyses the extent to which LP is compatible with the nature of complex systems, as a basis for the identification of learning opportunities for LP from complex systems theory (CST). As a framework for this analysis, both the prescriptions from LP and CST for designing systems are compared in terms of their potential impact on a set of characteristics of complex systems. Examples of how LP may learn from CST are identified as well as examples of how CST may help to tackle common difficulties in LP implementation.

Criteria for evaluating research: the unique adequacy requirement of methods

The Unique Adequacy requirement of methods (UA) is proposed as a means of evaluating research in construction management. UA addresses the problems stemming from the significance of conscious action in constituting human organization. These may be summarized as: first, that objectivity is a problematic concept in such studies; second, that the determination of meaning is their primary goal; and third, that formal procedures, whether as methods of research or explanation, have significant limitations. The UA requirement has two forms: the weak form demands that the researcher is competent in the research setting; the strong form, that research reports use only concepts originating within the research setting. The consequences of applying these criteria are explored with reference to recent research reports in construction management, including: a questionnaire survey of cultural difference; an exercise in grounded theorizing; a case study of the implementation of a quality management initiative. It is concluded that the UA requirement is a viable tool for evaluating and guiding research. Emphasis is placed on the importance of maintaining a principled distinction between empirical research and theory building.

The role of theory in construction management: reply to Runeson

In his comment on Seymour, D.E., Crook, D.J. and Rooke, J.A. (1997). Construction Management and Economics, 15, 117-19 (Construction Management and Economics, 15, 299-302) argues that positivism provides the best insurance against bad research in construction management studies. He claims that positivist methods of theory building have been modified sufficiently to cope with the demands of management research. He accuses Seymour et al. of being anti-scientific in questioning the viability of these methods. In this short reply, we refute these assertions, pointing out some remaining obstacles to the application of positivist methods to management research.

Preserving methodological consistency: a reply to Raftery, McGeorge and Walters

Raftery, J., McGeorge, D. and Walters, M. (1977) Construction Management and Economics, 15(3), 291-297, criticise Seymour, D.E. and Rooke, J.A. (1995) Construction Management and Economics 13(6), 511-523 for setting out battle lines in their use of the terms rationalist and interpretive paradigms and argue that such dichotomies lead to a degeneration in research standards. Sharing their concern for research standards, in reply, we argue that Raftery et al.s plea for methodological liberalism will itself undermine standards. Different research methods are required for different research purposes and are to be evaluated according to different criteria. These criteria must be made explicit. We state our own research purposes and make an initial attempt to set out some criteria against which we would wish our own research to be judged.

Doers of the Word? An enquiry into the nature of action in action learning

A recent trend in public policy in many countries is the requirement for ‘joined up thinking’ and ‘joined up working’, including partnership within and between agencies, and between agencies and their publics. This in turn has led to a growth of interest in action learning as a means to bring about the organizational and individual development required for implementing such policies. Action learning, with its emphasis on solving new problems, implementing solutions and learning-to-learn seems to fit the zeitgeist. However, the notion of ‘action’ in action learning has presented a real difficulty in administering action learning sets in this context. Commencing from a philosophical point of view that emphasises the identity of action and learning, rather than their separation, we report here on three such public sector action learning projects and identify three fundamental features of the action which took place in and around them. Thus: action can occur either inside or outside the set; while it is always an input to the learning process, it can also sometimes be regarded as an output of that process; and finally, the type of knowledge that can be acquired may be in Gilbert Ryles terms either ‘knowledge how’ or ‘knowledge that’. Five categories of action are identified: expressive action, concerned with feelings and relationships in the set; the enrichment of networks and local knowledge; changes in personal practice; collective action; and organisational change. While organisational change may be regarded as, in one sense, ‘the big prize’ of action learning, it should not blind us to more subtle processes of learning and change that occur.