Evolution of management theory: the case of
production management in construction
Keywords
Production management,
Construction industry,
Management theory,
Construction management, Brazil,
United Kingdom
Abstract
In the past 100 years production
management has evolved from a
set of heuristic ideas to a portfolio
of somewhat developed concepts
and principles. ``Just-in-time'' and
``total quality management''
integrate most of the modern
concepts and principles in the
field. Furthermore, seminal
studies carried out within
production, such as the Gilbreth/
Taylor, Hawthorne and Tavistock
studies, have given significant
contribution to the evolution of
management theory. This paper
presents the context of production
management evolution and
assesses the application of some
heuristic production approaches
within construction sites of Brazil
and England. The study revealed
that, although the production
management theory evolved
significantly, construction
practices do not apply the theory
in a systemic and comprehensive
manner. Clearly, lack of
motivation and poor instruments
for enabling ``learning'' are the
central cause of this problem.
Management Decision
40/8 [2002] 788±796
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0025-1747]
[DOI 10.1108/00251740210437743]
[ 788 ]
Aguinaldo dos. Santos
Universidade Federal do ParanaÂ, Curitiba ± ParanaÂ, Brazil
James Alfred Powell
The University of Salford, Salford, UK
Marjan Sarshar
School of Construction and Property Management, The University of Salford,
Salford, UK
Introduction
Management theory evolves constantly with
the continuous stream of new ideas that come
from the attempts to transform theory into
practice, and vice versa. Hence, a theory
could be considered as a ``condensed
learning'' of reflections in practice.
Understanding its history is a fundamental
step for identifying the problems and origins
of current paradigms (Koskela, 1999).
However, the study of the management
history is a complex task since the field
boundaries are not exact and there are many
different interpretations of its evolution and
content. The word management itself does
not have a universally accepted standard
definition. According to McFarland (1979) the
word ``manage'' seems to have come into
English usage directly from the Italian word
``maneggiare'', that means ``to handle''. This
word, in turn, traces back to the Latin word
``manus'' (hand). In the early sixteenth
century the word ``manage'' was quickly
extended into the common language of war
situations and used in the general sense of
``taking control'', ``taking charge'', or
``directing''. Later, in the seventeenth and the
eighteenth centuries, it became confused
with the French word ``menage'', meaning ``to
use carefully'' (McFarland, 1979).
Nowadays the meaning of management is
tempered by these early variations,
depending on the specific situation.
Management ``as a process'', for example, is
understood as the fundamental integrating
processes used to achieve organised,
purposeful results. From such process,
managers create, direct, maintain and
operate purposive organisations through
co-ordinated and co-operative human effort.
Management ``as a discipline'', is typically
understood as a field of learning which is
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
organised, researched and taught in an
integrative way, bringing together aspects
from various disciplines while at the same
time developing its own body of theory
(McFarland, 1979).
Production managers often ignore the
importance of understanding the
management history since they are more
inclined to pay attention to actions occurring
in the present. However, to disregard the
progress of events and ideas of management
throughout history is to risk repeating the
same mistakes. In this context, this paper
revises the recent history of production
management theory, using empirical
evidence collected in the construction
industry to assess the degree of application in
practice.
Dynamics between practice and
theory of production management
In the past 100 years, production
management has evolved from a set of
heuristic ideas to a portfolio of somewhat
developed concepts and principles. ``Just-in-
time'' and ``total quality management''
integrate most of the modern concepts and
principles in the field. However, new
heuristics and principles constantly flow
from practice to theory as we deepen our
understanding about practices from the ``best
plants'' world-wide (Shonberger, 1985;
Koskela, 1992; Womack and Jones, 1996)
Companies operating in competitive
environments are constantly trying new
ideas in order to cope with an increasingly
complex business environment. They now
realise that keeping in touch with, or
developing, new knowledge is key factor in
guaranteeing their survival. The constant
shift of management emphasis during the
last few decades demonstrates the eagerness
of companies for new knowledge in this
respect. Furthermore, this shift of emphasis
is part of a continuous and cumulative
learning process that affects what is known,
Aguinaldo dos. Santos,
James Alfred Powell and
Marjan Sarshar
Evolution of management
theory: the case of production
management in construction
Management Decision
40/8 [2002] 788±796
and practised, in the field of production
management. Indeed, from the narrow view
of work-study, there has been a gradual
evolution of emphasis towards issues
involving the entire organisation (e.g. total
quality management) and now, to even wider
issues such as the organisation with the
external environment (e.g. environmental
management, social accountability).
