Construction Management and Economics

ISSN: 0144-6193 (Print) 1466-433X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Coordinated construction logistics: an innovation

perspective

Susanna Hedborg Bengtsson

To cite this article: Susanna Hedborg Bengtsson (2019) Coordinated construction logistics:
an innovation perspective, Construction Management and Economics, 37:5, 294-307, DOI:
10.1080/01446193.2018.1528372

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2018.1528372

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 20 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3193

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcme20
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS
2019, VOL. 37, NO. 5, 294–307
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2018.1528372

Coordinated construction logistics: an innovation perspective

Susanna Hedborg Bengtsson
Department of Real Estate and Construction Management, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Coordinated construction logistics is an increasingly discussed topic in the Swedish construction Received 26 January 2018
industry. It is suggested as a means to increase efficiency in transportation, decrease material Accepted 20 September 2018
usage, coordinate health and safety on-site, etc. Much research on construction logistics has
KEYWORDS
been done from a supply chain management perspective, often highlighting construction logis-
Coordinated logistics;
tics as a necessary rational tool to improve efficiency in construction industry. However, could innovation; inter-
there be other ways to study this phenomenon? The purpose of this paper is to map empirically organizational coordination;
found coordinated construction logistics models and explore them as different types of innov- supply-chain management
ation. The findings suggest that coordinated construction logistics models should be regarded
as not being a fully embedded innovation as they have not yet changed the processes in the
way they set out to do initially. Furthermore, differences are identified between company-based
models, project-based models and system-based models, and suggest that differences in, for
example, development, impact and objectives should be regarded both when conducting
research on and when implementing coordinated construction logistics in practice. Finally, it is
concluded that commitment, communication and cooperation are important when implement-
ing coordinated construction logistics, which is in line with findings within the supply chain
management literature.

Introduction commercial construction projects have developed coor-

Construction projects are complex, something Cox and
Goodman (1956, p. 43) concluded 50 years ago in their
study of distribution of house-building material, saying
that “the number of possible permutations and combina-
tions of specific places and entities is enormous, even for
one product”. This complexity is often used in supply
chain management as an argument for construction
projects to implement more structured and coordinated
construction logistics models (Vrijhoef and Koskela
2000, Ekesk€ar and Rudberg 2016). In the Swedish con-
struction industry, there is currently a buzz going on
regarding coordinated construction logistics. The term
coordinated construction logistics is used by the indus-
try when referring to different actors working together
with construction logistics. It is argued by developers,
contractors, municipalities and also by researchers, spe-
cialized in construction logistics and supply chain man-
agement, that coordinated construction logistics creates
increase productivity, cut costs and at the same time
encompasses aspects of safety and environmental sus-
tainability. In recent years, several developers, contrac-
tors and municipalities conducting residential or
dinated construction logistics models within their
organizations and/or projects. However, some critical
remarks might be needed as to how these examples
are studied and discussed. The models presented by
the industry are often discussed interchangeably with
little regards to the context that the models are devel-
oped in (Engwall 2003), both within and between,
organizations and projects.
To better understand industry changes, such as the
implementation of different coordinated construction
logistics models in residential or commercial construc-
tion projects, studies from different perspectives are
helpful. Changes in the construction industry are often
studied as innovation (Taylor and Levitt 2004, Bygballe
and Ingemansson 2014), to discuss obstacles and pos-
sibilities for change in the construction industry with
the numerous fragmented interdependent actors and
processes (Bankvall et al. 2010). According to Lindgren
and Widen (2017), Slaughter’s (1998, 2000) description
of construction innovation is widely used in research.
From Henderson and Clark’s (1990) identification of
four different types of innovation, Slaughter (1998,

CONTACT Susanna Hedborg Bengtsson susben@kth.se Teknikringen 10B, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
ß 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed,
or built upon in any way.

