Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Robert Moehler
 -- 3375 2023-09-12 06:17:26 |
2 Reference format revised.
Lindsay Dong
 Meta information modification 3375 2023-09-13 03:03:38 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Das, P.; Hijazi, A.A.; Maxwell, D.W.; Moehler, R.C. Business Models Facilitate Strategic Transformation in Construction Firms. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49047 (accessed on 21 December 2024).
Das P, Hijazi AA, Maxwell DW, Moehler RC. Business Models Facilitate Strategic Transformation in Construction Firms. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49047. Accessed December 21, 2024.
Das, Priyadarshini, Amer A. Hijazi, Duncan W. Maxwell, Robert C. Moehler. "Business Models Facilitate Strategic Transformation in Construction Firms" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49047 (accessed December 21, 2024).
Das, P., Hijazi, A.A., Maxwell, D.W., & Moehler, R.C. (2023, September 12). Business Models Facilitate Strategic Transformation in Construction Firms. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49047
Das, Priyadarshini, et al. "Business Models Facilitate Strategic Transformation in Construction Firms." Encyclopedia. Web. 12 September, 2023.
Business Models Facilitate Strategic Transformation in Construction Firms
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151713022

A business model represents an organisation’s value logic with a value proposition as the central dimension. The construction industry has been categorised as fragmented, slow to move and destructively competitive, idealising only cost-based perceptions of performance; however, the trends indicate a paradigm shift in the sector emphasising value-based perspectives such as early engagement, design for manufacture and assembly, and a lifecycle approach by promoting a conscious discourse on business model innovation. 

business model strategy construction industry

1. Introduction

The construction industry is grappling with many pressures, chiefly the demand for green and sustainable building practices and a critical need for enhanced productivity, requiring industry players to adapt and innovate rapidly. The industry is making an attempt to improve project efficiency, reduce waste and enhance worker safety through technological innovation, including but not limited to the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM), 3D printing, drones, and artificial intelligence-powered software [1]. Additionally, adopting green technologies like energy-efficient materials, renewable energy systems, and smart building solutions is aiding the industry in reducing its environmental footprint and making strides towards a more sustainable future [2]. However, as an industry, construction has its own idiosyncrasies; its fragmented nature has hampered performance, improvement, and continuous learning leading to poor value for money over other sectors [3][4][5]. There are three dimensions of fragmentation found in the construction sector: horizontal, which occurs in the trade-by-trade, competitive bidding environment of traditional project deliveries; vertical that occurs over the duration of the project from design to construction and operation; and longitudinal, which occurs due to the temporal nature of project organising [6][7]. Such a plurality and fragmentation have limited concerted efforts toward strategic collective action [8], and construction still remains one of the least digitalised industries [9], leaning towards a conservative attitude in relation to innovation and showing a lack of agility in adjusting to shifts within the industrial landscape [10].
Industries that are front-runners in creating value through technology have realised very early on that transformation occurs only when innovative technology is paired with a transformative business model [11]; technological innovations that have fundamentally changed their respective industries in the form of service aggregators such as Uber, AirBnB and Netflix, have all emerged as new and transformative business models [12][13]. Numerous efforts have been made to determine the essential characteristics of long-term change, and central to these features are business model innovations [14]. Conventional management techniques focus on “nominal” factors like resources over time, but when confronting a transformation, these methods fall short, and firms must contemplate superior systematic organisational traits like business model innovation that evaluate experiences over time [15].
It is often said that the term ‘business model’ could be one of the most misunderstood terminologies in the literature and in practice; however, if understood in the right way, a good business model leads to successful organisations, whether a start-up or an incumbent [16][17]. Gordijn, Osterwalder [18] and Osterwalder [19] proposed that systematic strides towards the evolution of business model research should begin with defining terms, and the field would be considered mature when possibilities for applying business models within specific domains can be examined. Drawing from them, Abeynayake, Perera [20] proposed a definition of a construction business model as “a simplified conceptual representation of a construction business that performs value creation according to client requirements with key resources, considering the appropriate level of involvement of relevant stakeholders in the key processes towards revenue and profit generation while expressing the company’s strategic choices with the awareness of the changes required and opportunities available”. However, they elucidated that further research should be concerned with understanding how business model innovation can solve the industry’s problems which would make practitioners keen on its uptake. The academic discourse underpins a crucial interdependent relationship between technological innovation and business models, shifting from purely cost-based perceptions of performance to shared value creation [21]. The industry’s evolving value perception underscores the significance of broader, socially responsible, and environmentally sustainable business models. Contemporary annual reports show that leading firms are integrating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria, signalling a strategic transformation in priorities as the modern investment landscape increasingly values ESG performance. Companies with business models that are ESG-aligned often find favour with institutional investors who prioritise sustainable and responsible investments. Therefore, a profound understanding of what constitutes business models and their utilisation is indispensable to navigating the emerging priorities of construction organisations.

2. Terminologies

While the terminology of “business model” and “strategy” are frequently fused within professional discourse, it is important to recognise that these terms represent separate, albeit interconnected, notions in the realm of business management.
Business Models—An early definition of a business model in the literature describes it as an architecture for the product, service, and information flows and the roles and benefits of the various business actors [22]. Mahadevan [23]’s definition introduced the term ‘value’ to the definition and articulated that a business model is a blend of three streams critical to a business: the value stream, revenue stream and logistical stream. As the era of technological innovation was ushered in, the definition of business model expanded and was conceived as a focusing device that mediates between technology development and economic value creation [11].
Despite the evolving definition, the perception of ‘value’ remains a constant in the conversation around business models; Fielt [24] conducted a review of all historical definitions of a business model to arrive at a simple working definition as a representation of the value logic of an organisation in terms of how it creates value and captures customer value. 
Strategy—The definition of strategy has also evolved over the years, much like the definition of business models. Porter’s [25] definition, which defined strategy as creating a unique and valuable position involving a different set of activities that are different from rivals, remains classic. Several researchers in the strategic management literature associate strategy with competition [26][27][28].
In the context of business models and strategy, Coes [29] stated that “if you understand all the components of an airplane doesn’t imply that you can fly it”. Even though a business model can give the architecture of what a firm is expected to do at a given point in time, it cannot build a story of ‘how’; strategy, however, allows drawing inferences from experiments with testable assumptions [30]. Therefore, it can be comprehended that a business model reflects a firm’s realised strategy [31]; while strategy is in the real-world, the business model is its abstraction [32]. 

3. Business Models Facilitate Strategic Transformation in Construction Firms

3.1. Elucidating the Terminology of ‘Business Models’ in Construction

Early research that mentions business models in the construction-related literature does not contextualise business models as schoalrs have defined earlier, “…a representation of the value logic of an organisation”, and instead refers to it as a means of justifying the cost, or in other words, a commercial model [33][34]. Varied interpretations of business models are also found in the recently published literature. In Lamptey, Owusu-Manu [35], the terms ‘business model’ and ‘business process’ are interchangeably used, and in Lin, Lyu [36], the emphasis is on a procurement model, which are recent examples of articles that deviated from contextualising business models as the “value logic of an organisation”. Brady, Davies [37] presented one of the first articles that analysed business models in construction from the perceptions of value, systems integration, and integrated solutions by extending the notion of value beyond just ‘cost’ to include ‘use’, ‘esteem’, and ‘exchange’. They utilised this expanded interpretation of value from the management literature to develop their claim that integrated solutions that cater to construction clients from development to decommissioning would require newer business models; thus, the first instance of understanding business models in construction emerged out of the need to integrate its fragmented supply chain by adding value upstream. This eventually led to learning from the manufacturing sector; Li, Guo [38] contextualised business models as an inherent value logic when they studied the virtual prototyping methodology engaged in IKEA’s lean production process and its underlying business model to implement it in a real-world construction project.
Adding a new dimension to business model research in construction, Rottke, Schiereck [39] mentioned business models in an organisational context as they examined the vertical expansion of construction companies into the real estate value chain through mergers and acquisitions to improve their market position. Aho [40] wrote one of the earliest articles to emphasise that it is a business model that authentically links price and profit to the tangible value delivered to the consumer and the broader community. However, even though there were traces of evidence of business model research in construction, Morrissey, Dunphy [41] stated that new business models and business model innovation are still of very low priority for construction organisations because they are in a ‘survival mode’ going from project to project to maintain viability with minimal resources to spare in business model innovation. It can be said that only with the advent of industrialised house building in the Swedish context did the narrative of business model research in construction completely coincide with being the ‘value logic of an organisation in terms of how it captures and delivers value to its client’ [42]. The evolution of business model research in construction reached its current state when the pressure to become more sustainable prompted the development of circular business models that initiate reform in each stage of the value chain [43].

