El rendimiento de la organización y la eficacia de la ayuda

There are two relevant points that emerge from literature on construction innovation that are critical to the research problem. First, the characterisation of construction as a low-level innovator, within which housing construction is particularly identified as low-level, is explored, and secondly the alternative Complex Product System (CoPS) model of innovation is argued to be more appropriate than the firm-based and -

32 focused genre of general innovation literature discussed above, as a framework for the analysis of the Research Questions.

2.8.1 Construction as a low-level innovator

The description of ‘steady state’ innovation at product level noted in Section 2.6.1 above characterises the construction sector, described as an example of a generator of low level innovation (Rutten et al., 2009) and as low tech, traditional, conservative, risk-averse and supplier-led (Reichstein et al., 2008). In the broad context of innovation study, construction is viewed as low level and lacking the drivers, capacity or need to innovate at anything more than product and process level, and this is unlikely to generate the change needed to achieve zero-carbon homes from 2016 as required by the Code for Sustainable Homes. An alternative view focuses on the unreported or ‘hidden innovation’ of the construction sector, (NESTA, 2007) in comparison to standard sectoral reporting (Winch, 2003). This perspective struggles to find a foothold in the broader construction innovation research landscape, but suggests that the housing construction sector is able to innovate to meet stretching sustainability targets.

2.8.2 Innovation in housing construction

Within the context of the broader field of construction innovation, housing construction has the reputation of being even less innovative. This premise is explored in the context of accelerating innovative ways of working to deliver regulation-driven sustainable housing. The reasons for this reputation are characterised as the economic failure of the mass production of housing (Winch, 1998), the certainty of profits for developers guaranteed by house price inflation such that innovative strategies are not required and the diffused nature of development firms making it difficult to establish ownership and benefits of any incremental, low level, low risk product innovations (Barlow, 1999).

33 There is a gap between the capacity to innovate and experiment by housing associations and local authorities as clients of the house building sector (Gann, 2003), and the demand for such innovation by homeowners as consumers who tend to want more traditional housing (NHBC Foundation, 2008). ‘Housing design, particularly in Britain, has been highly conservative. This is partly because of the role of housebuilders as, primarily, land developers, making profit from speculation rather than innovative design and production... It is difficult for consumers to be other than conservative given the limited choices available and the restrictions imposed by the cost of housing’ (Madigan & Milner, 1999: 408).

Responding to the significant regulatory requirement for sustainable housing, as a ‘doing what we do but differently’ prompt, can generate not only the physical changes to the supply chain components and the finished product, but also to new ways of working that enable the housing development and construction sector to move away from the ‘low level innovator’ label and reputation described by (for example) Rutten et al., (2009) and Reichstein et al., (2009). Ball (1999) notes three constraints on housing innovation as conservative client preferences, restricted lending practices and a cyclical market but points out that these should not be an excuse for stagnation, and it is within this context that the housing design sector needs to respond to the Code for Sustainable Homes.

2.8.3 Housing construction as a Complex Product System

It is noted (Seaden & Manseau, 2001) that the predominant model and theories of innovation from the perspective of firms innovating at product and process level are not appropriate for construction which has site- specific production, a long product cycle (Winch & Courtney, 2007) and involves a network of firms (Winch, 1998) or organisations. An alternative Complex Product System model (CoPS), originally proposed by Miller et al. (1995) in the context of the flight simulation industry, is shown to be

34 more relevant to innovation in the construction sector, and this is explored here to justify it as a framework for the research.

The CoPS model has distinctive characteristics of many interconnected and customised elements, non-linear and continuously emerging properties, where changes in one element can generate changes in other parts of the system, and a high degree of user involvement in the process (Winch, 1998: 269). Complex products and systems are identifiable in a range of firms and sectors and their role in these industries has recently become the subject of systematic research. CoPS can be defined as ‘high cost, engineering and information-technology intensive, customised products having large numbers of tailored subsystems and components. Examples of CoPS include aircraft, military systems, constructed facilities, offshore oil platforms....and many other heavily engineered systems’ (Hansen & Rush, 1998: 555). CoPS are not mass-produced in terms of either product or process (at the lower end of the innovation category scale) and ‘tend to be business-to-business products, developed and produced on a project basis through multi-firm alliances’ (Hansen & Rush, 1998: 555) where single end products are customised with multiple components and technologies (Rutten et al., 2009). Specifically in terms of innovation, construction is noted as a ‘complex area involving numerous agents and interactions in the development and adaptation of innovation’ (Seaden & Manseau, 2001: 184).

There is evidence of these characteristics in the housing development and construction sector, where a ‘volume production model’ is neither applicable nor has been successfully applied in client-driven, site-specific projects (Winch, 1998). Although Hobday (1998) notes that the routine construction of housing does not merit a CoPS innovation model, the development of housing to meet the significant new standards required by the Code for Sustainable Homes, and therefore not ‘routine’, justifies this approach and is appropriate for the research. It is therefore useful to

35 consider the innovation evidenced in this research from a CoPS perspective, where changes in one part of the system affect or impact on the design, construction or operation of other parts, reflecting the literature on the ‘hypercube’ of innovation (Afuah & Bahram, 1995) noted in Section 2.5.4. The process of innovation for CoPS requires techniques that are different to those for managing innovation in mass-production firms (Hansen & Rush, 1998; Gann & Salter, 2000) with ‘close interactions and negotiations between a relatively small number of key players’ (Seaden & Manseau, 2001: 189). The recognition of negotiations between project members foreshadows conclusions arising from analysis of research case study data around meeting the range of regulations associated with the early stages of housing design.

Miller et al’s 1995 model has been adapted by Winch (1998) in relation to the construction sector and is reproduced at Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5 Innovation structure in CoPS industries (adapted from Winch, 1998)

The role of regulators within the Complex System model is explicitly included, recognising the integral function of regulation within the sector. Winch notes the regulatory regime as the technical regulations ‘aimed at assuring the integrity and performance of the constructed product’ rather than the ‘socio-economic regulations of what is built where’ (Winch,1995:

Innovation superstructure Innovation infrastructure Trade contractors Component suppliers Specialist consultants Clients Professional institutions Regulators Systems Integrators

36 271). However, although the Code for Sustainable Homes is identified as a regulation using Winch’s definition, the analysis of research case study data also extends regulation to include the ‘socio-economic’ planning and design requirements of the local authority and county council which exert a similar amount of traction as the technical regulations in the early design stages of the research case study project. Additionally, the Homes and Communities Agency, as providers of grant finance for the case study development project, fulfil a regulatory role within the Complex Product System model, bringing a series of sustainability, financial and timeframe requirements to the project via the housing association client, which are seen to generate additional constraints within the project. Thus the technical regulation accommodated within the CoPS model, for the purposes of the research, is extended to include the socio-economic regulations that surround the early stages of new housing design.