Institutional Waste within the UK Construction Procurement Context: A Conceptual Framework

Abstract

There is a broad consensus among social and economic researchers that ‘institutions’ matter. Institutions influence beliefs, norms and actions; thus they shape performance and outcomes. Interestingly, the concept of institutions is not well established in construction economics or management research, specifically in waste-related literature. This paper presents discussions on the impact of imperfect regulations, norms and cultural/cognitive assumptions that exist within the construction procurement context, and how this has translated into the institutionalisation of wasteful behaviours and practices in construction projects. Based on a critical review of extant literature, the ultimate objectives of this study are to: (1) contribute to the overall understanding of waste in construction by suggesting a novel perspective to the generation and persistence of waste in construction projects; (2) demonstrate how the neo-institutional theory, a branch of organizational sociology, can potentially be applied as an analytical lens to deliver a more explicit theory of waste that relates cause and effect within the wider aspects of construction procurement systems and relationships; (3) highlight a number of widely accepted regulations, norms and meanings that impede efficiency and improvement efforts in construction; and (4) formulate propositions on institutional waste in the process of construction procurement that will be fundamental to the future trajectory of this study.

Improving Construction Productivity by Integrating the Lean Concept and the Clancey Heuristic Model

“…[57] established the novel concept of "institutional waste within construction" that explains how the systems, structural arrangements, and cognitive undergirding assumptions support and encourage wasteful activities in construction. More specifically, institutional waste is defined as "the regulative, normative, and cognitive culture institutional processes which support and/or encourage wasteful activities, that the construction industry (organisation field) accedes to in the form of habitual, imitation or compliance; in order to achieve legitimacy, security and survival at the price of production efficiency and effectiveness" [57,58]. All types of waste should be considered for elimination by lean tools.…”

“…The waste "making do" is seen as a complex one that consolidates more than one waste type [57]. It can be considered as a variant of the "inefficient work" waste type, where the work is carried out in an inefficient way due to the lack of preconditions (e.g., resources, information) [57].…”

“…The waste "making do" is seen as a complex one that consolidates more than one waste type [57]. It can be considered as a variant of the "inefficient work" waste type, where the work is carried out in an inefficient way due to the lack of preconditions (e.g., resources, information) [57]. The waste type "waiting" of at least one standard task input (e.g., information, instruction, materials, tools, equipment, manpower) can be determined from the "making do" definition (provided in Section 3) [51,57].…”

“…It can be considered as a variant of the "inefficient work" waste type, where the work is carried out in an inefficient way due to the lack of preconditions (e.g., resources, information) [57]. The waste type "waiting" of at least one standard task input (e.g., information, instruction, materials, tools, equipment, manpower) can be determined from the "making do" definition (provided in Section 3) [51,57]. The term "making do" is explained by Koskela in contrast to "buffering", which refers to resources that are waiting to be processed [51].…”

“…This relates to "the regulative, normative, and cognitive culture of institutional processes which support and/or encourage wasteful activities that the construction industry (organisation field) accedes to in the form of habit, imitation or compliance in order to achieve legitimacy, security and survival at the price of production efficiency and effectiveness" [57,58].…”