3.2. Business Model Research in Construction—Focus Areas

3.2.1. Industrialised House Building

Industrialised House Building (IHB) or offsite construction involves the prefabrication of components in a factory instead of the conventional on-site building method. IHB enhances the speed of delivery, quality of the buildings delivered and removes the ‘project-centric’ issues such as fragmentation of the supply chain [44]. The concept of offsite construction has been around for a long time, but its uptake has been restricted. Business model researchers in construction are of the opinion that the reason behind this is a lack of understanding of how industrialised building fits into the overall company’s business model; Girmscheid and Rinas [45], whose research was in the Swiss context, stated that IHB involves a complex system of cooperating players and new business models are required to empower the players to be free from opportunistic behaviour and maximise their contribution to the client’s value creation process; Goulding, Pour Rahimian [46] stated that the uptake of IHB would require the evaluation of alternate business models to produce effective solutions; and Uusitalo and Lavikka [47] found that IHB involves technology transfer between companies and this is feasible only through newer viable business models. In a very recent publication, Dowsett, Green [48] stated that wider adoption needs non-technological innovations, including business model modifications and evolved contractual relationships.

3.2.2. Circular Business Models

A circular economy is a restorative or regenerative system used to enable a shift from a ‘cradle-to-grave’ to a ‘cradle-to-cradle’ approach, and firms need to alter their business models to benefit from it [49][50][51]. Circular business models originated from the circular economy approach when corporate social responsibility evolved into creating a shared value [52]. Circular business models have been explored in the construction literature using Osterwalder, Pigneur’s [53] business model canvas, which is one of the well-established business model frameworks. Mokhlesian and Holmén [50] modified the nine elements of the business model canvas proposed by Osterwalder, Pigneur [53] and determined that ‘value configuration’ and ‘cost structure’ were the business model elements most impacted when scholars shift to circular business models followed by the ‘partner network’. They found that circular business models require radically distinct value configuration, i.e., the arrangement of activities and resources, thereby altering the cost structure significantly; this additional cost could either be absorbed by the construction firm or passed on to the customer, which creates a new vision of sharing environmental and societal benefits along with profit making. Mokhlesian and Holmén [50] claimed that this could be achieved if the partner network acts as a source of knowledge sharing and innovation.
Selberherr [54] presented two perspectives of a circular business model: an outside view that concerns the market positioning and a holistic consideration of sustainability in the new offering and an inside view that deals with the organisation and processes within to create a new offering. In a way, this is similar to the framework that was presented by Brege, Stehn [44] related to IHB, where the market position coincides with an ‘outside view’ and the operational platform coincides with an ‘inside view’ of the company’s business model. However, unlike IHB business model research, circular business model research had a global approach and was not specific to any country, which is probably due to the presence of overarching constructs such as the United Nations Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) [43][55]. 
In the preceding sections of this discourse, the intersectionality of IHB and circular business model attributes has been established. This integration has been recognized by Heesbeen and Prieto [56], as they have proposed two archetypical circular business models that blend the principles of IHB with a circular economy focus: (a) “Adaptable building”, a model that delivers adaptability and facilitates technical, functional, and spatial flexibility and upgradability in order to extend user satisfaction; (b) “Never-ending building”, a model that delivers longevity, durability, easy maintenance and repair, seeking to reduce end-user dissatisfaction by fostering a timeless quality. The burgeoning fields of circular business models, deconstruction, and supply chain management present substantial potential for the confluence of circular economy principles and IHB [57].