This dynamic flow between practice and
theory, and vice versa, is also one of the key
virtues of disciplines relating to production
management. Academics and consultants are
continually developing new ways for solving
production problems and marketing these
solutions to practitioners. Occasionally,
these solutions are transformed into books.
In other situations, the active
experimentation of practitioners leads to new
ideas and insights that are themselves
gradually transformed into theories. These
theories, in turn, help the communication of
their solutions to other practitioners facing
similar problems.
If a new theory, or some of its elements,
proves to be successful elsewhere, it may
become the new imperative in the manager's
agenda. However, in the case of failure, this
new theory is likely to become one more
ineffective ``buzzword'' to be criticised by
industry and academia. Unfortunately, due to
the lack of proper testing of theory in
practice, or due to deficient implementation,
this happens all too often.
Key contributions of production to
the evolution of management
Throughout history, production has been one
of the principal laboratories for developing
the management theory. The following
studies, carried out within production,
illustrate the significance of this
participation.
Taylor and Gilbreth studies
Frederick W. Taylor is acknowledged as the
``father'' of scientific management, because of
his famous work entitled Principles of
Scientific Management (1911). His studies
concentrated on the efficient use of time in
the workplace. Taylor carried his first time
studies into the machine shop of the Midvale
Steel Company. There he tried to discover the
relationship between the ``horsepower that a
man exerts'' and the correspondent ``tiring
effect that this work has on man''. He
concluded that the controlling factor in
determining how much work a worker could
do was the percentage of time that the worker
was under load or resting, and the length and
frequency of resting periods. In contrast,
common sense at that time had led people to
believe that the strength alone was the main
factor in determining a worker's
productivity levels (Taylor, 1911; Barnes,
1980).
Another important pioneer of the scientific
management movement was Frank Bunker
Gilbreth. In 1885, at the age of 17, Gilbreth
entered as an apprentice of bricklaying at
Whidden Construction Company, in Boston.
By the beginning of the twentieth century,
Gilbreth was already managing his own
construction company. Similar to Taylor, he
was also interested in the search for the one
best way of carrying out a given task. As a
building contractor, he became interested in
the study of ``needless, ill-directed and
ineffective motions in construction
processes''. In his most famous study, he
analysed the bricklayer's motions, reducing
them from 18 to five. With these
improvements, he doubled a bricklayer's
productivity without the need for increasing
the bricklayer's efforts (Barnes, 1980;
Gilbreth, 1911; Weihrich and Koontz, 1993;
Cheetham et al., 1992).
Hawthorne studies
A turning point in the theories of
management came with the study carried out
by Western Electric managers and Harvard
University researchers at the Hawthorne
works, near Chicago, from 1924 until 1932.
Originally, this study sought to confirm
Taylor's principle that more lighting in the
workplace would result in greater
productivity. However, to the amazement of
the researchers, the experiment showed
productivity rising still further, even with a
decrease in illumination. The investigation
then turned its attention to the relationship
between managers and workers, still aiming
for the manipulation of workers to maximise
the output of production (Mayo, 1949; Barnes,
1980, p. 283; Wren, 1994; Weihrich and Koontz,
1993).
After a number of experiments, they finally
concluded that the improvements in
productivity happened almost solely due to
social factors, such as moral and satisfactory
inter-relationships within the production
team. The study also showed that just the fact
of being chosen for the study motivated
workers to continually improve production,
regardless of the working environment
(Mayo, 1949; Wren, 1994; Weihrich and
Koontz, 1993; Lee and Schniederjans, 1994).
