Advertisement

Organizational Culture for Construction Enterprises in the Fourth Industrial Revolution

  • Oluwayomi BabatundeEmail author
  • Olalekan S. Oshodi
Conference paper

Abstract

Construction industry is slow to innovate and adopt new technology. Construction innovation can be disruptive or enabling, depending on the organizational culture of construction enterprises. Since organizational culture shapes business practices, there is the need to understand the implications of organizational culture on innovation adoption. The aim of this conceptual study is to recommend the organizational culture type for construction innovation adoption in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0). The methodology includes the interpretivism research philosophy, inductive research approach, and qualitative research methodological choice. Using the integrative literature review, qualitative/textual data were gathered on the dimensions of Industry 4.0, organizational culture types, and the dominant organizational culture types among construction enterprises in eleven countries. The findings include the need to manage change in the digitalization of processes and products involved in construction activities’ value co-creation. The adhocracy culture is recommended as best supporting innovation adoption in the rapidly diffusing era of Industry 4.0. This could be subjective; hence, a limitation and theoretical implication for a future empirical study to validate.

Keywords

Construction enterprises Industry 4.0 Innovation Interpretivism Organizational culture 

References

  1. 1.
    Denisen, D.R.: What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21(3), 619–654 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., Macey, W.: Organizational climate and culture. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 64, 361–388 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Watkins, M.: What is organizational culture? And why should we care. Harvard Bus. Rev., 15 May 2013. https://hbr.org/2013/05/what-is-organizational-culture
  4. 4.
    Schein, E.H.: What you need to know about organizational culture. Training Dev. J. 40(1), 30–33 (1986)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robertson, T.S.: The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation. J. Mark. 31(1), 14–19 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morrar, R., Arman, H., Mousa, S.: The fourth industrial revolution (industry 4.0): a social innovation perspective. Technol. Innov. Manage. Rev. 7(11), 12–20 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eberhard, B., Podio, M., Alonso, A.P., Radovica, E., Avotina, L., Peiseniece, L., Caamaño Sendon, M., Gonzales Lozano, A., Solé-Pla, J.: Smart work: the transformation of the labor market due to the fourth industrial revolution (I4.0). Int. J. Bus. Econ. Sci. Appl. Res. 10(3), 47–66 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carvalho, N., Chaim, O., Cazarini, E., Gerolamo, M.: Manufacturing in the fourth industrial revolution: a prospect in sustainable manufacturing. Procedia Manufac. 21, 671–678 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, M.H., Yun, J.J., Pyka, A., Won, D.K., Kodama, F., Schiuma, G., Park, H.S., Jeon, J., Park, K.B., Jung, K.H., Yan, M-R, Lee, S.Y., Zhao, X.: How to respond to the fourth industrial revolution, or the second information technology revolution? Dynamic new combinations between technology, market, and society through open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Market Complexity. 4(21). https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/4/3/21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hällgren, M.: The construction of research questions in project management. Int. J. Project Manage. 30(7), 804–816 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilson, L.L., Goldberg, C.B.: Editors’ comment: so, what is a conceptual paper? Group Organ. Manage. 40(2), 127–130 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torraco, R.J.: Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 15(4), 404–428 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rocco, T.S., Plakhotnik, M.S.: Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: terms, functions, and distinctions. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 8(1), 120–130 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aouad, G., Ozorhon, B., Abbott, C.: Facilitating innovation in construction: directions and implications for research and policy. Constr. Innov. 10(4), 374–394 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hogan, S.J., Coote, L.V.: Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: a test of schein’s model. J. Bus. Res. 67(8), 1609–1621 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusions of Innovations. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York (1962)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kothari, C.R.: Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International, Chennai (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A.: Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mark, L.: The philosophical underpinnings of educational research. Polyglossia 19(1), 5–11 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., Netwon, R.: Quantitative and qualitative research in the built environment: application of “mixed” research approach. Work Study 51(1), 17–31 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Torraco, R.J.: Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 4(3), 356–367 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Whetten, D.A.: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad. Manage. Rev. 14(4), 490–495 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noble, H., Smith, J.: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid. Based Nurs. 18(2), 34–35 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee, M.H., Yun, J.J., Pyka, A., Won, D.K., Kodama, F., Schiuma, G., Park, H.S., Jeon, J., Park, K.B., Jung, K.H., Yan, M.-R., Lee, S.Y., Zhao, X.: How to respond to the fourth industrial revolution, or the second information technology revolution? Dynamic new combinations between technology, market, and society through open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Market Complexity 4(21), 1–24 (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chan, J., Dang, S., Dow, S.P.: Improving innovation with expert facilitation. In: 19th ACM Conference on CSCW, pp. 1223–1235. ACM, San Francisco (2016a)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chan, J., Dang, S., Dow, S.P.: IdeaGens: enabling expert facilitation of crowd brainstorming. In: 19th ACM Conference on CSCW, pp. 13–16. ACM, San Francisco (2016b)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu, T., Wu, N.: A review of study on the competing values framework. Int. J. Bus. Manage. 4(7), 37–42 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quinn, R.E., Rohrbaugh, J.: A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Manage. Sci. 29(3), 363–377 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jimenez-Jimenez, D., Sanz-valle, R.: Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Manage. Decis. 49(1), 55–72 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cameron, K., Quinn, R.E.: Diagnosing and changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. China Renmin University Press, Beijing (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaarst-Brown, M.L., Nicholson, S., Von Dran, G.M., Stanton, J.M.: Organizational cultures of libraries as a strategic resource. Libr. Trends 53(1), 33–53 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koh, T.Y., Low, S.P.: Organizational culture and TQM implementation in construction firms in Singapore. Eng. Constr. Manage. Econ. 26(3), 237–248 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nummelin, J.: Measuring organizational culture in construction sector – finnish sample. In: CCIM Conference Proceedings, pp. 57–68. BUiD/CIB/CICE, Dubai (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu, A.M.M., Zhang, S., Leung, M.: A framework for assessing organizational culture of chinese construction enterprises. Eng. Constr. Architectural Manage. 13(4), 327–342 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oney-Yazici, E., Giritli, H., Topcu-Oraz, G., Acar, E.: Oragnizational culture: the case of turkish construction industry. Eng. Constr. Architectural Manage. 14(6), 519–531 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fong, P.S.W., Kwok, C.W.C.: Organizational culture and knowledge management success at project and organizational levels in contracting firms. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135(12), 1348–1356 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coffey, V., Willar, D., Trigunarsyah, B.: Profiles of organizational culture in indonesian construction companies. In: 6th ISEC Conference Proceedings. ISEC, Zürich (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Harinarian, N., Bornman, C.-L., Botha, M.: Organizational culture of the south african construction industry. Acta Structilia 20(1), 22–43 (2013)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G., Coffey, V.: Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: a competing values perspective in australian context. Int. J. Project Manage. 31(8), 1163–1174 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mufanebadza, J.M.: The Relationship Between Organizational Culture and Employee Job Satisfaction within the Botswana Construction Industry. MSc thesis, School of Construction Economics and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (2017)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tayeh, O.A., El-Hallaq, K., Tayeh, B.A.: The organizational culture of gaza strip construction companies. Int. J. Eng. Manage. Res. 8(1), 40–64 (2018)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jimenez-Jimenez, D., Sanz-Valle, R.: Studying the links between organizational culture, innovation, and performance in Spanish companies. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologia 48(1), 30–41 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addict. Behav. 27(6), 989–993 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sahin, I.: Detailed review of Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rogers’ theory. Turkish Online J. Educ. Technol. 5(2), 14–23 (2006)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Construction Economics and ManagementUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Construction Management and Quantity SurveyingUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations