Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBishop, Danen_GB
dc.contributor.authorFelstead, Alanen_GB
dc.contributor.authorFuller, Alisonen_GB
dc.contributor.authorJewson, Nicken_GB
dc.contributor.authorUnwin, Lornaen_GB
dc.contributor.authorKakavelakis, Konstantinosen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2012-11-05T14:59:39Z
dc.date.available2012-11-05T14:59:39Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.citationConstructing learning: adversarial and collaborative working in the British construction industry 2009, 22 (4):243-260 Journal of Education and Worken_GB
dc.identifier.issn1363-9080
dc.identifier.issn1469-9435
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/13639080903290355
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10547/250963
dc.description.abstractThis paper examines two competing systems of organising the construction process and their consequences for learning. Under the adversarial system, contractors compete solely on price, risks are shifted onto those next in line and disputes are institutionalised through complicated, but inevitably incomplete, contracts. However, under collaborative working the costs and risks of the project are shared and the parties involved communicate openly and freely, often in the absence of tightly specified contracts. The move from the former to the latter represents a shift towards a climate in which problems are shared and solved regardless of where they occur in the productive system (a process conceptualised as ‘knotworking’ in the literature). The paper argues that such learning theories and policy pressures from above fail to take adequately into account the heavy hand of history and the importance of understanding the nature of the productive systems in which ‘knotworking’ is expected to occur. Both are important in understanding the fragility of collaborative working across the stages and structures of the construction production process which place limits on making ‘knotworking’ an habitual and commonplace activity.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherTaylor and Francisen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13639080903290355en_GB
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Journal of Education and Worken_GB
dc.titleConstructing learning: adversarial and collaborative working in the British construction industryen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Education and Worken_GB
html.description.abstractThis paper examines two competing systems of organising the construction process and their consequences for learning. Under the adversarial system, contractors compete solely on price, risks are shifted onto those next in line and disputes are institutionalised through complicated, but inevitably incomplete, contracts. However, under collaborative working the costs and risks of the project are shared and the parties involved communicate openly and freely, often in the absence of tightly specified contracts. The move from the former to the latter represents a shift towards a climate in which problems are shared and solved regardless of where they occur in the productive system (a process conceptualised as ‘knotworking’ in the literature). The paper argues that such learning theories and policy pressures from above fail to take adequately into account the heavy hand of history and the importance of understanding the nature of the productive systems in which ‘knotworking’ is expected to occur. Both are important in understanding the fragility of collaborative working across the stages and structures of the construction production process which place limits on making ‘knotworking’ an habitual and commonplace activity.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Centre for Leadership Innovation (CLI)
    CLI aims to explore the nature of leadership needed for healthy, effective, high performing and sustainable organisations, stimulate research and research-related activity within the sphere of management, in particular with regard to the strategic direction of organizations and the management and development of human resources.

Show simple item record