Tavistock studies
It can be said that the initial inspirations of
the neo-classical school came with the
[ 789 ]
Aguinaldo dos. Santos,
James Alfred Powell and
Marjan Sarshar
Evolution of management
theory: the case of production
management in construction
Management Decision
40/8 [2002] 788±796
[ 790 ]
seminal work of the Tavistock Institute of
Human Relations on the effects of changing
technology in the coal-mining industry in the
1940s. At that time, the increasing
mechanisation and the introduction of coal-
cutters and mechanical conveyors enabled
coal to be extracted on a ``longwall'' method.
However, the new method also meant a
change in the social groupings of miners that
characterised the previous system ± the
``single place'' or ``shortwall'' method. Thus,
despite the theoretical advantages of the new
method, it did not prove to be as efficient as
predicted during the initial stages of
implementation. This was because the social
disruptions produced by the new method led
to low morale and more frequent process
problems (Mullins, 1993).
At this point, the Tavistock researchers
saw the need for a socio-technical approach,
in which an appropriate social system could
be implemented alongside the new
technology. The result was the ``composite
wall'' method with more responsibility given
to the team as a whole, and development of
composite tasks and the re-introduction of
multi-skilled roles. The Tavistock study
concluded that the composite method was
psychologically and socially more rewarding
and economically more efficient than the
``longwall'' method (Mullins, 1993). This
balanced approach between the social and
technical approach became one of the
hallmarks of the neo-classic school.
Current trends in production
management
Current production research is characterised
by a wide and integrative perspective about
production, including social and
environmental issues. In particular, there is a
growing volume of research focusing on the
consolidation of ``just-in-time'' with ``total
quality management'' and an array of other
theories/practices such as ``total productive
maintenance'' (TPM), ``visual management''
and ``re-engineering''. Recent investigations
seek to develop the content and structure of
the core ideas underlying these theories. In
particular, ``World-class manufacturing'',
``lean production'' and ``agile production'' are
the most recent terms used to describe
research in this area (Womack and Jones,
1996; Schonberger, 1996). It can be said that
the greatest thinkers (and practitioners) of
this new wave of ideas are Shigeo Shingo and
Taichi Ohno, developers of the Toyota
Production System (Shingo, 1989; Ohno, 1988).
The world-wide benchmarking study
carried out by the International Motor
Vehicle Programme (IMVP) in the 1980s has
propelled research concerning the ``lean
production'' subject. The primary objective of
the IMVP was to create a knowledge base to
allow better understanding of what
constitutes superior industrial performance
and competitive advantage in the automobile
industry. With its headquarters at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
Cambridge, MA, IMVP investigated
companies from Europe, Japan and North
America, as well as Australia, Brazil, Korea,
and South Africa. One of its main findings
was that the ``best plants'' world-wide had
common characteristics and practices that
result in lean production systems. In short,
these companies were able to produce more
products, with higher quality but with fewer
resources (Womack and Jones, 1996).
As a result of the IMVP work, the interest
of industry and academia in the subject of
``lean construction'' has grown faster ever
since. Global competitiveness became
associated with the practice of lean
production. Techniques and views on how to
achieve world-class/lean production are now
the subject of many conferences, workshops
and seminars around the world. Universities
are proposing an increasing number of
research projects and programmes designed
to be of relevance to production managers in
the establishment of lean practices.
Researchers now continuously review the
current state of lean production approaches,
including the testing of propositions and
evaluations of their relationship with
performance. Industry now requires
universities to participate in industrially
supported research projects aimed at
accelerating the adoption of lean production
practices. Benchmarking studies try to
position the practice and performance of
industries in an international context with
regard to lean production practices. The
focus of these studies is namely on the
contrasting patterns across countries and the
identification of common characteristics
among leading competitors. Hence,
governments increasingly include ``lean
construction'' ideas as the underlying topics
for policy making in industrial development
(Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998).