2000) suggests a division of construction innovation,
from incremental, modular, architectural, system(ic), to
radical, depending on development, impact and objec-
tives. Slaughter (1998) further suggests that a categor-
isation according to the five types of innovation
provide a basis from where the degree of change can
be understood, which is essential to plan activities
and required resources to implement innovation. The
type of innovation will depend on what concept and
links are changed (Henderson and Clark 1990).
The different types of construction innovation, here,
are used to analyse and categorise the innovation
processes that are studied in the construction industry
(see, for example, Lloyd-Walker et al. 2014). In adopting
this approach, the purpose of the paper is to suggest a
different way for studying coordinated construction
logistics, namely to map coordinated construction
logistics as different types of innovation, by analysing
five empirical examples from residential and commer-
cial projects in the construction industry. The ambition
is thereby to provide an alternative perspective on
coordinated construction logistics, different from the
traditional supply chain management optimisation
view, in order to increase the understanding of coordi-
nated construction logistics and change in the con-
struction industry. Hence, a project perspective,
including actor relations, is taken in this paper and
coordination is especially emphasized as coordinated
construction logistics is analysed as inter-organizational
coordination. Another important implication of study-
ing coordinated construction logistics from a different
perspective is to understand other potential drivers to
implement coordinated construction logistics models in
residential or commercial projects than to increase on-
site efficiency as is the accepted driving force discussed
within supply chain management (e.g. Thunberg et al.
2017, Sundquist et al. 2018). Understanding other
potential drivers are important, both for research and
practice, as it can broaden the knowledge of the
research area and help legitimize development of coor-
dinated construction logistics models.
Literature overview
Innovation theory is broad and fragmented and
research applies it when studying many different types
of cases, from minor process changes within an organ-
ization to radical transformations of entire industries.
On the back of this, it is important to describe how
innovation is understood and applied in this specific
research. Innovation in this paper is considered as a
process or product that is perceived as new to an
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 295
organization that is able to adopt it (Freeman and
Soete 1997). With this as a basis for understanding
innovation, it is important to further develop the
understanding of different types of innovation in the
setting in which they occur (Henderson and Clark
1990, Slaughter 1998). More specifically, in order to
understand the context of innovation and discuss how
different coordinated construction logistics models can
be seen as different types of construction innovation.
This becomes especially important as it is suggested
that the context of innovation in the construction
industry differ organizationally from other industries
(Slaughter 1998, Aouad et al. 2010).
Construction innovation
There are different ways to classify innovation in pro-
ject-based organizations (PBOs), for example, bounded
or unbounded innovation (Harty 2005) or incremental
to radical innovation (Slaughter 1998). A common clas-
sification originating from manufacturing studies is to
separate between product and process innovation
(Hullova et al. 2016). Process innovation is defined as
new methods that create changes in tools and soft-
ware, or in other words, changes in the supply chain
and construction processes (OECD 2015). From
research based on manufacturing studies process
innovation is commonly seen as a bi-product to prod-
uct innovation, i.e. when a new product is changed,
parts of the production process also needs to be
changed. When looking into PBOs and the construc-
tion industry, as opposed to manufacturing, process
innovation is regarded as something highly relevant
and re-occurring in and of itself. The reason for this is
that a major part of the costs involved in the construc-
tion industry comes from aligning the projects and
improving the supply chains and construction proc-
esses. This is in line with Engwall’s (2003) findings of
the importance to take history, scope and environ-
ment into account to manage innovation. This contin-
gency perspective is particularly significant in UDPs,
given the large number of projects with fragmented
and interdependent actors (Winch 1998).
Process innovation in the construction industry can
take various forms, for example, they can range from
incremental to radical changes (Slaughter 1998, 2000).
Slaughter (1998, 2000) differentiates between five types
of construction innovation, based on Henderson and
Clark’s (1990) earlier findings from product technology
innovations, these are based on the degree of change
and link to other actors, projects and organizations. The
five types of construction innovation become relevant
296 S. H. BENGTSSON
as they consider the organizational processes to be
linked to the innovation process, e.g. contracting
arrangement and interaction between systems
(Bygballe and Ingemansson 2014). The innovation types
are incremental, modular, architectural, system(ic) and
radical, as described in the following sections.
Incremental
Incremental innovation implies small changes based
on current knowledge. Incremental innovation is pre-
dictable with negligible impact on a system and
occurs constantly in a limited setting. Incremental
innovation mostly occurs within organizations using
its own experiences.
Modular
Modular innovation implies a larger change of compo-
nents or processes, but still with negligible effect on a
system. Modular innovation is often initiated within
organizations or from new entrants to an industry,
often without difficulties to implement.
Architectural
Architectural innovation, on the other hand, implies a
small change that has a large effect on a system. This
leads to a need for increased effort to implement as
negotiation and modification often are essential to
accommodate a whole system.
Systemic
Systemic (or system) innovation implies an interaction
of multiple interdependent innovations, which affect a
whole system rather than just its closest surrounding.
The interdependent innovations are explicitly con-
nected but can be initiated by different sources.
Systemic innovation is often initiated by actors that
benefit from the improved performance of a specific
system. Development and usage are seen as difficult
in this type of innovation as the innovation is spread
in a system that is difficult to control.
Radical
Radical innovation is the largest form of change and is
described as breakthroughs in science or technology
that reshapes an entire industry. Radical innovation is
seen as rare and difficult to anticipate, and it is often
initiated outside an existing industry. It leads to new
understandings of a phenomenon and interactions
within and between systems can completely change.
Context for construction innovation
The context for innovation is defined as the need for
the environment to be receptive to innovation
(Pettigrew et al. 1992) and alignment with the context
is seen as vital for innovation to occur (Taylor and
Levitt 2007, Alin et al. 2013). Aligning the innovation
to the project would increase the actors’ acceptance
(Taylor and Levitt 2007). Treating misalignment
between innovation and its context includes stability
in relations between actors, accessible boundaries
between organizations and the use of innovation sup-
porters. Adding to this, Alin et al. (2013) investigate
the complex process of systemic innovation and
aligning it to its project network, suggesting an inter-
organizational focus for alignment. However, inter-
organizational collaboration to increase innovation is
difficult in the project-based construction industry due
to the loose ties between projects and companies
(Dubois and Gadde 2002).
Doree and Holmen (2004) argue for a distinction
between single and multiple actor innovations. Where
single actor innovation needs to focus on coupling
between a project and its company, and multiple
actor innovations also need to focus on couplings
between several projects and different companies, as
for example, in a UDP. To achieve this, developers are
described as important actors to strengthen relation-
ships, by creating collaboration and communication
channels (Blayse and Manley 2004, Loosemore 2015,
Ingemansson Havenvid et al. 2016). It is also argued
that the client must be organizationally ready for pro-
cess innovation, especially when the innovation devel-
opment and benefits stretch beyond the single
project, e.g. throughout a system (Kulatunga et al.
2011, Engstro €m and Stehn 2016). Additionally, the cli-
ent’s procurement strategies can serve to enhance the
relationships and knowledge sharing to support innov-
ation (Briscoe et al. 2004, Eriksson 2013,
Lindgren 2016).
To further discuss differences between innovation
occurring in systems rather than in single projects,
Harty (2005) separates between bounded and
unbounded innovation. Unbounded innovation is
equivalent to systemic innovation; they are able to
affect the interdependent and fragmented actors of
the industry. Systemic innovation is dependent on the
impact on included actors and surroundings, which
may slow the diffusion process with the decentralized
projects and fragmented actors in the construction
industry (Taylor and Levitt 2004).
Gann and Salter (2000) argue for the importance of
also addressing questions around management of