3.2.3. Generic Business Model Research

A growing number of publications have attempted to understand the role of business models in fulfilling organisational objectives [58][59][60]. As mentioned earlier, Brady, Davies [37] was among the first to present the ‘Built Environment Solution Provision (BESP)’, a concept of bundling construction products and services into an integrated value chain, enhancing repeatability and standardisation. The BESP can be considered as a predecessor of IHB business models, which operate on the basis of repeatability and standardisation that facilitate the shifting of value-adding activities upstream [44].
Verstraete, Jouison-Laffitte [61] stated that business models can go beyond start-ups, where they originated, and incumbent organisations can use them. Given this, there is evidence of business model researchers in construction utilising well-established frameworks in the management literature to address questions related to their growth. Ling and Li [62] based their research on Porter [63]’s cost leadership and differentiation strategies to understand the value creation in Chinese construction firms. They recommended that firms could create value by offering niche/specialty products or services and proposed that one-stop services covering the entire value chain could be one of the possibilities.

3.2.4. Emergent Themes—How Can Business Models Facilitate Strategic Transformation?

Strategic transformation refers to the profound, organisation-wide change that fundamentally reshapes an organisation’s culture, value proposition, or business model to adapt to new market conditions, technologies, or challenges. This form of transformation is proactive and future-oriented, often driven by a need to address long-term opportunities or threats instead of merely reacting to immediate business exigencies [64]. A notable example of strategic transformation within a construction organisation relevant to the context would be a decision to identify and aggregate the pipeline of demand and optimise based on repeatability and standardisation.
Theme 1. Business models can be used as a creative tool for strategy formulation.
Using business models as a creative tool for strategy reformulation can resolve an eternal ambiguity in the construction industry ‘who is the customer?’; while developers and owners of assets are considered as the customer to whom buildings must be delivered, the requirements of the occupiers are often overlooked [65]. As seen in the case of IHB, using business models as a tool resulted in a strategy that produces competitive end-products aimed at very specific customer segments (niche market), thereby achieving high customer value [44].
Theme 2. Strategic partnerships are crucial for newer business models.
The construction industry is characterised as ‘fragmented’ given the multitude of stakeholders with competing interests operating across the value chain. Business models can be used as a lens to analyse the fragmentation in the industry in terms of identifying the conflicts of interest between the business models of the key stakeholders and then formulating a strategy to smooth out the areas of friction by negotiating win-win solutions [66]. As is evident in the case of circular business models, stable supply chain relationships facilitate the development of service-based win-win solutions [67][68][69]. The partner network impacts the business model in a two-directional manner, both the considerations of the stakeholders’ expectations and the quality of resources provided by the network [61]. While strategic partnerships began as a means of knowledge sharing [50], the ongoing digital transformation of the construction industry has spearheaded technology-based partnerships in capacity building [70].
Theme 3. The business model is the bridge between technology integration and strategy.
The construction industry remains one of the least digitalised; however, the inflow of significant venture capital into construction technology indicates a strong desire for digital transformation [71]. Construction companies are undertaking ad hoc digital transformation initiatives where the technology plays a central role without much consideration for the underlying business model; often, such initiatives cannot be scaled [8]. A robust digital strategy for a construction firm should involve new data-centric business models based on wider asset and performance data use, i.e., asset optimisation [72]. However, top-down integration of technology through government mandates can only compel construction companies to achieve minimal standards while a great extent of the technology’s potential value remains untapped [73].

4. Summary

Thriving on Contradiction

Historically resistant to cultural change, the construction industry has started altering its narrative towards a conscious discourse of business model innovation. In their recent work, Farjoun and Fiss [74] state that contradictions often drive strategic transformation if disciplined incoherence is established through strong leadership, shared values, defined boundaries, rules of engagement and safe spaces. In the Scandinavian context, IHB business models stand out as exemplars of business model innovation in construction with disciplined incoherence, which enabled companies to continually learn, integrate, and pivot, leading to a competitive advantage. The wider construction industry comprises many configurations presenting an image of pluralism and thinly spread diversity; however, conflicts often lead to adversarial relationships. Understanding how managers can alter the course for such conflicts by allowing them to foster coopetition over competition, drawing on organisational arrangements, is subject to further research.

The Interplay between Competition and Coopetition

The interplay between competition and coopetition is a fairly well-researched topic in the strategic management literature [75]. Dyer, Singh [76] stated that the interdependence between the complementary resources of partners is critical in alliance value creation and capture, and often determines how quickly the alliances are formed or might dissolve. To progress towards defining its strategic partnerships that enable new business models, construction research must identify and analyse internal and external factors to the alliance that trigger weakened value creation and heightened competition among partners. The growing significance of technology-based partnerships in construction reaffirms that inter-firm cooperation is a possible avenue for incumbent organisations to respond to discontinuous technological changes [77].

Leaping and Drifting

Technology integration through business model innovation may result in improved value creation; however, there is a strong implication that construction firms often consider it beyond their capability or not a priority [8][78]. It may result from a persistent misunderstanding that technology integration through business model innovation is too complex and always necessitates a resource-intensive “leapfrogging” effort. In the work of Berends, Smits [79], two distinct patterns of business model innovation have been identified: leaping, where the business model elements and their interdependencies are created upfront, followed by the business model going into operation and certain fine-tuning based on experiential learning; and drifting, where the emphasis shifts from experiential learning to cognitive search for a reconceptualised business model which allows substantial divergence from the initial business model.

Project-Based Business Model Innovation

A noticeable shortcoming in construction identified through the SLR is the disregard for a company’s business model while selecting and delivering projects. As seen in the case of both IHB and circular business models, project success does not necessarily build into an organisation’s business model. Pekuri, Pekuri [80] presented a conceptual framework that associated project selection with two filters: the fitness of the project to a company’s business model and the project’s risk vs. profit potential. While it was a step in the right direction, the model was empirically validated only in the context of Finnish construction companies. There is an opportunity for further research on the business model innovation in construction companies at the project and organisational levels. Such research can potentially inform strategic management research, demonstrating how project-based industries can utilise business model innovation for strategy reformulation.

References

  1. Agarwal, R.; Chandrasekaran, S.; Sridhar, M. Imagining Construction’s Digital Future; McKinsey & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
  2. Berawi, M.A. The role of industry 4.0 in achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Int. J. Technol. 2019, 10, 644–647.
  3. Riazi, S.R.M.; Zainuddin, M.F.; Nawi, M.N.M.; Musa, S.; Lee, A. A critical review of fragmentation issues in the construction industry. J. Talent. Dev. Excell. 2020, 12, 1510–1521.
  4. Alashwal, A.M.; Fong, P.S.-W. Empirical Study to Determine Fragmentation of Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015016.
  5. Fellows, R.; Liu, A.M. Managing organizational interfaces in engineering construction projects: Addressing fragmentation and boundary issues across multiple interfaces. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2012, 30, 653–671.
  6. Sheffer, D.A. Innovation in Modular Industries: Implementing Energy-Efficient Innovations in US Buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 2011.
  7. Hall, D.M.; Lessing, J.; Whyte, J. New Business Models for Industrialized Construction. In Industry 4.0 for the Built Environment; Bolpagni, M., Gavina, R., Ribeiro, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 20, pp. 297–314.
  8. Criado-Perez, C.; Shinkle, G.A.; Höllerer, M.A.; Sharma, A.; Collins, C.; Gardner, N.; Haeusler, M.H.; Pan, S. Digital Transformation in the Australian AEC Industry: Prevailing Issues and Prospective Leadership Thinking. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2022, 148, 05021012.
  9. Bolton, A.; Enzer, M.; Schooling, J. The Gemini Principles: Guiding Values for the National Digital Twin and Information Management Framework; Centre for Digital Built Britain and Digital Framework Task Group: Cambridge, UK, 2018.
  10. Sawhney, A.; Riley, M.; Irizarry, J. Construction 4.0: An Innovation Platform for the Built Environment; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2020.
  11. Chesbrough, H.; Rosenbloom, R.S. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2002, 11, 529–555.
  12. Bloomfield, T. Digital disruption in the registry services industry. Gov. Dir. 2016, 68, 222–224.
  13. Parvinen, P. Advancing data monetization and the creation of data-based business models. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2020, 47, 2.
  14. Dixon; Connaughton, J.; Green, S. Understanding and Shaping Sustainable Futures in the Built Environment to 2050. In Sustainable Futures in the Built Environment to 2050; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018.
  15. Corsi, P.; Neau, E. Innovation Capability Maturity Model; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
  16. Santa-Maria, T.; Vermeulen, W.J.; Baumgartner, R.J. How do incumbent firms innovate their business models for the circular economy? Identifying micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 1308–1333.
  17. Magretta, J. Why Business Models Matter. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 86–92.
  18. Gordijn, J.; Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Comparing two business model ontologies for designing e-business models and value constellations. In Proceedings of the 18th Bled eConference: eIntegration in Action, Bled, Slovenia, 6–8 June 2005.
  19. Osterwalder, A. The Business Model Ontology a Proposition in a Design Science Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des Hautes Études Commerciales, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004.
  20. Abeynayake, D.N.; Perera, B.; Hadiwattege, C. Defining a ‘business model’in the construction context. Intell. Build. Int. 2022, 14, 473–486.
  21. Hope, A.; Moehler, R. Responsible Business Model Innovation: Reconceptualising the role of business in society. In Proceedings of the EURAM 2015: 15th Annual Conference of the European Academy of Management, Warsaw, Poland, 17–20 June 2015.
  22. Timmers, P. Business models for electronic markets. Electron. Mark. 1998, 8, 3–8.
  23. Mahadevan, B. Business models for Internet-based e-commerce: An anatomy. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2000, 42, 55–69.
  24. Fielt, E. Conceptualising business models: Definitions, frameworks and classifications. J. Bus. Models 2013, 1, 85–105.
  25. Porter, M. What is strategy? Harward Bus. Rev. 1996, 74, 61–78.
  26. Barney, J.B. Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002.
  27. Richardson, J.E. The Business Model: An Integrative Framework for Strategy Execution; Social Science Research Network: Rochester, NY, USA, 2005.
  28. Teece, D.J. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194.
  29. Coes, D. Critically Assessing the Strengths and Limitations of the Business Model Canvas. Master’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2014.
