IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v12y2010i3p199-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of timber framed firms in the construction sector -- Is EU policy one source of their innovation?

Author

Listed:
  • Tykkä, Saana
  • McCluskey, Denise
  • Nord, Tomas
  • Ollonqvist, Pekka
  • Hugosson, Mårten
  • Roos, Anders
  • Ukrainski, Kadri
  • Nyrud, Anders Q.
  • Bajric, Fahrudin

Abstract

To enhance competition in the construction industry, EU policies have created and harmonised functional building codes. Moreover, many actors advocate the construction industry moves towards a lean production, process-based way of working for quality and cost reasons. Here, Timber Framed Engineering approaches are considered to have a competitive and environmental advantage. There is however underlying concerns that conservatism in the construction industry, and lack of timber engineering skills, may be obstacles to change. This paper therefore assesses whether EU construction policy innovation contributed to innovation at the firm level. Timber framed innovators in six European countries were identified, and their sources of innovation assessed. The results indicate that timber framed firms have become actors in the construction industry. Firms have made product, process and organisation innovations. All case firms have similar sources for innovation. The common factor that triggers the firms to innovate is business opportunities that arise from demographic changes in the environment outside the firm, such as environmental sustainability and affordable housing for lower income groups. To address these opportunities, the case firms implicitly recognised that traditional project and site-based construction approaches are an incongruity. The firms have consequently established in-house prefabrication, including developed of lean production processes to ensure quality as well as effectiveness. The firms have all recognised that a fundamental barrier to their business was the lack of timber framed engineering competencies in their customers' organisations. Accordingly, a business necessity for the case firms was developing construction design competencies. Firms benefited from governmental policy instruments that support timber framed R&D and knowledge transfer. However, firms also gained new knowledge from their own experiences, which they also use in their operations. Accordingly, policy instruments are not a sole or dominant source for innovation in the case firms. Nonetheless, the change in building codes has been a pre-requisite the firms' commercial developments.

Suggested Citation

  • Tykkä, Saana & McCluskey, Denise & Nord, Tomas & Ollonqvist, Pekka & Hugosson, Mårten & Roos, Anders & Ukrainski, Kadri & Nyrud, Anders Q. & Bajric, Fahrudin, 2010. "Development of timber framed firms in the construction sector -- Is EU policy one source of their innovation?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 199-206, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:12:y:2010:i:3:p:199-206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(09)00167-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Chris Goodier & Alistair Gibb, 2007. "Future opportunities for offsite in the UK," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 585-595.
    2. Kaufmann, Alexander & Todtling, Franz, 2001. "Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossing between systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 791-804, May.
    3. Bas Arts & Jan Tatenhove, 2004. "Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(3), pages 339-356, December.
    4. Wei Pan & Alistair Gibb & Andrew Dainty, 2007. "Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of offsite modern methods of construction," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 183-194.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hurmekoski, Elias & Jonsson, Ragnar & Nord, Tomas, 2015. "Context, drivers, and future potential for wood-frame multi-story construction in Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 181-196.
    2. Björn Hofman & Gerdien de Vries & Geerten van de Kaa, 2022. "Keeping Things as They Are: How Status Quo Biases and Traditions along with a Lack of Information Transparency in the Building Industry Slow Down the Adoption of Innovative Sustainable Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Lazarevic, David & Kautto, Petrus & Antikainen, Riina, 2020. "Finland's wood-frame multi-storey construction innovation system: Analysing motors of creative destruction," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Xin Jin & Geoffrey Q. P. Shen & Qian-Cheng Wang & E. M. A. C. Ekanayake & Siqi Fan, 2021. "Promoting Construction Industrialisation with Policy Interventions: A Holistic Review of Published Policy Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-23, November.
    5. Luo, Wen & Mineo, Keito & Matsushita, Koji & Kanzaki, Mamoru, 2018. "Consumer willingness to pay for modern wooden structures: A comparison between China and Japan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 84-93.
    6. Martyna Maniak-Huesser & Lars G. F. Tellnes & Edwin Zea Escamilla, 2021. "Mind the Gap: A Policy Gap Analysis of Programmes Promoting Timber Construction in Nordic Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Toivonen, Ritva & Vihemäki, Heini & Toppinen, Anne, 2021. "Policy narratives on wooden multi-storey construction and implications for technology innovation system governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).

    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. Satheeskumar Navaratnam, 2022. "Selecting a Suitable Sustainable Construction Method for Australian High-Rise Building: A Multi-Criteria Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, June.
    2. Andrew Agapiou, 2021. "An Exploration of the Best Value Perceptions of Small Housebuilding Developers towards Offsite Construction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Yanjie Wang & Fucheng Wang & Peidong Sang & Huanbin Song, 2021. "Analysing factors affecting developers’ behaviour towards the adoption of prefabricated buildings in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 14245-14263, October.
    4. Hong Xue & Shoujian Zhang & Yikun Su & Zezhou Wu, 2018. "Capital Cost Optimization for Prefabrication: A Factor Analysis Evaluation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Ke Zhang & Jiin-Song Tsai, 2021. "Identification of Critical Factors Influencing Prefabricated Construction Quality and Their Mutual Relationship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Fred Edmond Boafo & Jin-Hee Kim & Jun-Tae Kim, 2016. "Performance of Modular Prefabricated Architecture: Case Study-Based Review and Future Pathways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-16, June.
    7. Mohd Nasrun Mohd Nawi* & Mohd Affendi Ahmad Pozin & Kamarul Anuar Mohamad Kamar & Angela Lee & Aizul Nahar Harun, 2018. "The Global Adoption of Industrialised Building System (IBS): Lessons Learned," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 1272-1278:6.
    8. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    9. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    10. Arnouts, Rikke & van der Zouwen, Mariëlle & Arts, Bas, 2012. "Analysing governance modes and shifts — Governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 43-50.
    11. Hoppmann, Joern, 2021. "Hand in hand to Nowhereland? How the resource dependence of research institutes influences their co-evolution with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    12. Lei Jiang & Zhongfu Li & Long Li & Yunli Gao, 2018. "Constraints on the Promotion of Prefabricated Construction in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1, July.
    13. Francesco Campanella & Maria Rosaria Della Peruta & Stefano Bresciani & Luca Dezi, 2017. "Quadruple Helix and firms’ performance: an empirical verification in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 267-284, April.
    14. Pei Dang & Zhanwen Niu & Shang Gao & Lei Hou & Guomin Zhang, 2020. "Critical Factors Influencing the Sustainable Construction Capability in Prefabrication of Chinese Construction Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    15. Ogrean Claudia, 2019. "Some Insights On The World’S Most Innovative Companies And Their Defining Characteristics," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 14(2), pages 88-104, August.
    16. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    17. Vlasova, Valeriya, 2021. "Industry-science cooperation and public policy instruments utilization in the private sector," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 519-528.
    18. Henchion, Maeve M. & Sorenson, Douglas, 2012. "Formal Food-related Networks in Ireland: A Case Study Analysis," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2(4), pages 1-16, March.
    19. Titze, Mirko & Brachert, Matthias & Günther, Jutta & Schwartz, Michael, 2010. "Die Identifikation von Wissenschaftsräumen: Eine Konzeptstudie über methodische Ansätze sowie Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der empirischen Erfassung," IWH-Sonderhefte 5/2010, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    20. Shin-Horng Chen & Meng-Chun Liu, 2005. "International R&D Deployment and Locational Advantage of Developing Countries: A Case Study of Taiwan," NBER Chapters, in: International Trade in East Asia, pages 81-108, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:eee:forpol:v:12:y:2010:i:3:p:199-206. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.