Table 1. Overview of the five included cases, with empirical material gathering methods.
Case Empirical material
Contractor 1 Interviews, workshop
Contractor 2 Interviews, workshop
Construction project Interview, documents
UDP 1 Interviews, meeting observations, documents
UDP 2 Interviews, seminar
innovation in PBOs. While Kale and Arditi (2010) focus
on the importance of internal influences to diffuse
innovation in the construction industry, research also
points to the importance of cooperation (Ling 2003,
Holmen et al. 2005, Bosch-Sijtsema and Postma 2009),
engagement (Widen et al. 2013) and communication
(Widen and Hansson 2007, Larsen 2011) to enhance
innovation in PBOs. These factors are found to be of
increased importance for systemic innovation. Another
important aspect, highlighted by Larsen (2011), is
awareness. In a fragmented network of actors, the
awareness of innovation must be a key management
task to create a common understanding of
the innovation.
Research approach
Coordinated construction logistics, in a Swedish con-
text, was first encountered by the author at workshops
and conferences organized by different construction
industry actors. A buzz was identified and some of the
presented coordinated construction logistics models
were analysed in a more strategic and detailed way.
The research is based on a qualitative study using a
multiple case study approach in order to provide
examples of the studied phenomenon, as in-depth
studies are essential to understand complex phenom-
enon such as coordinated construction logistics
(Flyvbjerg 2006). From the purpose of suggesting a
different way to study coordinated construction logis-
tics by mapping it as different types of innovation the
research question investigated in the paper is; how
can coordinated construction logistics be elaborated
on from an inter-organizational perspective?
Five cases have been included and analysed
together, they are presented in detail in the following
text. The empirical material from all cases consists of a
varied combination of semi-structured interviews,
workshops/seminar, meeting observations and docu-
ment analysis, to construct a context-dependent
understanding of the cases through triangulation
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 297
Interviewees
Logistics Manager 1
Logistics Manager 2
Logistics Manager 1
Logistics Manager 2
Senior Construction Manager
Logistics Site Manager
Project Manager
Client Support
Logistics Site Manager 1
Logistics Site Manager 2
Logistics Manager
Logistics Site Manager
(Patton 1990, Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). The
questions explored during the gathering of empirical
material were how the coordinated construction logis-
tics models were initiated, implemented and used, as
well as what effects they had on work methods within
projects and organizations. The five cases include
coordinated construction logistics models at two con-
tractors, one large construction project developed by
one developer with five parallel contracts, and two
urban development projects, see Table 1 for an over-
view. The cases include projects that are either resi-
dential, commercial or a combination of the two.
Since these project types have the same main actors,
e.g. developers, contractors and suppliers, and that
the focus is on project execution, planning, design
and production, these different types of construction
projects are comparable. While business models, fund-
ing methods and tenants might be different, the pro-
ject execution processes in the Swedish context are
highly similar, including designing the building, pro-
curing contractors and suppliers and carrying out the
actual construction.
Contractor 1 is a large Swedish contractor that has
initiated and developed a model in-house, which
focuses on material consolidation and transportation
with detailed scheduled deliveries to sites. Their articu-
lated goal was to increase the efficiency and safety
on-site. Contractor 1 offers the in-house model to all
of their projects, but it is not mandatory to use. An
internal logistics group is present in their largest proj-
ects and offers guidance to any project asking for
help. The model was presented during a workshop
between researchers and industry; afterwards inter-
views were conducted with two Logistics Managers.
Contractor 2 is a medium sized Swedish contractor,
owned by a larger Nordic contractor. Contractor 2 has
initiated and, with help from software planning tools,
developed a material transportation strategy through
consolidation and time slot deliveries to their sites.
The in-house model was developed for two specific
inner-city projects and has from there grown into a
298 S. H. BENGTSSON

separate subsidiary. Contractor 2 offers their in-house

model to all their projects, but only some use it, and
they also offer it to their clients to use as a coordi-
nated model between several contractors working on
adjoining sites. This model was also presented during
a workshop and follow-up interviews were conducted
with two Managers at the logistics subsidiary.
The construction project was initiated and is owned
by a large real-estate company. It consists of refurbish-
ment and construction of five buildings with offices,
hotels and a shopping mall and for the real-estate
company it is perceived to be unique and one of their
largest projects. Due to the tight inner city location
and the side by side work of five different contractors
the developer with its project management team initi-
ated a coordinated construction logistic model. They
procured an operator to be in charge of transportation
to the sites, creation of a common construction estab- Figure 1. Illustration of the involved actors and their interrela-
lishment for all contractors, rental of machinery, etc. In tions to the company-based model. Straight lines indicate con-
tractual relations.
other words, a third party logistics (3PL) set-up was
deployed. Material exploring this case was collected
signed up for the services. The gathering of material
from two interviews with a Senior Construction
for this case was done through information and expe-
Manager and a Logistics Site Manager; contractual
riences presented during a workshop in combination
documents of the model have also been analysed. with interviews with one Logistic Manager from the
UDP 1 is one of Sweden’s largest urban develop-
municipality and the Manager of the construction
ment projects, situated on the outskirts of Stockholm logistics centre.
city. It consists of more than ten stages with five to The empirical material has been analysed by first
ten housing or office projects in each stage, led by dif- identifying the relationships between the relevant
ferent developers and contractors. To reach the high actors in each model, the result is presented in Figure
environmental sustainability goals and to coordinate 1 to 3 in the next section. Thereafter quotes from the
the many actors, the municipality, landowner and pro- material have been used to create an understanding
ject initiator, developed and procured an operator to of the development, impact and objectives of each
run a construction logistics centre. It includes material model in the cases. This created an understanding of
storage and transportation, coordinated health and the context and how the actors were affected by the
safety regulations, coordination services and meetings, coordinated construction logistics models. Based on
as well as manpower and consultancy work. It is man- this, similarities and differences between the cases
datory for all developers and contractors to sign up to were identified. Applying Slaughter’s (1998) suggestion
the construction logistics centre. Interviews with the on different types of construction innovation, depend-
municipality’s project management and Logistics Site ing on their degree of change in concept and links,
Managers combined with meeting observation and the presented examples of coordinated construction
document analysis were explored in this case. logistics are mapped as different types of construction
UDP 2 is an urban development project next to a innovation, with different needs for implementation
university in a large Swedish city, including 24 housing and possibility to affect and change processes
developers and their contractors. When the production for actors.
of the first sites started, the municipality, landowner
and project initiator, and a few developers realized
the need for coordination between all sites and their
Findings
transportations. An operator was procured to develop Out of the five cases, a pattern in terms of develop-
and run a construction logistics centre, to coordinate ment, impact and objectives has been identified. The
all transports, offer a short-time storage space and pattern suggests that the five cases can be divided
serve as coordination central between all actors on- and described within three different models. These are
site. Most of the 24 developers or their contractors company-based model, project-based model, and

