Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Design management using knowledge innovation and visual planning.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Industrilized and sustainable construction.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Industrilized and sustainable construction.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2261-6298
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Industrilized and sustainable construction.
Number of Authors: 3
2016 (English)In: Automation in Construction, ISSN 0926-5805, E-ISSN 1872-7891, Vol. 72, no 3, 330-337 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

An open platform used for industrialised house-building imposes restrictions on the flexibility of the product offering when developing design standardisation. How design process standardisation incorporates variations in products has not been widely studied. The aim of this research is to explain how design breakdown enables Lean Product Development Flow (LPDF) and look-ahead planning in an industrialised house-building context where an open platform is used. A case study was conducted of how one of the leading industrialised house-building companies in Sweden introduced the LPDF tool Knowledge Innovation/Visual Planning (KI-VP) into their design process. The implementation of KI-VP led to an increased cross-functional understanding of relationships between activities, which are an important factor in achieving flexibility and a synchronised workflow. By using design standardisation, look-ahead planning was implemented and used in the management of design flow. Standardisation through design breakdown provides a basis for knowledge innovation that enables improvement of the open platform using a bottom-up approach and increases the production flow. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 72, no 3, 330-337 p.
National Category
Construction Management
Research subject
Construction Engineering and Management; Timber Structures
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-59684DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.040ISI: 000390722200009Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84994083436OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-59684DiVA: diva2:1034507
Note

Validerad; 2016; Nivå 2; 2016-11-18 (andbra)

Available from: 2016-10-12 Created: 2016-10-12 Last updated: 2017-04-13Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Design approaches in industrialized house building: A creativity perspective
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Design approaches in industrialized house building: A creativity perspective
2017 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Alternative title[sv]
Projektering för industriellt byggande : Ett kreativitetsperspektiv
Abstract [en]

Industrialized house builders strive towards structure and control of their processes, including design. Such structure is seldom sought for in architectural design practice, where individuality and autonomy are considered essential. This is causing a tension in the construction industry as industrialized house builders and architects strive to improve their collaboration. In this licentiate thesis, a first step towards better understanding this tension is taken by exploring different design approaches from a creativity perspective. The analytical framework builds on a theoretical conceptualization of design approach features, including design task, design process, design organization, and knowledge sharing. A creativity perspective is added using heuristic or algorithmic design tasks; divergent or convergent design processes; autonomy or imposed structure from the design organization; and sole designer or teamwork as the basis for knowledge sharing. This framework is used to analyze four empirically explored design approaches, two focusing on platform development and two focusing on project specific design. Three of these are explored using a case study approach, while the fourth is explored through interviews with multiple architects.

The architectural design approach’s features seem likely to facilitate creativity: the design task is mainly heuristic; the design process enables divergence; and the architects have autonomy in how to go about the design process. However, they experience a lack of knowledge sharing, which could further facilitate creativity. The studied standardized design development approach has the opposite features: the design task is mainly algorithmic; the design process facilitates convergence; and there is a clear structure with instructions of how each subtask should be executed. Hence, this design approach is not likely to facilitate creativity (which was also not its intention). The structure has however improved the design team’s knowledge sharing, which is likely to facilitate creativity.

The two platform development approaches have a mix of features. Both design tasks are more algorithmic than heuristic and creativity was not expected of the design results. The design processes are clearly convergent. While the house platform development team is multi-functional and work in close collaboration, the design automation platform developers’ knowledge sharing is based on communication with the client’s organization, thus not enabling as many perspectives on the designed product. The design automation platform developers use a support structure with process descriptions and methods to ensure quality, motivated by the variety of platforms that they develop on a regular basis. The house product platform developers on the other hand, were expected to develop only this one platform. Hence, they worked autonomously, using the teamwork setting to progress and converge in the process.

In summary, the creative intention seems related to how design is approached. If creativity is sought for, the design task is heuristic, and divergence and autonomy is promoted. If creativity is not sought for, structure seem to facilitate other benefits such as reliability and quality control. Knowledge sharing could however be potentially beneficial in most design approaches. By understanding that different design approaches will influence creativity in different ways, a first step has been taken towards understanding why architects and industrialized house builders approach design differently.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Luleå: Luleå University of Technology, 2017
Series
Licentiate thesis / Luleå University of Technology, ISSN 1402-1757
Keyword
Architecture, architectural design, creativity, design approach, design context, design process, engineering design, industrialized house building, platform
National Category
Construction Management Building Technologies
Research subject
Construction Engineering and Management
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-63034 (URN)978-91-7583-888-5 (ISBN)978-91-7583-889-2 (ISBN)
Presentation
2017-06-09, F231, Luleå, 09:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2017-04-21 Created: 2017-04-13 Last updated: 2017-05-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jansson, GustavViklund, EmmaLidelöw, Helena
By organisation
Industrilized and sustainable construction
In the same journal
Automation in Construction
Construction Management

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 408 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf