IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v32y2014i1-2p97-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing short-term efficiency and long-term development through industrialized construction

Author

Listed:
  • Per Erik Eriksson
  • Stefan Olander
  • Henrik Szentes
  • Kristian Widén

Abstract

There is a strong need for a productive and innovative infrastructure sector because of its monetary value and importance for the development of a sustainable society. An increased level of industrialization is often proposed as a way to improve efficiency and productivity in construction projects. In prior literature on industrialized construction, there are however neither many studies addressing more long-term aspects of innovation and sustainability nor studies within the infrastructure context. Organizational theory suggests that firms need to be ambidextrous and focus on both long-term exploration of new knowledge and technologies and short-term exploitation of current knowledge and technologies, in order to achieve sustainable development. Therefore, an investigation of how both short-term exploitative performance objectives and long-term explorative development can be addressed when implementing industrialized construction in infrastructure projects was conducted. A case study consisting of four infrastructure projects shows that the main drivers for increased industrialization are of an exploitative nature, focusing on cost savings and increased productivity through more efficient processes. The main barriers to increased industrialization are however related to both explorative and exploitative activities. Hence, by managing the identified barriers and explicitly addressing both exploitation and exploration, industrialized construction can improve both short-term efficiency and long-term innovation and sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Per Erik Eriksson & Stefan Olander & Henrik Szentes & Kristian Widén, 2014. "Managing short-term efficiency and long-term development through industrialized construction," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1-2), pages 97-108, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:32:y:2014:i:1-2:p:97-108
    DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2013.814920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01446193.2013.814920
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01446193.2013.814920?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bent Flyvbjerg & Mette K. Skamris holm & Søren L. Buhl, 2003. "How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 71-88, January.
    2. Cantarelli, C.C. & van Wee, B. & Molin, E.J.E. & Flyvbjerg, B., 2012. "Different cost performance: different determinants?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 88-95.
    3. Amrit Tiwana, 2008. "Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 251-272, March.
    4. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    5. Juha Uotila & Markku Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2009. "Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 221-231, February.
    6. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    7. Timothy Michael Rose & Karen Manley, 2012. "Adoption of innovative products on Australian road infrastructure projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 277-298, February.
    8. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    9. Gil, Nuno & Miozzo, Marcela & Massini, Silvia, 2012. "The innovation potential of new infrastructure development: An empirical study of Heathrow airport's T5 project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 452-466.
    10. Michael Gibbert & Winfried Ruigrok & Barbara Wicki, 2008. "What passes as a rigorous case study?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(13), pages 1465-1474, December.
    11. Ekaterina Osipova & Per Erik Eriksson, 2011. "The effects of cooperative procurement procedures on joint risk management in Swedish construction projects," International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(3/4), pages 209-226.
    12. Kadefors, Anna, 1995. "Institutions in building projects: Implications for flexibility and change," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 395-408, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michelle Rogan & Marie Louise Mors, 2014. "A Network Perspective on Individual-Level Ambidexterity in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1860-1877, December.
    2. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    3. Partanen, Jukka & Kohtamäki, Marko & Patel, Pankaj C. & Parida, Vinit, 2020. "Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    4. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Bill McKelvey, 2020. "Back to the basics: reconciling the continuum and orthogonal conceptions of exploration and exploitation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 175-206, June.
    5. Yasser Alizadeh & Antonie J. Jetter, 2019. "Pathways for Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Innovations: A Review and Expansion of Ambidexterity Theory," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1-33, August.
    6. Juha Uotila, 2018. "Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 131-148.
    7. Björn Remneland Wikhamn & Alexander Styhre & Jan Ljungberg & Anna Maria Szczepanska, 2016. "Exploration Vs. Exploitation And How Video Game Developers Are Able To Combine The Two," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(06), pages 1-20, August.
    8. Lin, Liang-Hung & Ho, Yu-Ling, 2021. "Ambidextrous governance and alliance performance under dynamic environments: An empirical investigation of Taiwanese technology alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    9. Veider, Viktoria & Matzler, Kurt, 2016. "The ability and willingness of family-controlled firms to arrive at organizational ambidexterity," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 105-116.
    10. Vahlne, Jan-Erik & Jonsson, Anna, 2017. "Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 57-70.
    11. Olga Kassotaki, 2022. "Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    12. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    13. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    14. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    15. Jiewei Zu & Jianan Wang & Jun Ma, 2022. "Ambidexterity in a Rapidly Changing Environment of China: Top Management Team Decision Making and Sustained Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Balasubramaniam Ramesh & Kannan Mohan & Lan Cao, 2012. "Ambidexterity in Agile Distributed Development: An Empirical Investigation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 323-339, June.
    17. Vinit Parida & Tom Lahti & Joakim Wincent, 2016. "Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: a study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1147-1164, December.
    18. Massimo Colombo & Liliana Doganova & Evila Piva & Diego D’Adda & Philippe Mustar, 2015. "Hybrid alliances and radical innovation: the performance implications of integrating exploration and exploitation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 696-722, August.
    19. Luciana D’Adderio, 2014. "The Replication Dilemma Unravelled: How Organizations Enact Multiple Goals in Routine Transfer," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1325-1350, October.
    20. Lee, Michael T. & Raschke, Robyn L. & Krishen, Anjala S., 2023. "Understanding ESG scores and firm performance: Are high-performing firms E, S, and G-balanced?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:32:y:2014:i:1-2:p:97-108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.