system-based model. For the company-based model,
the coordinated construction logistics mainly happens
within an organization with objectives to increase effi-
ciency and keep revenue from logistics services within
the organization. The project-based model is instead
initiated for a specific construction project, with rela-
tively high complexity and several actors from differ-
ent organizations that need to coordinate and
collaborate. The system-based model describes coordi-
nated construction logistics as happening in open sys-
tems, with many parallel projects, where it is difficult
to identify one actor with control over the model. The
objectives of the model are found to be used as a
tool both to collaborate and to increase sustainability.
All three models will be discussed in detail below,
using the case studies, and will also be used as a base
to map coordinated construction logistics models as
different types of construction innovation.
Company-based model
Many similarities can be found between the two case
studies at contractors and their respective models, as
well as a few differences. First of all, coordinated con-
struction logistics does not seem to have a longstand-
ing central position within the two contractors’
projects. Answering the question where logistics can
be found in the project organization, one Logistics
Manager concludes: “you are often placed on the
fringe, as a support function” (Logistics Manager 1,
Contractor 1). Another Logistics Manager reflected on
the coordination for construction logistics, concluding
that most actors and projects have their own solution.
“The industry has an incredible tradition to invent some-
thing new in every situation, your own solutions.”
(Logistics Manager 2, Contractor 2). Continuing the
reflection of the industry by saying: “all projects are
not unique, there are great similarities”, suggesting that
there should be possibilities to coordinate construc-
tion logistics models within projects and organizations.
Figure 1 illustrates the involved actors and their rela-
tion to the model.
Both contractors testify that the most difficult task
when implementing their construction logistics models
has been to get their sub-contractors to understand
and use it. “We try to use the same sub-contractors”
(Logistics Manager 1, Contractor 2) as a means for
them to learn the model and after a few projects
lower their quotations since some of the sub-contrac-
tors’ logistics costs is now paid for by Contractor 2.
The same Logistics Manager witnessed that a majority
of the sub-contractors first increase their quotation
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 299
since the new model is unknown and therefore seen
as a risk. The unification of all stakeholders appears to
be important for implementation, which was also sug-
gested by Logistics Manager 2 at Contractor 2. One
suggestion to increase the implementation of the
models is that the initiatives have to come from
higher up in the organizations in order to have the
mandate to implement a model. However, Logistics
Manager 1 at Contractor 1 can only recollect a few
projects where their clients have asked for, or even
brought up coordinated construction logistics. On the
other hand, Contractor 2 considers it to be “one of our
best sales pitches” (Logistic Manager 1, Contractor 2).
In connection to the process of getting all stake-
holders involved, it is also important to create the
right business plan for the model. The contractors’
main goal with their models is to directly lower their
logistics costs and increase efficiency on-site to
shorten the time table, as an indirect way to lower
their costs. However, these effects have so far been
difficult to achieve and measure, Logistics Manager 1
at Contractor 2 exemplifies that they can see positive
effects in term of environmental impact, e.g. reduced
number of transportations to sites, but possible cost
savings are difficult to quantify. When discussing their
business plans, both contractors are in agreement that
their current plans are inadequate. “We pay for our
logistics twice right now, but we have to start some-
where” (Logistics Manager 1, Contractor 2), referring to
that they pay both for their developed in-house model
and for their sub-contractors and suppliers standard
logistics offering. Logistics Manager 1 at Contractor 1
agrees, using the example of on-site materials han-
dling: “We pay for it twice right now”. Explaining that
their model includes coordinated material handling to
be done at night, but their sub-contractors are at the
same time still paid to do it themselves due to an
unsolved discussion with the sub-contractor union
regarding too monotonous work tasks without the
material handling.
The Logistics Managers were also asked whether
their models were adaptable to third party logistics
(3PL) models used in context with several different
contractors. All interviewed Managers are in agree-
ment that they cannot use their model in a project
with an externally initiated 3PL model, with comments
like “it is difficult to combine our model with 3PL”
(Logistics Manager 1, Contractor 1) and “I do not
believe in 3PL, the questions exist within each project”
(Logistics Manager 2, Contractor 2). Logistics Manager
1 at Contractor 2 concludes “We lose a significant part
of our revenue if a client procures a 3PL model”.
300 S. H. BENGTSSON
Logistic Manager 2 at Contractor 2 goes even further
in his reasoning by exploring whether they should
expand their business and offer their model as a 3PL
to other contractors and projects; that it could
increase their revenue, but on the other hand it might
create leverage to keep the knowledge within
the company.
To conclude, despite the two contractors’ models
being slightly different it is apparent that the contrac-
tors’ aim is to create new business opportunities and
thereby increase their revenue. Their focus is on the
production phase, to make their sites more effective
in terms of transportation and material handling. The
main finding is that they have reacted to the current
market, with an increasing number of 3PL models on
offer, by creating their own in-house model, to minim-
ize the risk of losing a significant part of the revenue.
Project-based model
The construction logistics model in the construction
project is often used at industry workshops and in
media as a good example of where several contractors
collaborate with one common coordinated construc-
tion logistics model. During the interviews with the
Senior Construction Manager, from the project man-
agement team, and the Logistics Site Manager, from
the logistics operator, it became clear that the devel-
oper, with its project management team, took initia-
tive from an early phase and developed a model for
coordinated construction logistics. Figure 2 illustrated
the actors involved in the model and how they are
interrelated.
The developer’s goals for the project included an
ambitious environmental profile, high health and
safety goals and minimized disturbance for on-going
business. It was from these goals that the initiative
was taken to develop a coordinated construction
logistics model. As described in the tendering docu-
ments, the model is constructed in three levels; the
base level, which for example includes material stor-
age and transportation, joint establishment and fen-
ces; the obligatory level including for example cranes
and waste management; the optional level including
machine leasing, on-site material handling and educa-
tion. A downside with this model is that a lot of the
cost associated with construction logistics is paid for
by the developer. This lowered the incentives for the
contractors to use the model to its full extent, for
example, the material transportations from the storage
were often not fully loaded because the contractor
had no financial incentives to cumulate their orders
Figure 2. Illustration of the involved actors and their interrela-
tions to the project-based model. Straight lines indicate con-
tractual relations, dashed lines indicate informal
communication.
from the storage and instead they asked for a few
things at a time.
The Senior Construction Manager has been
involved in developing the model and has the main
responsibility for coordinating all contractors’ work on-
site including their usage of the model. Having
worked as a contractor for many years, the Senior
Construction Manager has steered the contractors
with a firm hand, making sure everyone is on-board
with the change and help change their work proc-
esses in line with the model. The Logistics Site
Manager from the operator agrees that steering the
contractors with a firm hand has been the key success
factor for implementing the model. Compared to the
other models where flexibility in usage has been
accepted when possible, no flexibility has been
allowed in this model according to the two interview-
ees. The Logistics Site Manager highlights this fact
when saying “the Site Manager for every contractor has
to get into line”. Naturally, some teething problems
did exist, the Logistics Site Manager exemplifies with
one contractor who wanted control over the gate sys-
tem in order to deliver material directly to their site
instead of using the material storage and coordinated
transportation to the sites. Beyond the strict manage-
ment, collaboration is suggested as the tool used to
overcome these initial problems. Joint health and
safety meetings and regular site visits to each other’s

sites in combination with the joint establishment are
highlighted by the Logistics Site Manager to have cre-
ated a collaborative environment where the contrac-
tors help each other and exchange experiences.
For the contractors, working with a coordinated
construction logistics model meant a cut in their ten-
dering offer, to not include material transportation,
fences, establishment etc., and in turn a cut in their
revenues. However, it was not only the contractors
who had to rethink their budgets and their normal
revenues. Both for the operator and the developer,
this work processes was new as it included new tasks,
expenses and potential revenues. This set-up can be
seen as a redistribution of tasks and associated budg-
ets, with the aim of increasing coordination between
all actors during the production phase. For the opera-
tors, instead of just leasing machines, fences, cranes
etc., this meant that they had to take a holistic
approach towards construction logistics and on-site
overheads in general, including having a management
team of around 10 people on-site during the whole
construction phase. According to the Logistics Site
Manager, the operator was able to earn money from
the large quantities of services and products supplied
for the project because of its size. For the contractors,
it meant planning their work in new ways in order to
benefit from the services provided by the operator
instead of focusing on their lost revenues. The devel-
oper also had to consider the whole project from a
holistic perspective. On one hand, direct costs
increased from overheads and on the other hand, the
cost of contractors could be reduced by including the
model in their tendering documents. This project can
be seen as a pilot project, using this model for both
the developer and the operator. However, having put
in a significant amount of resources to develop the
model, their revenues might not have reached the
potential in this project. Still, the operator has already
sold an almost identical solution to another developer
executing a large project with several contractors
across the street from this case.
To summarize the project-based model, it is the
only model that is described by the interviewees as a
success and that has been re-procured, in the same
form, for another project. However, an aspect that
should not be forgotten is that the presented case
was an inner city project with several large scale
neighbouring buildings and infrastructure projects
going on simultaneously by other developers. Hence,
even though this developer was able to steer its con-
tractors using the presented model, the construction
logistics was not coordinated on a larger city scale.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 301
This would mean an increasing number of actors,
instead of only one, i.e. a developer, which had all the
power to make decisions. As will be made visible in
the next section, describing the system-based model,
the coordination becomes increasingly more difficult
when several developers have to collaborate in order
to implement a construction logistics model. The
Logistics Site Manager summarizes this by saying:
“You will come far with a decisive developer that paves
the way”.
System-based model
The two municipalities that implemented a coordi-
nated construction logistic model for their UDPs had
one goal in common, namely to ensure on-site collab-
oration between developers and contractors. UDP 1
also aimed to use their model as a tool to reach their
ambitious environmental goals:
“It is important for the municipality with large urban
development projects, a place to drive innovation in
the industry”. Project Manager, UDP 1
“The municipality must see public welfare instead of
financial aspects, a tool to reach the environmental
goals”. Client Support, UDP 1
Establishing ambitious goals in complex systems,
with a fragmented set of actors, create a need for
incentives in order for all actors to be aligned and
work towards the same goals. See Figure 3 for
involved actors and their interrelations with the model
for the two UDPs. A discussion within both UDPs has
been around what these incentives should include. In
UDP 2 this discussion was centred on how to align all
contracts between the municipality, the construction
logistics supplier, developers and contractors, in order
to ensure that all actors work according to the same
goals and prerequisites. For UDP 1, the discussion was
instead focused on what financial incentives should be
given to the developers. As exemplified by Client
Support at UDP 1 who believes that “the basic problem
is the business model”. The focus on financial incen-
tives for developers has created a situation where
developers consider their potential financial gain from
using the model as the main goal, instead of increased
collaboration and lower environmental impact.
Despite it leading to problems of aligning the goals
and incentives, several interviewees believe that
changes have to come from municipalities or other
initiators, e.g. “Driving forces are required from the top”
(Logistics Site Manager 2, UDP 1). An opposing belief
is that coordinated construction logistics should not
302 S. H. BENGTSSON
Figure 3. Illustration of the involved actors and their interrela-
tions to the system-based model. Straight lines indicate contrac-
tual relations, dashed lines indicate informal communication.
be required if contractors learned how to plan; “we
should not need 3PL if the contractors could plan them-
selves for their own projects” (Logistics Site Manager 1,
UDP 2). This view might be accurate when exploring
single projects, but for UDPs, it misses the dimensions
of the inevitable collaboration between neighbour-
ing sites.
There is a unified view that collaboration between
actors and projects should start as early as possible.
Problems with collaboration can partly derive from the
late inclusion of actors, e.g. contractors are procured
just before production on-site starts, with little time
for logistics planning beforehand. To include coordi-
nated construction logistics in the design phase has
been a wish from both research and industry for a
long time with the aim of increasing the collaboration
between the supply chain and project processes.
However, one Logistics Site Manager considers this to
be unlikely: “We will never be included in the design
phase. Especially not with the Architects, they don’t
always think in terms of buildability” (Logistics Site
Manager, UDP 2).
UDP 2 had great difficulties with the planning
aspect since the construction logistics model was only
in place after production started. According to
Logistics Manager at UDP 2 this was due to the muni-
cipality “who decided the vision for the UDP and had
limited construction competence”. The Logistic Manager
continues the argument by highlighting the import-
ance of procurement strategies, claiming that the pro-
curement of the construction logistics models will
determine how and if the goals are achieved. To com-
municate the model from the municipality to on-site
workforce, the model should also be included in the
developers’ and contractors’ procurement strategies.
Reflecting on this, one Logistics Site Manager asks
“What is needed to be able to assert usage?” (Logistics
Site Manager, UDP 2). In summary, how the construc-
tion logistics models are perceived is highly depend-
ent on when they are implemented and how they are
communicated in the actors’ procurement strategies.
Obstacles from unaligned contracts and procure-
ment strategies not taking the coordinated construc-
tion logistics models into account are described
before. However, the Logistics Site Manager at UDP 2
saw increased usage of their model when they
stopped focusing on their contracts; “The focus has
been on contracts, and there have been problems reach-
ing the actors. Now we have put the contracts to the
side and focus on solving issues instead”. UDP 1 experi-
ence similar problems, not reaching the actors, since
the chain of communication is extensive. The commu-
nication in this complex setting will be a potential
obstacle for the system-based model to be under-
stood and used by all actors. The informal relations in
UDPs will have an important role to foster the
required changes to implement coordinated construc-
tion logistics. Furthermore, as highlighted above, the
great number of contracts is either an obstacle, if not
aligned, or a potential tool to spread the change if
the procurement strategies allow for it.
The developer’s role was discussed extensively dur-
ing all interviews and in particular what expertise they
need to collaborate and create conditions for their
contractors to implement coordinated construction
logistics. On-site construction logistics is usually
handled by contractors, which is why the developers
are inexperienced in what they can expect from a
coordinated system-based model and what they can
demand from their contractors. Logistics Managers at
both UDPs highlighted that procurement strategies
that took an active stand for the models drove
increased collaboration and usage of respective
model. According to Logistics Manager at UDP 2
“everything is about communication and information”,
regardless of the type of procurement, the actors