Assessing the evolution of
production theory in construction
practice
Research method
This research could be classified as a
``testing-out research'' due to the nature of
theme. In this type of research, the aim is
Aguinaldo dos. Santos,
James Alfred Powell and
Marjan Sarshar
Evolution of management
theory: the case of production
management in construction
Management Decision
40/8 [2002] 788±796
trying to find the limits of previously
proposed generalisations and, subsequently,
specifying, modifying or clarifying their
content. As a ``testing-out'' research, it has to
be carried out in ``real world'' conditions
where the kind of control present in a
laboratory is not feasible and not even
ethically justifiable. Thus, it was decided to
adopt the case study research strategy. The
necessity for a large volume of evidence to
achieve satisfactory cover of all
implementation approaches in study led to
the choice of the multiple case study design.
A total of six case studies were carried out,
three in Brazil and three in England, based
on the bricklaying process (the same
construction process analysed by Gilbreth in
1911). A protocol for data collection specified
the sequence of data collection, the data
collection techniques, the analytical process
and the presentation of results for the host
companies. Among the data collection
techniques included in this protocol were
filming, photo, work sampling, performance
measurements, flow chart and open-ended
interviews. The main objective of this
protocol was to guide the observations
systematically. Statistical significance was
not considered. This protocol will be
presented and discussed in a forthcoming
paper.
The analysis of the multiple case studies
was carried out comparing the practice with
the production management theory in study
(and vice versa). To do this, the process that
Yin (1994) calls ``replication logic'' was
employed, similar to that used in multiple
experiments. In that process, when similar
results happen, for predictable reasons,
producing evidence that the case studies
indeed involve the same phenomena, it is
called ``literal replication''. In contrast, when
the case study produces contrasting results
due to predictable reasons, it is called
``theoretical replication''. The next section
presents this analysis.
Focus of analysis
The analysis will be limited to the ``heuristic
implementation approaches'' relating to the
reduction of cycle time. ``Heuristic
implementation approaches'' are, essentially,
the way of doing things or the methods of
turning abstract principles and concepts into
reality. The literature shows various
different strategies and guidelines for
reducing cycle time. Peters (1990), for
instance, in his article ``Time-obsessed
competition'', lists some important steps
towards reduction of cycle time at the
organisational level such as linking
communication between all parties;
flattening the organisational structure;
redesigning the business process to reduce
delays and promoting trust with new
partners. Although many of these ideas
certainly have an effect on time, they do not
focus entirely, and directly, on the reduction
of cycle time. Thus, these heuristic
approaches can easily be confused as
implementation approaches for other
principles having other aims. This lack of
precision is likely to cause confusion and
disagreements in practical situations.
In this context, the structure of approaches
proposed by Koskela (1992) seems to offer a
better alternative description since it has a
more straightforward relationship with time
compression. For this reason, this research
has adopted Koskela's (1992) list of heuristic
implementation approaches as the basic
theoretical framework to be used, namely:
. Minimising distances: reducing the
physical distances between steps of a
process;
. Changing the order of the process: e.g.
moving some of the activities to a parallel
order;
. Synchronising and smoothing the flows:
reducing the waiting time between phases
of a process to a minimum while
maintaining a continuous pace of work;
. Solving control problems and the
constraints to a speedy flow: reducing or
eliminating time-consuming control
problems and constraints, that restrain a
speedy flow;
. Reducing variability: it can be achieved
through standardisation, installation of
mistake-proof (poka-yoke) devices or
systematic solution of the root causes of
problems;
. Isolating value-adding activities from
supporting activities: transforming
support operations present in the main
value-adding flow into external
operations;
. Reduction of work-in-progress: reducing
the number of sequential steps of the
process waiting to be finished in one batch
unit;
. Reduction of batch size: reducing the size
of production or delivery volumes, in
order to speed up the delivery of units and
identification and correction of errors,
between phases of a process or between
processes.
One important pioneer in the application of
these principles was Frank Bunker Gilbreth,
presented earlier, when developing his
motion studies on the bricklaying activity
(Gilbreth, 1911). The motion studies of
Gilbreth (1911) allied with the time studies of
[ 791 ]
Aguinaldo dos. Santos,
James Alfred Powell and
Marjan Sarshar
Evolution of management
theory: the case of production
management in construction
Management Decision
40/8 [2002] 788±796
[ 792 ]
Frederick Taylor gave birth to the scientific
management school. Other significant
developments in the heuristic approaches
aimed at reducing cycle time occurred at the
Toyota production system, from the
beginning of the 1950s. The drastic reduction
of batch size and work-in-progress, in order
to speed up the delivery of products and
reduce the production capacity required, is
clearly a major breakthrough from
traditional practices (Shingo, 1989; Ohno,
1988). Critical analysis of the Toyota
production system shows that the
approaches for reducing cycle time happens
when all approaches are applied
simultaneously in a holistic and coherent
fashion.
Cross case study analysis
Time (particularly the avoidance of delays)
was among the main preoccupations of
construction managers in all case studies.
The literature also recognises that delays are
often the most common and costly problem
encountered in construction projects (Alkass
et al., 1995). However, managers were giving
little attention to actions aiming at
compression of cycle time. The few actions
observed in this regard had been produced
prior to construction, during the design and
planning stage. The principal aim of
construction managers was to achieve the
right design, under the right budget and
schedule specifications rather than challenge
it and search for higher levels of
performance.
In theory, ``minimisation of distances''
should be the most straightforward of the
approaches for reducing cycle time.
However, layout and workflow planning
were not developed and revised
systematically in most construction
companies analysed in this research. In
addition, none of the companies was
developing ergonomic studies. Yet, Bishop
(1965) and Thomas et al. (1989) have already
indicated in the literature review that
transport is one of the most time-consuming
activities in the construction industry.
Interviews with construction managers
suggest that lack of information on the actual
cost of transportation and movement
activities was the main cause for their
apathy.
The most direct impact of long
transportation distances was on the
inefficient use of labourers and,
consequently, this resulted in poor gang
compositions. The fact that construction uses
mostly mobile workstations demands a more
sophisticated interpretation of this approach,
in order to apply it in an effective manner.
The authors believe that the minimisation of
distances in construction workstations are
more likely to be successful if they involve
both passive means (e.g. training, planning,
visual indications, etc.) and active means
(e.g. physical barriers, limit switches, etc.).
The passive means are necessary because the
maintenance of short distances throughout
the process relies heavily on the commitment
and attention of the workforce. Ideally, the
workplace and workstations optimal
arrangement should become entrenched on
the workforce practice and knowledge,
without the need for managerial control. The
active means are those that should be built
into the workstation and be easily
transported with the workstation to the next
workplace. They act independently of the
worker's own will, but should be designed to
make workers benefit from a more effective
work.
Little emphasis was given to the ``reducing
batch size'' in most of the case studies
investigated in this research. In fact, the idea
of reducing the batch size was not even
considered as an alternative to reducing
cycle time by most of the practitioners.
Without any doubt, the short-term base
relationships between subcontractors and
contractors were incompatible with the long-
term learning process demanded from the
reduction of batch size. The mass production
paradigm was another barrier for
implementing small batches. Construction
managers did not understand that the use of
resources in their full capacity, producing
more than the necessary for the next process,
was a waste. In fact, for some managers,
waste due to overproduction does not exist in
a construction project since the sub-products
have to be processed anyway. The benefit of
immediate identification and correction of
errors was not even mentioned with respect
to batch size reduction. This situation
indicates that considerable efforts still have
to be made in the area of education and
training, in order to include this practice in
the knowledge archetype of managers and
workers in the construction sector.
In construction, the workstations are
normally mobile and the product has
different shapes. Therefore the definition of
what is the batch unit in the sector is a very
complex issue. The size of the batch unit is
dynamic, since design and technological
innovations can push the already fragmented
process even further and, consequently,
affect the characteristics of transfer batches.
Rigid process dependencies, for instance, are
often reduced or eliminated with
innovations, opening the opportunity for
reducing the size of batches. In this respect, it
Aguinaldo dos. Santos,
James Alfred Powell and
Marjan Sarshar
Evolution of management
theory: the case of production
management in construction
Management Decision
40/8 [2002] 788±796
was found that the use of physical or virtual
delimitation of batches is an extremely
helpful instrument to make the batch unit
visible and workable in the construction site.
Excessive volume of ``work-in-progress''
across all construction sites was also found.
The actions of construction mangers were
not aiming at reducing the waiting time
between process stages within each batch
unit. The high levels of work-in-progress
found in the case studies were strongly
linked with the levels of process variability.
It became clear that construction sites should
strive to reduce the number of visits of each
construction workstation to a particular
workplace to only one visit.
The construction sites that presented the
highest predictability of starting and
finishing dates and excellent communication
between all parties were the ones that also
presented the minimal waiting time between
stages of the process. In theory, this could
mean a more intense use of ``standardisation,
systematic elimination of root cause of
variations, control of plans closer to process
owners or poka-yoke (mistake-proof)
devices''. However, the observation of
practice revealed little use of these
approaches. The best case studies achieved
lower variability by virtue of an experienced
workforce and the high quality of materials.
Yet, the segmented division of
responsibilities and the individualistic bonus
system in all case studies resulted in the
cumulative transmission of high process
variability from upstream operations to
downstream operations.
The lack of continuity (``smooth and
synchronising flows'') of work across
different projects was another important
cause of variability in all the case studies and
this consequently led to longer cycle time. It
was rare to find examples of managers trying
to keep a continuous and stable process
workload across different projects. It was
also found that the problem of continuity was
also affected by the lack of flexibility of the
workstations, including the workers
themselves. Flexibility could offer a viable
alternative to keep the workers in touch
within the same company and, in this way,
reduce the effect of changing working
environment and practices.
``Isolation of value adding activities from
supporting activities'' was rarely identified
across the case studies. Bricklayers were
constantly involved with transporting and
measuring activities that occurred due to
lack of workflow planning and the
characteristics of the technologies adopted
by the construction companies. Likewise,
increased speed of processes by ``solving
control problems'' was rarely identified in all
case studies. At the managerial level,
controls were restricted to schedule and
inventory control. Such managerial controls
did not affect the main adding-value flow of
everyday activities. Turning to an operative
perspective, activities such as
``measurement'' and ``adjusting position''
could be considered as controls. Thus, there
is substantial room for improvement in the
site practice in this respect, taking in account
that they do not add any value. In this sense,
the process controls should be built into the
process, taking no time from the flow of
materials. The principle of transparency has
an important role in this respect.
The process activities were sequential in
most of the case studies and, according to the
observations, the main reason was the high
process variability and the push mode of
production. The variability of upstream
operations were generally absorbed or
corrected by downstream operations.
However, ``change of sequential order to
parallel'' certainly demands better design,
low process variability, higher level of skills
from the work force and more accurate
suppliers than the observed practice. The
empirical evidence showed that ``changing
the process order'' without these basic
conditions can bring even more disruption to
the production system.
Intra-case study analysis
The comprehensive integration of heuristic
approaches aimed at reducing cycle time is
an extremely important factor in achieving
the full benefit of their implementation in
practice. The construction case studies
analysed in this research should mirror this
systemic integration in their practices.
However, the analysis revealed a generalised
lack of integration among all heuristic
approaches, as Figure 1 illustrates. In that
figure the cells coloured in black represent
the existence of literal replication and the
cells coloured in grey represent the existence
of interaction between literal replications.
Most practices in these case studies were
lacking the support from other essential
heuristic approaches in order to offer their
best possible results. Consequently, the main
outcome of having a partial application of the
theory in construction practice was the sub-
optimal performance of the production
system.
It is understood that the main reasons for
this lack of systemic integration are two-fold.
First, there may be an actual gap in the
knowledge of practitioners in all sites
analysed. In this way, there would be
considerable learning opportunities
[ 793 ]
Aguinaldo dos. Santos,
James Alfred Powell and
Marjan Sarshar
Evolution of management
theory: the case of production
management in construction
Management Decision
40/8 [2002] 788±796
[ 794 ]
Figure 1
Application of heuristic approaches aimed at reducing cycle time in six construction sites
regarding the introduction of new ideas in
the practice of construction. The second
possibility is that the workers and managers
knew about the principles in study but did
not have organisational structure and
support to apply them thoroughly.
