The Innovation Value Chain Analysis of an Urban Regeneration Project

Ozorhon, B.

The University of Salford,UK

(email: b.ozorhon@salford.ac.uk)

Abbott, C.

The University of Salford,UK

(email: c.abbott@salford.ac.uk)

Aouad, G.

The University of Salford,UK,

(email: g.aouad@salford.ac.uk)

Abstract

Construction is widely perceived as being among the less innovative sectors. Measurement and

understanding of the dimensions and elements of construction innovation at the project level is key to

improving the innovation performance of organisations within the construction value chain since

innovation is co-produced and most hidden at the project level. The link between firm level processes

and innovation at the project level should be explored to enable a better understanding of how

different firms contribute to the innovation process by developing/implementing strategies, assigning

resources to create ideas and diffusing them. The Innovation Value Chain (IVC) provides a structured

method of analysing both firm and project level innovation. The major objective of this study is to

analyse a construction project from an IVC perspective by exploring the roles of project stakeholders

in stimulating and implementing innovation. The project analysed is an urban regeneration project in

which the project team have used a wide variety of methods to generate ideas, convert these ideas

into new products and processes and finally diffuse these innovations. The project presents a case of

client-driven innovation where building regulations on sustainability were taken into account in

developing design and planning the construction process. It is a successful example of collaborative

partnership that achieved continuous improvement through a series of technical and organisational

innovations including modern methods of construction and lean production. Based on the IVC

analysis of the project, the paper provides a summary of the key actions that enabled ideas to be

generated, converted into use and diffused more widely and provides recommendations for further

research.

Keywords: client-driven innovation, innovation value chain, partnering, off site manufacturing, lean

construction.

343

1. Introduction

Innovation has become a central issue for all industries and countries due to its contribution to

national economic growth, competitiveness, and higher living standards. It is a complex phenomenon

with a wide range of inputs and outputs creating diverse impacts on performance at the company,

sector and national level. There are differing definitions of innovation, but there is an increasing trend

to consider a wider view of innovation that reflects the many ways in which innovation occurs in

practice. In broad terms, it may be defined as the creation and adoption of new knowledge to improve

the value of products, processes, and services.

The construction industry can benefit from the diverse benefits offered by innovation particularly by

adoption of new methods to improve processes and organisational effectiveness. Construction is a

very diverse sector and there is not one single way in which innovation occurs. The organizational

context of construction innovations differs significantly from a great portion of manufacturing

innovations (Slaughter, 1998) since building and construction is partly manufacturing and partly

services industry (Blayse and Manley, 2004). Construction is often categorised as being among the

less innovative sectors. However, as the Hidden Innovation report (NESTA, 2007) has shown, this

perception is perhaps undeserved. Much of the innovation remains hidden, as it is co-developed at the

project level.

As Gann and Salter (2000) stated project-based firms need to manage both project and business

processes since the resources of the firm are embedded at both the project and the firm level; it is the

integration of these two sets of resources that enables the firm to be competitive. In addition, business

processes are ongoing and repetitive, whereas project processes have a tendency to be temporary and

unique (Gann, 1998; Brusoni et al., 1998), therefore firms should integrate the experiences of projects

into their continuous business processes in order to ensure the coherence of the organisation. The

same principle is also valid for the success of innovation both at the project and firm-level.

The link between firm level processes and innovation at the project level should be explored to enable

a better understanding of how different firms contribute to the innovation process by

developing/implementing strategies, assigning resources to create ideas and diffusing them. The

Innovation Value Chain (IVC) investigates innovation in a sequential, three-phase process involving

idea generation, idea development, and the diffusion of ideas (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007). This

approach provides a structured method of analysing both firm and project level innovation. The major

objective of this study is to analyse a construction project adopting the IVC view and thereby to

explore the roles of project stakeholders in stimulating and implementing innovation. The case study

focuses on an urban regeneration project that presents a case of client-driven innovation. It is a

successful example of collaborative partnership where the project team have used a wide variety of

methods to generate ideas, convert these ideas into new products and processes and finally diffuse

these innovations. The main technical and organisational innovations achieved in this project include

modern methods of construction and lean production. The paper summarizes the activities, tools, and

methods used to convert ideas into practice and diffuse them along the supply chain and transfer the

experience and knowledge gained to future projects.

344

2. Innovation value chain

Innovation can be observed at three different levels namely the sector, business and project level.

Milbergs (2004) proposed a framework to analyse innovation at the national level, where the major

components of innovation are defined as the inputs, implementation (processes/activities), outputs,

and impact, as well as the contextual (institutional) factors that influence the rate and direction of

innovative activity including the macro-economic conditions, public policy, innovation infrastructure,

and national mindset. Several frameworks have been proposed to analyse innovation at the firm level.

Rogers (2003) offers five stages to investigate the innovation process namely, knowledge, persuasion,

decision, implementation and confirmation. Wolfe (1994) suggests ten stages including idea

conception, awareness, matching, appraisal, persuasion, adoption decision, implementation,

confirmation, routinization, and infusion. Tangkar and Arditi (2000) proposed a six-phase labyrinth of

innovation, where the flow of successful innovation comprises need, creation, invention, innovation,

diffusion, and adoption. Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) presents innovation as a sequential, three-

phase process that involves idea generation, idea development, and the diffusion of developed

concepts that includes six critical tasks namely, internal sourcing, cross-unit sourcing, external

sourcing, selection, development, and companywide spread of the idea. The whole process is referred

as the IVC. The first phase is to generate ideas that can happen inside a unit, across units in a

company, or outside the firm; the second phase is to convert or select ideas for funding and

developing them into products or practices; and the third is to diffuse those products and practices.

The IVC offers a tailored and systematic approach to assessing firm-level innovation performance

(Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007). It is possible to apply the basis of the IVC framework and investigate

the innovation process at the project level. Roper et al. (2008) model IVC as a recursive process that

has three main links such as „knowledge sourcing‟ to assemble knowledge necessary for innovation,

„knowledge transformation‟ to translate knowledge into physical innovation, and finally „knowledge

exploitation‟ to improve the enterprise performance. Adopting a similar view, this study proposes the

investigation of IVC of different actors in the construction process at the project-level.

3. Research methodology

Analysis of innovation at the project level is often ignored in the literature mostly due to the

difficulties in monitoring different activities carried out by different parties in each stage of the

project. Management of innovation is complicated by the discontinuous nature of project-based

production in which, often, there are broken learning and feedback loops (Barlow, 2000). Gann

(2001) suggests that project-based construction firms often struggle to learn between projects, and

often have weak internal business processes. Measurement of the dimensions and elements of

construction innovation at the project level is key to improving the innovation performance of

companies.

Project-based firms need to manage technological innovation and uncertainty across organisational

boundaries, within networks of interdependent suppliers, customers and regulatory bodies (Gann and

Salter, 2000). However, project-based firms are always innovating; their work is always unique,

345

always delivered to bespoke designs, always achieving something new (Keegan and Turner, 2002).

Study by Gann and Salter (2000) points out the need for a better conceptual understanding and new

management practices to link project and business processes. Although some strategies are proposed

in these studies, they do not address how to track innovative activities during the lifecycle of a

construction project.

It is increasingly accepted that construction innovation encompasses a wide range of participants

within a „product system‟ (e.g. Marceau et al., 1999). This broad view incorporates the participants

including governments, building materials suppliers, designers, general contractors, specialist

contractors, the labour workforce, owners, professional associations, private capital providers, end

users of public infrastructure, vendors and distributors, testing services companies, educational

institutions, certification bodies, and others (Blayse and Manley, 2004). The link between firm level

processes and innovation at the project level should be explored to observe how different firms

contribute to innovation process by developing/implementing strategies, assigning resources to create

ideas and diffuse them.

The construction sector is viewed as a system involving clients, contractors, sub-contractors suppliers,

consultants, and designers. Manufacturing firms invest far more in R&D than contractors or

consultants, and are subsequently more likely to develop product and process innovations (Gann,

1997), whereas contractors tend to introduce service and organisational innovations (Carassus, 2004).

Clients can act as a catalyst to foster innovation by exerting pressure on the supply chain partners to

improve overall performance and by helping them to devise strategies to cope with unforeseen

changes (Gann and Salter, 2000), by demanding high standards of work (Barlow, 2000), and by

identifying specific novel requirements for a project (Seaden and Manseau, 2001). The case study

presented in this paper is related to an urban regeneration project that has demonstrated numerous

examples of technical and organisational innovation and achieved continuous improvement through a

collaborative partnership.

4. Case study: An urban regeneration project

4.1 Project information

The Regeneration Project in Cheshire, UK was a unique 10 year partnering regeneration scheme that

has delivered an award winning range of over 500 units of new housing, as part of the vision for a

sustainable future for the area. Since the transfer of new town stock in 1989, the client has been a

landlord of the estate together with an additional Housing Trust. Both Registered Social Landlords

(RSLs) formed this partnership agreement with the local Borough Council, English Partnerships, and

the Housing Corporation. The contractor, the architect, consultants and the structural engineers were

brought into the partnership in late 2001 to undertake the housing regeneration phases.

This project is a successful example of collaborative partnership that embraced „Rethinking

Construction‟ principles (Egan, 1998) and achieved continuous improvement through the application

of lean construction. The Regeneration Partnership is using more than £44m of funding to completely

revitalise this estate that was first built between 1968 and 1972. The master plan proposed a

346

comprehensive programme of over 50 individual projects from the redesign of infrastructure and

transport to community facilities and modern mixed tenure housing. To date approximately 800

unpopular deck access units have been demolished with a further 400 scheduled over the coming

years. These have been replaced with approximately 470 new homes, with a further 650 under

construction or planned. The next phase of regeneration includes the redevelopment of the existing

local centre, into a new community hub. The new development will contain a vibrant mix of shops,

homes, community centre and health centre, set around a public square.

4.2 The innovation value chain throughout the project

In a complex systems industry such as construction, firms must rely on the capabilities of other firms

to produce innovations and this is achieved by the cooperation between those concerned with the

development of products, processes and designs (Blayse and Manley, 2004). In this case study, three

steps of the innovation process namely, the idea generation, conversion, and diffusion are investigated

to explore the relationships between project participants in achieving innovation.

a) Idea generation

The project was very notable for its use of a „client-driven innovation‟ approach to idea generation.

Building regulation on social housing had a great impact on the processes and performance of this

regeneration project. The UK Government‟s initiative to create sustainable homes is specified in the

CfSH (DCLG, 2006). This code requires the contractors to use innovative products in their

construction processes and deliver the specified sustainability performance levels. The ideas

generated in order to comply with this code were generated by the collaborative use of partnering, a

serious R&D investment, and engaging with the community.

Partnership

The partnership embraced the „Rethinking Construction‟ principles (Egan, 1998) and best practice

ideas from around the UK construction and development industry. Committed leadership, a focus on

the customer, integrated teams, a quality driven agenda, and commitment to people were identified as

five drivers of change which need to set the agenda for the construction industry. The report showed

radical change in construction processes could deliver real cost savings (up to 30%), eliminate waste

in the delivery process, encourage innovation and learn from experience (Egan, 1998).

The project team ensured that, with the partnering approach in place through the procurement route,

steps were taken to establish trust and drive efficiency starting from the design process till the

execution of MMC. This partnering approach enabled design to be rationalised and input from the

contractor and the timber frame supplier taken into account in the early stages of the design process.

This rationalisation led to the introduction and acceptance of standard house types and detailing.

347

R&D

The redevelopment programme was in the process of delivering its fourth phase of new build housing

when it was decided that the team needed to consider new methods. Funding conditions set by the

Housing Corporation promoted the increased use of MMC in social housing particularly off site

manufacturing (OSM) as a key potential method for promoting sustainability within the construction

industry. The client was experienced in terms of MMC and introduced the idea of using closed timber

frames to achieve environmental sustainability. The next stage was to search for the right product and

assess its buildability with the contractor. Considerable time and effort was committed to ensure that

the design was buildable and that modern construction techniques could be used.

In this respect, based on client‟s research dating back to 10 years ago, timber frames were identified to

deliver a number of advantages such as the pace of construction, quality of the units, decreased cost,

enhanced thermal performance, and less impact to environment through lower carbon emissions. The

contractor and the client then formed a partnership with the timber frame supplier and maintained this

partnership for years.

The team had already incorporated MMC into designs, but were now to utilize „Lean Construction‟

methods with the intention of further improving quality, time and costs. New product and process

innovations could only be achieved through product R&D; considerable investment on MMC and lean

construction; and strong commitment and collaborative partnership among the supply chain. Based on

more than 2 years of R&D work, cost, knowledge and familiarity were identified as the main barriers

to the adoption of MMC. The client employed consultants to aid in the development of methods and

procedures to improve site processes. The client determined to work with the contractor to eliminate

the initial cost barriers of MMC in order to reap long term savings and benefits. The funding of

consultancy by the client and the agreement to further invest jointly with the contractor demonstrates

both partners‟ desire and willingness to engage other specialists who could help to drive out waste

through the adoption of lean. These benefits have been brought through from phase to phase,

demonstrating continuous improvement.