Table 2. Summary of the three logistics models as type of innovation and needed coordination described by the interview
respondents.
Coordinated logistics model Innovation types (Slaughter 1998)
Company-based model Incremental
Project-based model Modular
System-based model Systemic
need to meet and talk to each other in order to
collaborate.
To summarize, the models at both UDPs have an
on-site efficiency goal, but also more clearly defined
holistic long-term sustainability goals. Both models
activate a broad set of actors, which lead to a focus
on contracts and procurement strategies to align all
actors to the goals. This is also where the main
obstacles for the models lie i.e. how best to communi-
cate in order to coordinate within the model. The
developers have an important role here as potential
innovation supporters.
Discussion
Types of innovation
In order to suggest a different way to study coordi-
nated construction logistics, three different models for
coordinated construction logistics have been identified
in the empirical findings. Table 2 summarises the three
models as different types of innovation and, through
quotes by interview respondents, highlights the inter-
organizational coordination in each model, in order to
compare the models against each other. These three
models will now be discussed as different types of
innovation, based on Slaughter’s (1998, 2000) defin-
ition from incremental to radical innovation depend-
ing on what context (Engwall, 2003) the models exist
in. Firstly, it is important to establish that all three
models should be seen as innovations in their respect-
ive context. Using Freeman and Soete’s (1997) defin-
ition of innovation, all three models create new
processes in the context they are initiated and imple-
mented into, which is why the paper from here on
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 303
Summarizing quotes
“you are often placed on the fringe, as a support function”
(Logistics Manager 1, Contractor 1)
“We try to use the same sub-contractors” (Logistics Manager 1,
Contractor 2)
“it is difficult to combine our model with 3PL” (Logistics
Manager 1, Contractor 1)
“You will come far with a decisive developer that paves the way”
(Logistics Site Manager, Construction project)
“the Site Manager for every contractor has to get into line”
(Logistics Site Manager, Construction project)
“everything is about communication and information” (Logistics
Manager, UDP 2)
“The focus has been on contracts, and there have been problems
reaching the actors. Now we have put the contracts to the side
and focus on solving issues instead”
(Logistics Site Manager, UDP 2)
“Driving forces are required from the top” (Logistics Site
Manager 2, UDP 1)
will discuss the three models as different types
of innovation.
From Slaughter (2000), the three models can be
described based on a change in concept and change
in links to map type of innovation. Hence, the three
models, each reflecting one type of innovation, will be
discussed from these two aspects. Table 2 can be
used to highlight the inter-organizational coordination
for each model. The company-based model should be
seen as incremental innovation as the findings show
gradual changes in their internal processes with imple-
mentation in a few projects at a time. The coordin-
ation mainly happens within single projects, only
affecting on-site actors. There is a low change in links
between actors, since low impact on the organ-
izations’ departments outside a single project
is detected.
Looking at the project-based model, increased com-
plexity in the system is found, as more actors are
affected both vertically and horizontally. The decision
to use coordinated construction logistics was made by
the developer, rather than individual contractors.
Furthermore, due to the size of the project, five con-
tractors were procured. In other words, more complex
coordination between actors is required in this model.
Adding to this, there was an increased usage of logis-
tics site management, as a new actor affecting the sys-
tem. The production processes for the contractors are
described as widely altered while the links between
actors are more limitedly affected, suggesting that the
project-based model should be seen as modu-
lar innovation.
Taking another step in complexity and coordin-
ation, we found the system-based model. Here, there
are even more actors to account for and the main
304 S. H. BENGTSSON
difference from the other two models is the open sys-
tem in which the innovation takes place. The model
itself is also more complex, consisting of more inter-
dependent parts that need to be coordinated. There is
not one single developer or contractor who is respon-
sible for the model and thereby able to control the
other actors’ implementation. Instead, the innovation
initiator must go through different developers to
implement the model at contractors and suppliers on-
site. It becomes clear that the developers must coord-
inate between themselves to a larger extent than nor-
mal and take construction logistics into account in an
earlier phase, i.e. during design and procurement. In
the findings, we can see that the system-based model
creates a need for new actors working to support the
coordination between both the developers and the
contractors, in the two cases these actors were
assigned to the construction logistics centres. Based
on these factors, the system-based model is suggested
to be seen as a systemic innovation, where large
changes in the concept and new links between
actors exist.
Possibilities for coordinated construction logistics
Considering the three identified models as different
types of innovation can create new insights on coordi-
nated construction logistics. With the project perspec-
tive as foundation and the actor relations emphasis in
the collected empirical material, the following discus-
sion will focus on insights regarding context and driv-
ing forces behind the different types of innovation.
As discussed above, the three models exist in differ-
ent contexts and understanding these contexts for
innovation is seen as important for implementation
(Taylor and Levitt 2007). Since construction projects
are inter-organizational projects, the context is com-
plex, where the different organizations coming
together need to be aligned in terms of e.g. routines,
values, practices (Levina 2005) as well as alignment of
goals and interests (Cabrera and Cabrera 2002). While
Alin et al. (2013) discuss the importance of aligning
context for innovation to succeed in single projects,
the empirical findings presented in this paper indi-
cates that this is even more important in systems such
as UDPs. Open systems, characteristic for UDPs, leads
to a larger diversity between the loosely coupled
actors, creating a need for more effort in order to
align the context and innovation. By drawing a parallel
to Doree and Holmen’s (2004) findings that different
tight and loose couplings are needed to implement
innovation depending on the number of actors
involved. Comparing the modular innovation of the
project-based model with the systemic innovation of
the system-based model, it becomes apparent that
the modular innovation, to a larger extent, is better
able to align to the context and, thereby, creates the
better possibility for implementation. Since the links
or the coordination, does not change to any signifi-
cant extent for modular innovation. For example, the
project-based model had a limited amount of actors
to control, see Figure 2, and they successfully steered
them into using the model and made no exception to
go outside the model. The respondents indicate that
the strong leadership, with unity between the leading
actors, lead to the perceived success of the model.
The system-based model, on the other hand, indicated
more difficulties in controlling the actors involved, see
Figure 3; they were too many to steer in detail. The
leadership does not seem to be clear for the actors
involved, regardless of whether the initiator, the oper-
ator or one of the developers is in charge of the mod-
els. It seems that a potential key factor in having a
strong leadership is more difficult to come by when
the complexity increase from the modular innovation
to the systemic innovation.
Whilst coordinated construction logistics from a
supply chain management perspective has often
focused on the production phase and on-site aspects,
the findings indicate that a broader, holistic view has
to be taken when we move from incremental to sys-
temic innovation. More specifically, to not only focus
on the supply chain but also the construction process,
from initiation to completion, in the projects.
Construction logistics has largely been seen as a con-
tractor issue, in both research and practice, however,
here it becomes apparent that to coordinate construc-
tion logistics from a system perspective, the developer
becomes a key player. In studies of construction
innovation, the developer is often pointed out as the
appropriate actor for taking an innovation supporter
role (Kulatunga et al. 2011, Engstro€m and Stehn 2016).
However, this role is debated in whether the develop-
ers have the right capabilities and objectives to sup-
port innovation concerning on-site processes (e.g.
Loosemore 2015). In the project-based model, where
one developer has initiated the modular innovation
and controls it throughout the project, they are able
to collaborate and communicate with the involved
actors (Blayse and Manley 2004, Loosemore 2015,
Ingemansson Havenvid et al. 2016). In contrast, the
system-based model indicates that the collaboration
and communication between actors are difficult for
systemic innovation, here it was also less clear who