  30. Ehrig, T.; Schmidt, J. Theory-based learning and experimentation: How strategists can systematically generate knowledge at the edge between the known and the unknown. Strateg. Manag. J. 2022, 43, 1287–1318.
  31. Casadesus-Masanell, R.; Ricart, J.E. From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 195–215.
  32. Seddon, P.; Lewis, G. Strategy and business models: What’s the difference? In Proceedings of the 7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, Australia, 10–13 July 2003.
  33. Duyshart, B.; Walker, D.; Mohamed, S.; Hampson, K. An example of developing a business model for information and communication technologies (ICT) adoption on construction projects–the National Museum of Australia project. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2003, 10, 179–192.
  34. Seaden, G.; Guolla, M.; Doutriaux, J.; Nash, J. Strategic decisions and innovation in construction firms. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2003, 21, 603–612.
  35. Lamptey, T.; Owusu-Manu, D.-G.; Acheampong, A.; Adesi, M.; Ghansah, F.A. A framework for the adoption of green business models in the Ghanaian construction industry. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2020, 10, 536–553.
  36. Lin, T.; Lyu, S.; Yang, R.J.; Tivendale, L. Offsite construction in the Australian low-rise residential buildings application levels and procurement options. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 29, 110–140.
  37. Brady, T.; Davies, A.; Gann, D. Can integrated solutions business models work in construction? Build. Res. Inf. 2005, 33, 571–579.
  38. Li, H.; Guo, H.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Skitmore, M. Using the IKEA model and virtual prototyping technology to improve construction process management. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2008, 26, 991–1000.
  39. Rottke, N.; Schiereck, D.; Pauser, S. M&A in the construction industry-wealth effects of diversification into real estate life cycle related services. Int. Real Estate Rev. 2011, 14, 283–310.
  40. Aho, I. Value-added business models: Linking professionalism and delivery of sustainability. Build. Res. Inf. 2013, 41, 110–114.
  41. Morrissey, J.; Dunphy, N.; MacSweeney, R. Energy efficiency in commercial buildings: Capturing added-value of retrofit. J. Prop. Invest. Financ. 2014, 32, 396–414.
  42. Lessing, J.; Brege, S. Industrialized Building Companies’ Business Models: Multiple Case Study of Swedish and North American Companies. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 144, 05017019.
  43. Tokazhanov, G.; Galiyev, O.; Lukyanenko, A.; Nauyryzbay, A.; Ismagulov, R.; Durdyev, S.; Turkyilmaz, A.; Karaca, F. Circularity assessment tool development for construction projects in emerging economies. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132293.
  44. Brege, S.; Stehn, L.; Nord, T. Business models in industrialized building of multi-storey houses. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2014, 32, 208–226.
  45. Girmscheid, G.; Rinas, T. Business design modeling for industrialization in construction: Cooperative approach. J. Archit. Eng. 2012, 18, 164–175.
  46. Goulding, J.S.; Pour Rahimian, F.; Arif, M.; Sharp, M. New offsite production and business models in construction: Priorities for the future research agenda. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2015, 11, 163–184.
  47. Uusitalo, P.; Lavikka, R. Technology transfer in the construction industry. J. Technol. Transf. 2020, 46, 1291–1320.
  48. Dowsett, R.M.; Green, M.S.; Harty, C. Speculation beyond technology: Building scenarios through storytelling. Build. Cities 2022, 3, 534–553.
  49. Munaro, M.R.; Freitas, M.d.C.D.; Tavares, S.F.; Bragança, L. Circular business models: Current state and framework to achieve sustainable buildings. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021164.
  50. Mokhlesian, S.; Holmén, M. Business model changes and green construction processes. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2012, 30, 761–775.
  51. Zhao, X.; Pan, W.; Lu, W. Business model innovation for delivering zero carbon buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 27, 253–262.
  52. Mansell, P.; Philbin, S.P.; Konstantinou, E. Redefining the use of sustainable development goals at the organisation and project levels—A survey of engineers. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 55.
  53. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Clark, T. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010.
  54. Selberherr, J. Sustainable life cycle offers through cooperation. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2015, 4, 4–24.
  55. Zhao, X.; Pan, W. Delivering zero carbon buildings: The role of innovative business models. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 404–411.
  56. Heesbeen, C.; Prieto, A. Archetypical CBMs in construction and a translation to industrialized manufacture. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1572.
