Using Grounded Theory Methodology and Rich Picture Diagrams in Analysing Value Creation in Houses of Culture Projects in Sweden
The Built & Human Environment Review, Volume 3, Special Issue 1, 2010
Using Grounded Theory Methodology and Rich Picture Diagrams in analysing Value Creation in Houses of Culture Projects in Sweden
Laurell Stenlund, K. Kristina.Laurell-Stenlund@ltu.se Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden
Abstract
What kind of value does a public building for cultural activities create for clients, construction professionals and users? One approach to understand the complexity of ongoing processes over time is by identifying value-adding activities in building processes. However, value added activities are difficult to analyse especially when related to resources that have an immaterial character, e.g. knowledge, know how and social relations. Based on an indepth case study of stakeholders’ evaluation of a construction project, grounded theory methodology (GTM) and rich picture diagrams (RPD) were used in analysing stakeholder and end-user value. Data was collected by semi-structured interviews with actors, public client, project manager, architect, contractor, employee and visitors of the building and during a workshop with representatives for different stakeholder groups. The results from the analysis show that building a house of culture creates stakeholders’ and end-users’ value that can be categorised into human, organisational and social capital. The strength of combining GTM and RPD is demonstrated in its ability to study complex organisational structures and relations between different actors, and specific as shown in this case, when analysing value creation in a construction project with many stakeholders with different interests and value.
Keywords: case study, grounded theory method, intellectual capital, rich picture diagrams
Introduction
Discussions during the last few years (e.g. Egan 1998; Finch 2000; Spencer and Winch 2002; Saxon 2005) have shown that integrating design and construction potentially delivers better value for money as well as
Using Grounded Theory Methodology and Rich Picture Diagrams in analysing Value Creation in Houses of Culture Projects in Sweden
Laurell Stenlund, K. Kristina.Laurell-Stenlund@ltu.se Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden
Abstract
What kind of value does a public building for cultural activities create for clients, construction professionals and users? One approach to understand the complexity of ongoing processes over time is by identifying value-adding activities in building processes. However, value added activities are difficult to analyse especially when related to resources that have an immaterial character, e.g. knowledge, know how and social relations. Based on an indepth case study of stakeholders’ evaluation of a construction project, grounded theory methodology (GTM) and rich picture diagrams (RPD) were used in analysing stakeholder and end-user value. Data was collected by semi-structured interviews with actors, public client, project manager, architect, contractor, employee and visitors of the building and during a workshop with representatives for different stakeholder groups. The results from the analysis show that building a house of culture creates stakeholders’ and end-users’ value that can be categorised into human, organisational and social capital. The strength of combining GTM and RPD is demonstrated in its ability to study complex organisational structures and relations between different actors, and specific as shown in this case, when analysing value creation in a construction project with many stakeholders with different interests and value.
Keywords: case study, grounded theory method, intellectual capital, rich picture diagrams
Introduction
Discussions during the last few years (e.g. Egan 1998; Finch 2000; Spencer and Winch 2002; Saxon 2005) have shown that integrating design and construction potentially delivers better value for money as well as
References: Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2000) Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research, London: Sage. Anumba, C.J., Egbu, C. and Carrillo, P. (2005) Knowledge Management in Construction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Boyd, D and Chinyio, E (2006) Understanding the construction client, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (2007) The SAGE handbook of Grounded Theory, London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Bröchner, J. and Kadefors, A. (2010) Värden och värdekedjor inom samhällsbyggande, förstudie. [Values and value chains in building societies, prestudy], Stockholm: KK-stiftelsen. Chronéer, D. and Laurell-Stenlund, K. (2006) Determinants of an effective product development process: Towards a conceptual framework for process industry. International journal of innovation management, 10(3), 237-269. Dosi, G., Faillo, M. and Marengo, L. (2008) Organisational Capabilities, Patterns of Knowledge Accumulation and Governance Structures in Business Firms: An Introduction. Organization Studies, 29(08&09), 11651185. Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997) Intellectual Capital, The proven way to establish your company’s real value by measuring its hidden brainpower, London: Harper. Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction, Report of the Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the Scope for Improving the Quality and Efficiency of UK Construction. Department of Trade and Industry, HMSO, London. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Finch, P. (2000) Better public building, a proud legacy for the future, The Better Public Buildings Group. Department for culture, media and sport, London. Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Research. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine, Chicago. Grant, R. M. (1991) The resource based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. Gray, C. and Hughes, W. (2001) Building Design Management, Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. Hamel, G. and Prahalad C.K. (1994) Competing for the Future. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993) Putting the Balanced Scorecard on work, Harvard Business Review, (SepOct), 134-147. Laurell-Stenlund, K. (2004) Three perspectives on measuring and valuing losses of key competence. (Licentiate thesis in Swedish), Luleå: Luleå University of Technology. Laurell Stenlund, K. (2010) Effekter av byggandet av Kulturens hus i Luleå, [The Matter of Culture], Research Report, Luleå: Luleå University of Technology. Laurell Stenlund, K and Hörte, S-Å. (1999) Competence accounting – methods for measuring and valuing keycompetencies. Managing Operations Networks, EurOMA Conference, Venice, Italy, June 7-8. 26 The Built & Human Environment Review, Volume 3, Special Issue 1, 2010 Laurell Stenlund, K., Ryd, N. and Vennström, A. (2009) Client 's decisions in strategic briefs and their impact on user values. Proceedings 25th Annual ARCOM Conference. Nottingham: Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 361-370. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) An Expanded Sourcebook, Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.), California and London: Sage Publications. Inc. Mouritsen, J. (2009) Classification, measurement and the ontology of intellectual capital entities. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 13(2), 154-162. Penrose, E. (1959/1995) The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roos, G., Pike, S. and Fernström, L. (2005) Managing Intellectual Capital in Practice, Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier Ltd, Oxford. Saxon, R. (2005) Be Valuable: A Guide to Creating value in the Built Environment Construction Excellence, London. Segerstedt, A. and Olofsson, T. (2010) Supply chains in the construction industry. Supply Chain Management, 15(5), 347-353. Short, C.A., Barrett, P., Dye, A. and Sutrisna, M. (2007) Impacts of value engineering on five Capital Arts projects. Building Research and Information, 35(3), 287-315. Spencer, N. and Winch, G. (2002) How buildings Add Value for Clients, Construction Industry Council, London. Sutrisna, M. and Barrett, P. (2007). Applying rich picture diagrams to model case studies of construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(2), 164-179. Sveiby, K.E. (1997) The Intangible Assets Monitor. Journal of Human Resource costing and accounting, 2(1), 73-97. Winch. M.G. (2002) Managing Construction Projects, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd. Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Newbury Press, California: Sage. 27 The Built & Human Environment Review, Volume 3, Special Issue 1, 2010 28