was responsible for what. Innovation supporters are
important for change processes; here it becomes
apparent that the common view of the contractor
having this role for coordinated construction logistics
is only applicable in the company-based model. For
the project-based model, the developer is identified as
appropriate for this role and for the system-based
model, many developers in collaboration, depending
on them having the right capabilities and objectives.
These actors can be said to have a large portion of
the power over the change process, where the find-
ings indicate that a strong leadership is a key factor as
discussed above. Prior research (Eriksson 2013,
Lindgren 2016) suggests that the developers’ procure-
ment strategies become important when managing
innovation in complex construction projects. In other
words, in order to make the roles and responsibilities
clearer regarding collaboration and communication for
systemic innovation, the developers’ procurement
strategies should be seen as a useful tool, from which
the actors can be steered towards innovation
implementation.
To summarize, the findings indicate that the cases
having either the company-based model or the pro-
ject-based model are positive to the development of
their processes stemming from the implemented
innovation. On the contrary, for the system-based
model, both cases indicate a lack of commitment from
the actors towards the systemic innovation. The main
differences found are the open system that needs to
be managed when implementing systemic innovation.
If communication (Widen and Hansson 2007, Larsen
2011), cooperation (Holmen et al. 2005, Bosch-Sijtsema
and Postma 2009) and internal influences (Kale and
Arditi 2010) are important for management to imple-
ment innovation in construction projects, then these
aspects must be handled in a way that takes the open
system into account when implementing systemic
innovation. These findings suggest that a lack of unity
in leadership was an obstacle in implementing sys-
temic innovation in the studied open systems.
Conclusions
From the research question on how coordinated con-
struction logistics can be elaborated on from an
inter-organizational perspective, the current discussed
topic of coordinated construction logistics is explored
from inter-organizational coordination, taking a project
perspective with an actor focus, to increase the under-
standing of the area. The findings show that there are
differences between different kinds of construction
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 305
logistics models, mainly due to their respective devel-
opment, impact and objectives. Three different types
of coordinated construction logistics models are pre-
sented, and mapped as different types of innovation,
in order to broaden the understanding of coordinated
construction logistics.
Based on these findings, coordinated construction
logistics should not be seen as one unified solution
that increases productivity. Instead, there are several
levels of inter-organizational coordination, which are
initiated and developed differently and will affect
organizations, projects and systems differently. In
other words, the objectives for coordinated construc-
tion logistics might not only be to increase productiv-
ity but to facilitate collaboration, learning and
innovation between inter-organizational actors and
lower the environmental impact. Therefore, the paper
contributes to the supply chain management literature
by highlighting a need to broaden the view of coordi-
nated construction logistics, exemplified by mapping
it as different types of innovation. To critically analyse
the current trend of coordinated construction logistics
from different perspectives will increase the under-
standing and thereby develop the field both theoretic-
ally and practically. Moreover, by exploring
coordinated construction logistics as different types of
innovation the findings indicate that commitment,
communication and cooperation, combined with a
strong leadership, are important in order to imple-
ment the different models. These findings are aligned
with suggestions from supply chain management
research. The fact that the novel perspective taken in
this paper leads to similar findings as previous
research is interesting and further established what is
previously suggested within the supply chain manage-
ment literature. This should be acknowledged as a
foundation from where to further explore the struc-
tures and governing aspects of the actors’ behaviour
towards coordinated construction logistics in construc-
tion projects.
By categorising the explored models as different
types of innovation, the main practical implication is
for management to understand that, depending on
context and number of involved actors, different mod-
els will suit different organizations, projects and sys-
tems. Where an inter-organizational contexts seems to
require unified management, actors engagement and
clear directives. If these factors are not present, the
innovation runs the risk of not being embedded.
Limitations in the findings presented in this paper
include the limited number of cases. Five cases is not
enough to be able to claim with certainty that the
306 S. H. BENGTSSON
three presented models of coordinated construction
logistics are the ones mainly present in the construc-
tion industry. With thicker empirical findings these
models could be better described as different types of
innovation, and furthermore, new models could
potentially be identified. As the paper includes cases
with residential and commercial construction projects,
the findings should be viewed as relevant for the
building construction industry specifically, as the con-
text differs for infrastructure projects where other
aspects might be relevant for coordinated construc-
tion logistics.
However, the paper has still been able to explore
its purpose of analysing coordinated construction
logistics in another way than from a supply chain
management perspective, namely as different types of
innovation. This will add to the current discussion of
coordinated construction logistics and hopefully
increase the holistic understanding of the topic. To
further develop the understanding of coordinated con-
struction logistics future studies should include the
role of the developers as innovation supporters and
how their procurement strategies can enable coordi-
nated construction logistics in both projects and sys-
tems. To further develop the understanding of
coordinated construction logistics, this study could be
developed and compared by exploring not just the
construction logistics relation to the construction pro-
cess, but also to the supply-chain, with a continued
actor focus the governing aspects of their behaviour
could be explored. Moreover, a comparison with other
industries, such as the manufacturing industry, could
be of interest to capture learnings from other settings
where coordinated logistics is more established while
keeping the project focus of the construction industry
in mind.
Acknowledgements
Part of the empirical findings presented in this paper was
presented at ARCOM 2017: 33rd Annual Conference.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding
This study was supported financially by Swedish Research
Council Formas.
References
Alin, P., et al., 2013. Aligning misaligned systemic innova-
tions: probing inter-firm effects development in project
networks. Project management journal, 44 (1), 77–93.
Aouad, G., Ozorhon, B., and Abbott, C., 2010. Facilitating
innovation in construction: directions and implications for
research and policy. Construction innovation, 10 (4),
374–394.
Bankvall, L., et al., 2010. Interdependence in supply chains
and projects in construction. Supply chain management:
an international journal, 15 (5), 385–393.
Blayse, A.M. and Manley, K., 2004. Key Influences on con-
struction innovation. Construction innovation, 4 (3),
143–154.
Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M. and Postma, T.J.B.M., 2009. Cooperative
innovation projects: capabilities and governance mecha-
nisms. Journal of product innovation management, 26 (1),
58–70.
Briscoe, G.H., et al., 2004. Client-led strategies for construc-
tion supply chain improvement. Construction management
and economics, 22 (2), 193–201.
Bygballe, L.E. and Ingemansson, M., 2014. The logic of innov-
ation in construction. Industrial marketing management, 43
(3), 512–524.
Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E.F., 2002. Knowledge-sharing
dilemmas. Organization studies, 23 (5), 687–710.
Cox, R. and Goodman, C.S., 1956. Marketing of housebuild-
ing materials. The journal of marketing, 21 (1), 36–61.
Doree, A.G. and Holmen, E., 2004. Achieving the unlikely:
innovating in the loosely coupled construction system.
Construction management and economics, 22 (8), 827–838.
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E., 2002. The construction industry
as a loosely couples system: implications for productivity
and innovation. Construction management and economics,
20 (7), 621–631.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building
from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of
management journal, 50 (1), 25–32.
Ekesk€ar, A. and Rudberg, M., 2016. Third-party logistics in
construction: the case of a large hospital project.
Construction management and economics, 34 (3), 174–191.
Engstro €m, S. and Stehn, L., 2016. Barriers to client-contractor
communication: implementing process innovation in a
building project in Sweden. International journal of project
organisation and management, 8 (2), 151–171.
Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: linking projects to
history and context. Research policy, 32 (5), 789–808.
Eriksson, P.E., 2013. Exploration and exploitation in project-
based organizations: Development and diffusion of know-
ledge at different organizational levels in construction
companies. International journal of project management,
31 (3), 333–341.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study
research. Qualitative inquiry, 12 (2), 219–245.
Freeman, C. and Soete, L., 1997. The economics of industrial
innovation. 3rd ed. London: Pinter.
Gann, D.M. and Salter, A.J., 2000. Innovation in project-
based, service- enhanced firms: the construction of com-
plex products and systems. Research policy, 29 (7),
955–972.