Community engagement

One of the most important ingredients of any successful regeneration partnership is the involvement

of the local community. Residents of the area have been heavily involved in the regeneration process

as well as in the development of each individual scheme. Project team members have had the

opportunity to establish positive working relationships with the local community, and better

understand the needs and wants of the residents affected by the redevelopment. The client, architect

and contractor have also worked with local primary schools to involve children in the construction

processes as part of their curriculum. This has begun the process of embedding a sense of place and

ownership in the community‟s children, which has been lacking for so long.

348

b) Conversion of ideas into practice

A combination of open and scientific approaches was used to bring ideas into the project. Idea

generation is only useful if the ideas are then put into practice. The key decision in this regard was to

use a procurement approach that enabled early contractor involvement. This ensures that ideas can be

tested for their buildability and building methods can be developed that are appropriate to the design.

The University of Salford set up „Innovation Circles‟ to help businesses and academics work together

in a more meaningful way and to focus individual members in small groups using an action learning

methodology (Lu et al., 2007). The „Innovation Circles‟ created by the contractor provide one method

whereby the supply chain members are formally brought together to help put solutions into practice.

Product innovation is only one component of the IVC in the construction supply chain, the

responsibility of which lies with the suppliers. However, the implementation requires joint effort by

the client, designer, contractor, suppliers, and subcontractors. The project team ensured the successful

implementation of product innovation through a series of organisational innovations. They identified

that potential benefits of MMC could only be achieved through the application of lean principles that

involves supply chain integration and process reengineering. Contractor‟s devotion to learn about lean

principles was appreciated by the client and they shared the cost for lean consultancy to deliver higher

performance.

Modern methods of construction

Timber frame is a tried and tested structural system. It is the most environmentally friendly form of

construction available that conforms to MMC and OSM principles. Building Research Establishment

(BRE) reported that that modern timber frame construction produces near zero carbon emissions

(Reynolds and Enjily, 2005). Timber frame is also renowned for its excellence in energy efficiency

terms. As the structures are assembled from components made to manufacturing tolerances, the better

fit achieved improves air tightness and hence positively effects energy efficiency. The closed timber

frames were used as the structural elements of the superstructure in the project among the many forms

to choose from, including advanced and closed panel, volumetric and hybrid systems.

By using MMC methods, the closed timber framed panelled units went from ground floor slab to

panels in place in just twelve weeks - half the time of a similar traditional build. The wall panels and

floor cassettes were delivered to site with windows and doors already fitted in the factory. The

benefits of MMC were evidenced in many ways; not only was the site accident free, it was dryer and

cleaner for the labour force to work on. There were also benefits for local residents too, with reduced

levels of vehicle movements and noise.

Lean Construction

MMC required tighter, more reliable processes leading to the adoption of lean principles. Lean

construction is “the continuous process of eliminating waste, meeting or exceeding all customer

requirements, focusing on the entire value stream and the pursuit of perfection in the execution of a

constructed project” (Design for Manufacture Competition, 2005). Lean construction may require

349

more time in the design and planning phases, but this attention eliminates or minimizes conflicts that

can dramatically change budgets and schedules. Supply chain management is an important support

function for facilitating lean construction. Partnering arrangements with suppliers are based on

effective communication of shared objectives of continuous improvement. Each member of the

construction supply chain should be made aware of its influence on the overall project. In addition,

organisations are required to change their business processes to deliver the expected benefits of lean

construction. Standardisation of the finishing processes brought benefit to the supply chain, reducing

wastage of materials on site as well as wasted operations.

MMC and lean construction involve totally different operations that were threatening for the whole

industry in the beginning. Not only did the contractor have to experience challenges to shift to new

processes but also the subcontractors had to follow at the same pace and they had to adjust the

operations based on the site conditions, which were not always favourable. Construction in this way

was far ahead of normal schedules due to the unexpectedly quick insallations of the timber frames and

the construction team had difficulties in allocating sufficient number of staff to continue with the

finishings. It was initially difficult to control such a tight process and the intensity of the workforce

was a real issue. The major barrier and frustration for the contractor in this phase was due to the

external factors such as the poor services; service disconnections and relocations caused major delays

in the project. Despite attempts to overcome these barriers and several meetings with the services

provider, the situations remained unresolved.

c) Diffusion of innovations

The successful diffusion of new innovations is the third element of the IVC that is achieved through

the client‟s drive to become a learning and sharing organisation. Within the project, the diffusion of

innovation throughout the supply chain is enabled through the trust created by the partnering

approach. This is underpinned by the knowledge management approach. Longer term benefits will

accrue if the supply chain remains together and works on follow on projects.Performance

measurement should also be seen as an enabler for the diffusion of project innovations. The

monitoring regime provides the evidence of the success (or failure) of the various innovations, which

in turn supplies the supporting information needed to justify ongoing use.

Knowledge management and innovation plan

The use of knowledge management approaches is an effective enabler for the diffusion of innovations

within and outside the organisations. In this regard, knowledge management is essential for ensuring

that the full project team are aware of and understand the latest techniques that are to be used on the

project.

The client devoted resources from across the organisation to ensure they understand and are able to

effectively deploy new technologies and techniques as they emerge, ranging from renewable energy

sources through sustainable housing solutions to MMC to create high value low cost solutions for the

clients. They are keen to create a true learning culture with the contractor and mechanisms to enable

more sharing knowledge and best practice.

350

Taken together, the project team have used a wide variety of measures to facilitate and support the

generation of new ideas. The contractor employed different schemes to foster innovation within the

organisation and to share its knowledge and experience through the supply chain. Their ultimate

objective is to be able to meet client needs better and be able to adapt to a changing world. The key

actions that will help them innovate both individually and collectively focus on the staff, clients,

suppliers, and lean construction. These included the „Innovator of the Month‟ scheme within their

innovation plan to help all staff become aware of the importance of innovation and have the

opportunity to contribute to generation of ideas. This concept is extended beyond the organisation

through „Innovation Circles‟ that bring together the supply chain in an open approach to sharing ideas

and tackling problems.

4.3 Achievements of the project team

Prior to the introduction of lean construction methodology, the partnership was already achieving a

reduction in waste generated through each phase compared to more traditionally built projects. It was

estimated that the use of MMC was achieving waste reductions in excess of 50%. Noise levels are

also 50% less than a traditional build. Using timber frames, the team achieved higher levels of

environmental sustainability; they enhanced thermal performance (with lower U values), and

decreased the impact to environment through lower carbon emmissions. Other benefits can be listed

as follows:

Metre square costs have reduced by 6.59%.

Total unit cost has reduced by 2.81%.

Timber frame costs have reduced by 16% over the last 4 phases.

Overall reduction in contract weeks per unit completed of 7% against target 10% reduction in

superstructure completion time, translating into an overall contract duration time saving in weeks

per unit of 5.8%.

6% reduction in waste to landfill and 74% increase in waste recycled against 10% targets.

The final product benefits from a higher finished quality due to standard and repeat designs;

established and proven sequence; developed and improved details/materials; familiarization with the

specification; consistent management of workforce teams; reduced operations and trade visits;

consistent supply chain; reduced operations and trade visits; and consistent supply chain.

5. Conclusions

The construction industry is largely project based and fragmented, so the much of the innovation

remains hidden, as it is co-developed at the project level. Besides construction firms, suppliers,

designers, and service organisations play a large part in innovation. In the context of this paper, the

innovation process in a case study was investigated based on IVC approach. Roles and contributions

351

of project participants in driving and implementing technical and organisational innovations were

explored in an urban regeneration project. The regeneration project has demonstrated the significance

of collaborative partnership in delivering best practice and achieving innovation. It is a good example

of client-driven innovation where building regulations shaped the way the housing developer,

contractor, and suppliers worked. The objectives set by the clients were met through the

implementation of MMC and lean principles.

There are many lessons that can be learnt from this project as summarised below:

Collaborative partnership between the Authority, client, architect, structural engineer, and

subcontractors was the key success factor but only because it was actively driven.

Building regulations can drive both technological (product and process) and organisational

innovations within the construction supply chain.

Innovation in construction can only be achieved through understanding client requirements and

collaboration throughout the whole project lifecycle.

Benefits of MMC are not short-term, strong commitment from all project participants is essential

to ensure long-term benefits and this was in turn enabled by collaborative partnership.

Exploiting potential efficiency benefits requires organisational innovations such as supply chain

management and business process reengineering.

Sustainable construction can also be affordable by adopting the lean principles and transferring

the project knowledge and key lessons to future projects.

Contractor‟s sole effort to innovate does not guarantee success, support from like-minded people

is crucial.

New methods are jeopardizing for construction industry, devotion to innovate is the key to break

the industry‟s resistance to change.

Qualified labour resource is scarce, sharing knowledge and best practice along the supply chain

can improve the culture and skills of the workforce.

Analysis of the IVC throughout the lifecycle of a construction project helps observe and measure the

underlying drivers and enablers related to the whole process and understand the role of different

actors and improve their capability in facilitating innovation. The case study illustrated a wide range

of innovation from all members of the supply chain in order to meet the requirements of clients and

end users. The IVC view, as a structured method of analysis, in this study was helpful in linking the

firm and project level innovation unlike the previous research on construction innovation. The

benefits of innovation can only be realised by fully understanding the components of the whole

innovation process that is based on knowledge acquisition, transformation, and diffusion. A deep

352

understanding of these stages of innovation at the project level adopting a multi-stakeholder approach

can be considered as the main contribution of the study since it can be enriched further by detailed

work to develop context sensitive ways of recognising and measuring innovation. The findings of this

case study and analysis of additional cases are also expected to provide guidance to analyse

innovations in other project-based industries.

References

Barlow, J. (2000) “Innovation and learning in complex offshore construction projects”, Research

Policy, 29 (7-8): 973-89.

Blayse, A.M. and Manley, K. (2004) “Key influences on construction innovation”, Construction

Innovation, 4: 143-154.

Brusoni, S., Precipe, A., Salter, A. (1998) “Mapping and measuring innovation in project-based

firms”, CoPS Working Paper, Brighton, CENTRIMrSPRU.

Carassus, J. (2004) “Construction sector system, innovation and services”, CIB Congress

Proceedings, Toronto Canada, (available online http://jc-esh.cstb.fr/file/rub49_doc46_1.pdf [accessed

on 19/11/2008])

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2006) Code of Sustainable Homes - A

step-change in sustainable home building practice, London, Department for Communities and Local

Government.

Design for Manufacture Competition (2005) “Stage 1 Q&As answer 51” (available online

www.designformanufacture.info/page.aspx?pointerid=307FE1A776AD4E8D8AC46662DF7FDA56#

q51 [accessed on 10/11/ 2009]).

Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking construction: the report of the construction task force, London, DETR.

Gann, D.M. (1997) “Should governments fund construction research?”, Building Research and

Information, 25 (5): 257-267.

Gann, D.M. (1998) “New manufacturing for the 21st century”, AEGIS Conference Generating New

Wealth for Australia, Sydney, 30 March, Keynote address.

Gann, D.M. (2001) “Putting academic ideas into practice: technological progress and the absorptive

capacity of construction organisations”, Construction Management and Economics, 19 (3): 321-330.

Gann, D.M. and Salter, A. (2000) “Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the

construction of complex products and systems”, Research Policy, 29 (7–8): 955-972.

353

Hansen, M.T. and Birkinshaw, J. (2007) “The innovation value chain”, Harvard Business Review,

85(6): 121-130.

Keegan, A. and Turner, J.R. (2002) “The management of innovation in project based firms”, Long

Range Planning, 35: 367-388.

Lu, S., Abbott, C., Jones, V. and Sexton, M. (2007) “The role of innovation circles in stimulating

innovation in small construction firms”, Proceedings of 4th International SCRI Research Symposium,

26-27 March, Lowry Theatre, Salford, UK.

Marceau, J., Houghton, J., Toner, P., Manley, K, Gerasimou, E. and Cook, N. (1999) Mapping the

building and construction product system in Australia, Sydney, Commonwealth Department of

Industry, Science and Resources.

Milbergs, E. (2004) “Measuring innovation for national prosperity - innovation framework report”

(available online http://www.ibm.com/ibm/governmentalprograms/innovframe2.pdf [accessed on

10/25/08]).

NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) (2007) Hidden Innovation,

London, NESTA.

Reynolds, T. and Enjily, V. (2005) Timber frame buildings - A guide to the construction process,

Berkshire, Building Research Establishment Press.

Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovation, 5th edn, New York, The Free Press.

Roper, S., Du, J. and Love, J.H. (2008) “Modelling the innovation value chain”, Research Policy, 37:

961-977.

Seaden, G. and Manseau, A. (2001) “Public policy and construction innovation”, Building Research

and Information, 29(3): 182-196.

Slaughter, S.E. (1998) “Models of construction innovation”, Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 124(3): 226-231.

Tangkar, M. and Arditi, D. (2000) “Innovation in the construction industry”, Civil Engineering

Dimension, 2(2): 96-103.

Wolfe, R.A. (1994) “Organizational innovation: review, critique and suggested research”, Journal of

Management Studies, 31(3): 405.

354