High reliability organizing at the boundary of the CM domain

The construction management (CM) domain regularly develops and explores new theories and perspectives. These new insights can shift the existing paradigm radically, they can be assimilated smoothly, or they can stall as they are debated at CM's domain boundary. During our current research, we e...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Construction management and economics 2014-01, Vol.32 (7-8), p.658-664
Main Authors: olde Scholtenhuis, Léon L., Dorée, André G.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic practice
Construction industry
Debates
high reliability organizing
Industrial safety
management theory
Occupational health
Project management
research paradigm
Risk management
safety
Studies
Traditions
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The construction management (CM) domain regularly develops and explores new theories and perspectives. These new insights can shift the existing paradigm radically, they can be assimilated smoothly, or they can stall as they are debated at CM's domain boundary. During our current research, we experience that the concepts from high reliability organizing (HRO) are caught in such a debate. We elaborate this debate from the viewpoint of two distinctive scientific traditions and evaluate the main premises that hold HRO at CM's boundaries. It seems that reductionist scientific traditions underlie much of the critique which currently diverts debate off into an unproductive intellectual cul-de-sac. An alternative pragmatic approach would allow CM's HRO researchers to avoid the confines of the reductionist arguments as it redirects minds and action on productive and practical research to achieving more reliable construction project performance, as well as dealing better with health and safety issues. Above all, the examination of the HRO boundary debate in CM may help other researchers experiencing impasses in their debates to explore whether these debates address the actual notions at stake or are restricted by deeply held views rooted in scientific traditions.
ISSN:0144-6193
1466-433X
DOI:10.1080/01446193.2014.913801