Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • Process innovation is defined as

    2018-11-12

    Process innovation is defined as the implementation of a new or significantly improved production or delivery method, including significant changes in techniques, equipment, and/or software (Svensson, 2012). Process innovation is also defined as the introduction of new elements into the production or service operation of a firm to generate a product or render a service (Rosenberg, 1982; Utterback and Abernathy, 1975) with the aim of improving productivity, capacity, flexibility, and quality, reducing costs, rationalizing production processes (Edquist, 2001; Simonetti et al., 1995), and lowering labor costs (Vivarelli and Toivanen, 1995; Vivarelli and Pianta, 2000). According to the innovation research conducted by Reichstein and Salter (2006), process innovation is related to new capital equipment (Salter, 1960) as well as practices of learning-by-doing and learning-by-using (Cabral and Leiblein, 2001). Similarly, Hollander (1965) defines process development as “the implementation of new or significantly improved production or delivery methods, [including] significant changes in techniques, equipment and/or software”. According to the literature on process innovation (Svensson, 2012; Edquist, 2001; Simonetti et al., 1995; Vivarelli and Toivanen, 1995; Vivarelli and Pianta, 2000), digital innovation in architecture can be considered as a form of process innovation.
    Review of digital tools and digital innovation in architectural organizations
    Understanding barriers and impediments to digital innovation adoption Understanding the adoption of digital innovation in architecture is difficult. Furthermore, developing a single framework or model of innovation adoption is even more challenging. The reason for the difficulty in developing a single framework is the unavailability of studies that carboxypeptidase discuss how architectural practices can adopt to the innovation process, and how such a process affects the organization. Also, limited critical analysis has been conducted on the practice of using digital technologies in building and infrastructure projects (Whyte, 2011). In digital innovation research focusing on IT management, Whyte (2011) elucidates that the new digital processes present a “technological black box” with minimal visibility on the completeness of the design work represented in models and drawings. This challenge is caused by the difficulty in managing client expectations, particularly when the design completeness has contractual implications. Boland et al. (2007) explore digital innovation on a project, arguing that the use of 3D digital technologies enables waves of innovation to propagate across the firms, and identifying challenges to the use of digital technology and related processes. From a management perspective, organizations engaged in the design of buildings are often complex; they have non-linear and multiple interdependencies among their sub-systems. They attach importance to efficiency when implementing innovation. Digital technologies enable new forms of interaction and coupling , increasing the interactive complexity in such organizations. Dossick and Neff (2008) argue that a set of leadership skills enables managers in design organizations to deal with the increasingly tight coupling of technological solutions within loosely coupled organizational structures. According to them, analyzing digital technologies, organizational structures, and processes is important. According to Whyte (2011), the manner by which digital innovation processes are configured and organized has a significant effect on delivery. Organizational challenges related to process or performance management becomes an issue. In new digital processes, the team is pressured to deliver under traditional timescales despite the longer period needed to develop 3D information that may be beneficial at later stages of the project. The new digital tools and processes imply widespread organizational changes across company boundaries. Whyte (2011) pointed out the implication of the deliverables to the client and regulatory bodies, as well as for the nature and duration of different stages of design work. Conversely, most of the technological infrastructure in practice is taken for granted by practitioners. Nonetheless, new technologies have become salient in day-to-day work because organizations require significant learning, which can hinder the adoption of digital innovation. Furthermore, Whyte (2011) revealed several barriers to adopting digital innovation, such as consequential problem of digital package coordination, limitations of the 3D modeling package, and challenges in finding competent staff with combined practical construction experience and digital technology skills.