In reality, the empirical observations have
shown that the construction sites analysed
had a mix of these two possibilities. The
excessive emphasis on the control of process
inputs/outputs had deprived managers of the
experience of improving flows. Therefore,
important knowledge has not been developed
and consolidated in their mental model. On
addition, in certain points it was evident that
the managers and workers understood and
agreed with the study's propositions. In those
occasions, their experience in previous
building sites was often used as an example
to confirm the validity of the theoretical
propositions.
Certainly, the lack of complementary
approaches in the case studies was directing
the production systems towards sub-optimal
Aguinaldo dos. Santos,
James Alfred Powell and
Marjan Sarshar
Evolution of management
theory: the case of production
management in construction
Management Decision
40/8 [2002] 788±796
conditions. The contractor was not benefiting
from these conditions and neither was the
subcontractor or client. In this context, the
observations on the construction site led to
the conclusion that the short-term attitudes,
lack of commitment and win-lose
relationships were the main reasons for the
absence of systemic application of all inter-
connected principles.
Conclusion
General remarks
Clearly, the evolution of management theory
mirrors the changes in the surrounding
economical and social environment. There
have been times when the capitalist
exploitation of a cheap and non-educated
workforce was acceptable. In that situation,
production managers focused their attention
solely on the reduction of waste and
increased production speed. Changes in the
economy and society world-wide resulted in a
workforce that no longer accepted being
treated like another piece of machinery.
Consequently, it brought workers'
motivation and satisfaction back into the
main considerations of managers.
The fusion of ``scientific management'' and
``human relations'' ideas is clearly observed
in modern production management
literature in general. Technological
knowledge is placed side by side with human
considerations. Also, in higher education
there are a growing number of multi-
disciplinary courses of linking pure technical
topics (e.g. alternative formwork
technologies) with human topics (e.g.
theories of motivation). This trend is
recognised by research funding agencies that
have now started to demand greater
participation of social scientists in bids for
research in the management field.
In this context, production management
theory, as any other managerial theory,
could also be interpreted as ``condensed
learning'' since it incorporates many of the
core ideas and cumulative experiences that
have led to current best known production
practices (Koskela, 1999). Thus, this theory
should be considered as the result of a
natural learning process of companies
searching for ways to become more
competitive. The constant shift of managerial
emphasis in industry should provoke
reflection and drive further improvements in
the theory. Unfortunately, the constant and
unstructured generation of new terms and
``new theories'' witnessed nowadays does not
help either industry or academia to
consolidate existing ideas or developing truly
new ideas.
In general, newer production theories do
borrow concepts and principles already
developed from previous works and,
therefore, usually generate only a fraction of
truly new knowledge. Often the main body of
these ``new'' theories is only a re-
interpretation and re-configuration of
previous theories in order to allow the
application of them in a particular context
and for a particular problem. Furthermore,
even if it is clear that a ``new theory'' does not
have actual new knowledge, companies often
adopt it if it conforms with their way of seing
the world or working in it. The novelty factor
of a brand new name also seems to help them
to provoke change and reflection among
production personnel.
The fact that the current research agenda,
such as world-class manufacturing and lean
production, increasingly focuses on the study
of comprehensive and integrating theories
indicates that production management has
begun to be a mature field of knowledge. This
is not to say that practitioners, consultants
and academics in the field should disregard
previous theories. In fact, without adequate
understanding of previous theories, there is a
risk of overlooking important operational
knowledge. So, for instance, the successful
implementation of ``just-in-time'' and ``total
quality management'' depends on the
adequate knowledge of specific topics such as
work-study and quality control.
Construction practice vs. production
management theory
The evidence showed clearly that
construction is severely deficient in the
comprehensive application of the production
management theory. All construction case
studies repeatedly point to a lack of
knowledge, organisational support or
motivation among managers and workforce
to implement the production principles
discussed in this thesis.