Harty, C., 2005. Innovation in construction: a sociology of
technology approach. Building research and information,
33 (6), 512–522.
Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B., 1990. Architectural innov-
ation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies
and the failure of established firms. Administrative science
quarterly, 35 (1), 9–30.
Holmen, E., Pedersen, A.-C., and Torvatn, T., 2005. Building
relationships for technological innovation. Journal of busi-
ness research, 58 (9), 1240–1250.
Hullova, D., Trott, P., and Simms, C.D., 2016. Uncovering the
reciprocal complementarity between product and process
innovation. Research policy, 45 (5), 929–940.
Ingemansson Havenvid, M., et al., 2016. Renewal in construc-
tion projects: tracing effects of client requirements.
Construction management and economics, 34 (11),
790–807.
Kale, S. and Arditi, D., 2010. Innovation diffusion modeling in
the construction industry. Journal of construction engineer-
ing and management, 136 (3), 329–340.
Kulatunga, K., et al., 2011. Client’s championing characteris-
tics that promote construction innovation. Construction
innovation, 11 (4), 380–398.
Larsen, G.D., 2011. Understanding the early stages of the
innovation diffusion: awreness, influence and communica-
tion networks. Construction management and economics,
29 (10), 987–1002.
Levina, N., 2005. Collaborating on multiparty information sys-
tems development projects: a collective reflection-in-
action view. Information systems research, 16 (2), 109–130.
Lindgren, J., 2016. Diffusing systemic innovations: influencing
factors, approaches and further research. Architectural
engineering and design management, 12 (1), 19–28.
Lindgren, J. and Widen, K., 2017. Diffusing building informa-
tion management – knowledge integration, mechanisms
and knowledge development. Architectural engineering
and design management, 14 (5), 347–362.
Ling, F.Y.Y., 2003. Managing the implemenation of construc-
tion innovations. Construction management and econom-
ics, 21 (6), 635–649.
Lloyd-Walker, B.M., Mills, A.J., and Walker, D.H.T., 2014.
Enabling construction innovation: the role of a no-blame
culture as a collaboration behavioural driver in project alli-
ances. Construction management and economics, 32 (3),
229–245.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 307
Loosemore, M., 2015. Construction innovation: Fifth gener-
ation perspective. Journal of Management in Engineering,
31 (6), 04015012.
OECD. 2015. OECD Innovation Strategy: Defining Innovation
[online]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/site/innova-
tionstrategy/defininginnovation.htm. [Accessed 20 January
2018]
Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research meth-
ods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pettigrew, A., Ferlie, E., and Mckee, L., 1992. Shaping stra-
tegic change - the case of the NHS in the 1980s. Public
money and management, 12 (3), 27–31.
Slaughter, S.E., 1998. Models of construction innovation.
Journal of construction engineering and management, 124
(3), 226–231.
Slaughter, S.E., 2000. Implementation of construction innova-
tions. Building research and information, 28 (1), 2–17.
Sundquist, V., Gadde, L.-E., and Hulthen, K., 2018.
Reorganizing construction logistics for improved perform-
ance. Construction management and economics, 36 (1),
49–65.
Taylor, J. and Levitt, R., 2004. Understanding and managing
systemic innovation in project-based industries. In:
Innovations: project management research 2004. Newton
Square, PA: Project Management Institute, 83–99.
Taylor, J.E. and Levitt, R., 2007. Innovation alignment and
project network dynamics: an integrative model for
change. Project management journal, 38 (3), 22–35.
Thunberg, M., Rudberg, M., and Karrbom Gustavsson, T.,
2017. Categorising on-site problems: a supply chain man-
agement perspective on construction projects.
Construction innovation, 17 (1), 90–111.
Vrijhoef, R. and Koskela, L., 2000. The four roles of supply
chain management in construction. European journal of
purchasing and supply management, 6 (3), 169–178.
Widen, K. and Hansson, B., 2007. Diffusion characteristics of
private sector financed innovation in Sweden.
Construction management and economics, 25 (5), 467–475.
Widen, K., Olander, S., and Atkin, B., 2013. Links between
successful innovation diffusion and stakeholder engage-
ment. Journal of management in engineering, 30 (5),
04014018.
Winch, G., 1998. Zephyrs of creative destruction: understand-
ing the management of innovation in construction.
Building research and information, 26 (5), 268–279.