Robert Ågren

Five moments in the history of industrialized building

Industrialized building has drawn in ideas from many pioneering researchers during its decades of development; in this brief recapitulation we present some observations on selected moments in the history that have significantly shaped the approach to building construction. The first formative movement identified is prefabrication, as used by Joseph Paxton during construction of the Crystal Palace. Prefabrication inspired Frank Lloyd Wright’s American System Built Homes, and enabled the development of Le Corbusier’s mass production ideas in the Modern Frugés Quarter project. Early forerunners saw connections with the automotive industry; Le Corbusier developed a house called Citrohan and Buckminster Fuller wanted to create ‘houses like Fords’. From prefabrication followed the concept of building in sub-assemblies, as showcased by Walter Gropius in his Törten estate; Konrad Wachsmann took this notion further into modularization and mass production with the creation of factory-produced panel and space frame systems. At much the same time Buckminster Fuller proposed the modular Dymaxion house, which included a functioning bathroom delivered in four pieces. In 1962 John Habraken presented ideas which led to what are now called open systems, suggesting standardized dimensions in the modularization in order to enable a wide array of choices for end-users. Even today not all the expectations of industrialized building have been realized, and it is instructive to look back at the origins of some of the fundamental concepts which form the backbone of this subject.

Unravelling causes of defects in construction

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to identify the primary root causes of defects in terms of why they persist in construction, despite the increasing implementation of quality systems. Defects in construction continue to be a source of concern in the construction industry. There have been studies that have tried to identify causes of defects. Although concepts are usually related to organisational factors, previous studies have been carried out on an operational level. There is a well-trodden area within the literature relating to the operational level, but little is known about the causes of defects on a higher, organisational level within construction. Design/methodology/approach – A new approach based on the notion of process causality and the use of cognitive mapping has been adopted. The aim was to take a step back and unravel causes of defects in the execution of construction projects. From workshops with representatives drawn from different parts of the industry, themes have been identified an...

The Role of Private Actors in Public Sector Innovation

The changing forms of governance stemming from the rise of New Public Management (NPM) and New Public Governance (NPG) have brought about significant changes in the relationship between the public and private sectors (Christensen and Laegreid 2007; Torfing and Triantafillou 2013). Not only have we witnessed a gradual increase in the involvement of private actors in the provision of public services, but we have also seen an upsurge of new forms of public–private interaction based on quasi-markets, partnerships and networks.This development, which has unfolded over the past four decades, entails two parallel but distinct trends. First, the gradual replacement of public with private solutions across a broad range of services, such as health, eldercare, employment services and childcare, many of which are services that have traditionally been seen as the family silver of the modern welfare state. While this trend has developed incrementally, it has nonetheless resulted in significant transfers of activities from the public to the private domain (Petersen and Hjelmar 2013). Second, we have witnessed the emergence of a growing number of innovation-oriented forms of public–private interaction under catchy titles such as ‘public–private partnerships’ (PPPs) (Hodge and Greve 2005), ‘public procurement of innovation’ (Lember, Kattel and Kalvet 2014), ‘innovative contracting out’ (Lindholst and Bogetoft 2011) and ‘public–private innovation partnerships’ (Brogaard and Petersen 2014). Today, perhaps more than ever before, there is a search for new forms of public–private collaboration that have the potential for delivering efficient public services, enhancing innovation and safeguarding public value in its widest sense (Moore 1995).This chapter examines how governments can enhance public sector innovation by utilizing new as well as old forms of public–private interaction that mobilizes the knowledge, competencies and resources of the private sector. We focus on three major yet distinct forms of public and private interplay: contracting out, public procurement and public–private partnerships (PPPs). The aim is to examine how these widely used interaction forms fit into the emerging NPG paradigm and how they can contribute to enhanced innovation, learning and collaboration under the evolving NPG framework.As outlined by the editors in Chapter 1 of the book, innovation and learning are embedded into collective action and institutions governing the public–private collaboration.

Construction firms in public–private partnerships: a place to grow

Abstract Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) constitute a crucial vehicle in delivering infrastructure. In the transport sector the primary project sponsors are construction companies, which over the last few decades have transformed to strong international actors. In order to study growth strategies stemming from the PPP agreement, a conceptual game theoretic model built on four institutional rationalities (legal, political and scientific in addition to economic) driving economic behaviour is presented. The model indicates that the prevailing strategies are training, acquisitions and step-outs. The former strategy is less efficient than the other two with respect to the single project. The latter two suggest the likelihood of “unproductive investments” influencing infrastructure quality and social benefits. All three strategies lead to market concentration, which has been evidenced in the market. The model only considers construction firm strategies and does not weight the relative importance of the operation phase with respect to the construction one. This would be an extension to the model, which would then also consider operator strategies. In its present form, the model indicates the conditions leading to “unproductive investments” and market concentration and provides the grounds to formulate policy guidelines to limit adverse effects.

A Conjecture on Institutional Rationalities and Property Rights in Public Procurement of Innovation

The increased interest in using public procurement as a policy tool for innovation has renewed a need for understanding the procurement process. A conjecture on institutional rationalities and property rights is offered to explain the hurdles present for conducting successful procurement projects. If an efficient negotiation solution is to be achieved, participants in procurement projects need to be aware of the other participants’ institutional rationalities and actively consider these while concluding the terms of procurement projects. Consequently, future policy efforts towards increased innovation have to be targeting the process of public procurement of innovation, rather than focusing on regulatory issues.