The heuristic approaches investigated in
this research proved to be workable in the
construction environment, but only a few
managers were prepared and motivated to
implement all heuristics. As a result, even
the best case study presented only 70 percent
of literal replications and only 20 percent of
the expected inter-relationships. In this
context, the researcher came to the
conclusion that poor motivation and
inadequate conditions for enabling
``learning'' were the central problem for
the great mismatch between current
production management theory and
construction practice.
[ 795 ]

Aguinaldo dos. Santos,
James Alfred Powell and
Marjan Sarshar
Evolution of management
theory: the case of production
management in construction
Management Decision
40/8 [2002] 788±796
[ 796 ]
References
Alkass, S., Mazerolle, M. and Harris, F. (1995),
``Construction delay analysis techniques'',
Construction Management and Economics,
Vol 14, pp. 375-94.
Barnes, R.M. (1980), Motion and Time Study,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Bishop, D. (1965), Labour Requirements for House
Building: Advantages of Continuity of Work
and Experience, BRE current paper,
construction series no. 18, BRE, Garston,
Watford.
Cheetham, D.W., Steel, M.M. and Lewis, J. (1992),
``The work of F.B. Gilbreth and its relevance
to present construction management'',
Proceedings of the Eight Annual Conference,
18-20, September, Association of Researchers
in Construction Management, Salford,
pp. 285-96.
Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, report of
the Construction Task Force to the Deputy
Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the scope
for improving the quality and efficiency of UK
construction, DETR, 16 July, available at:
www.construction.detr.gov.uk/cis/rethink/
index.htm (accessed August 1999).
Gilbreth, F.B. (1911), Motion Study: A Method for
Increasing the Efficiency of the Workman,
D. Van Nostrand, New York, NY.
Koskela, L. (1992), ``Application of the new
production philosophy in construction'',
Technical Report 72, Technical Research
Centre of Finland, Helsinki.
Koskela, L. (1999) ``Management of production in
construction: a theoretical view'', in
Tommelein, I.D. (Ed.), Proceedings Seventh
Annual Conference of the International Group
for Lean Construction, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, pp. 241-52.
Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO,
London.
Lee, S.M. and Schniederjans, M.J. (1994),
Operations Management, Houghton Mifflin,
Boston, MA.
Lilrank, P. (1995), ``The transfer of management
innovations from Japan'', Organization
Studies, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 971-89.
McFarland, D.E. (1979), Management: Foundation
and Practices, 5th ed., Collier Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Mayo, E. (1949), The Social Problems of an
Industrial Civilisation'', Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London.
Mullins, L.J. (1993), Management and
Organisational Behaviour, 3rd ed, Pitman,
London.
Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond
Large-Scale Production, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Peters, T. (1990), ``Time-obsessed competition'',
Management Review, September, pp. 16-20.
Schonberger, R.J. (1985), Japanese Manufacturing
Techniques'', The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schonberger, R.J. (1996), World Class
Manufacturing: the Next Decade, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Shingo, S. (1989), A Study of the Toyota Production
System from an Industrial Point of View,
Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific
Management, Hive Publishing, Easton, PA.
Thomas, H.R., Sanvido, V.E. and Sanders, S.R.
(1989), ``Impact of material management on
productivity: a case study'', Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management/
ASCE, Vol. 115 No. 3, September.
Weihrich, H. and Koontz, H. (1993), Management:
A Global Perspective, 10th ed., McGraw-Hill
International, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean
Thinking, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The
Machine that Changed the World, Rawson
Associated, New York, NY.
Wren, D.A. (1994), The Evolution of Management
Thought, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and
Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Further reading
Green, S.D. and Simmister, S.J. (1999), ``Modeling
client business processes as an aid to strategy
briefing'', Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 17, pp. 3-76.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of
Excellence. Lessons from America's Best-Run
Companies, Harper Collins, London.
Powell, J.A (1999), ``Action learning in
construction'', in Tommelein, I.D. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference
of the International Group for Lean
Construction, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, pp. 241-52.