  57. Obi, L.; Arif, M.; Daniel, E.I.; Oladinrin, O.T.; Goulding, J.S. Establishing underpinning concepts for integrating circular economy and offsite construction: A bibliometric review. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2022, 13, 123–139.
  58. Jang, Y.; Ahn, Y.; Park, M.; Lee, H.-S.; Kwon, N. Business models and performance of international construction companies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2575.
  59. Han, W.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, R. Strategic orientation, business model innovation and corporate performance—Evidence from construction industry. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 971654.
  60. Ruiter, H.; De Feijter, F.; Wagensveld, K. Management Control and Business Model Innovation in the Context of a Circular Economy in the Dutch Construction Industry. Sustainability 2021, 14, 366.
  61. Verstraete, T.; Jouison-Laffitte, E.; Kremer, F.; Hlady-Rispal, M. Assessing business model relevance for business leaders in the construction industry. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 2017, 30, 58–79.
  62. Ling, F.Y.Y.; Li, S. Business models for foreign firms offering construction-related consultancy services in China. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2016, 34, 218–235.
  63. Porter, M.E. How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1979, 57, 137–145.
  64. Yaqub, M.Z.; Alsabban, A. Industry-4.0-Enabled Digital Transformation: Prospects, Instruments, Challenges, and Implications for Business Strategies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8553.
  65. Pfnür, A.; Wagner, B. Transformation of the real estate and construction industry: Empirical fndings from Germany. J. Bus. Econ. 2020, 90, 975–1019.
  66. Berg, J.B.; Thuesen, C.; Ernstsen, S.K.; Jensen, P.A. Reconfiguring the construction value chain: Analysing key sources of friction in the business model archetypes of AEC companies in strategic partnerships. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2021, 39, 533–548.
  67. Giorgi, S.; Lavagna, M.; Wang, K.; Osmani, M.; Liu, G.; Campioli, A. Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in the building sector: Stakeholder interviews and analysis of five European countries policies and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 336, 130395.
  68. Sanne, J.M.; Björk, A.; Sahlberg, B.; Stripple, H. Designing a business model to reduce CO2 emissions from construction machinery: Aligning business and environmental objectives. J. Constr. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 9, 1–19.
  69. Toppinen, A.; Autio, M.; Sauru, M.; Berghäll, S. Sustainability-driven new business models in wood construction towards 2030. In Towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Principles, Challenges and Perspectives; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 499–516.
  70. Das, P.; Perera, S.; Senaratne, S.; Osei-Kyei, R. Developing a Construction Business Model Transformation Canvas. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 28, 1423–1439.
  71. Bartlett, K.; Blanco, J.L.; Fitzgerald, B.; Johnson, J.; Mullin, A.L.; Ribeirinho, M.J. Rise of the Platform Era: The Next Chapter in Construction Technology. 2020. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/private-equity-and-principal-investors/our-insights/rise-of-the-platform-era-the-next-chapter-in-construction-technology (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  72. Sacks, R.; Brilakis, I.; Pikas, E.; Xie, H.S.; Girolami, M. Construction with digital twin information systems. Data-Centric Eng. 2020, 1, e14.
  73. Meglin, R.; Kytzia, S.; Habert, G. Uncertainty, variability, price changes and their implications on a regional building materials industry: The case of Swiss canton Argovia. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 330, 129944.
  74. Farjoun, M.; Fiss, P.C. Thriving on contradiction: Toward a dialectical alternative to fit-based models in strategy (and beyond). Strateg. Manag. J. 2022, 43, 340–369.
  75. Hoffmann, W.; Lavie, D.; Reuer, J.J.; Shipilov, A. The interplay of competition and cooperation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 3033–3052.
  76. Dyer, J.H.; Singh, H.; Hesterly, W.S. The relational view revisited: A dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 3140–3162.
  77. Cozzolino, A.; Rothaermel, F.T. Discontinuities, competition, and cooperation: Coopetitive dynamics between incumbents and entrants. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 3053–3085.
  78. Pekuri, A.; Pekuri, L.; Haapasalo, H. The role of business models in Finnish construction companies. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 2013, 13, 13–23.
  79. Berends, H.; Smits, A.; Reymen, I.; Podoynitsyna, K. Learning while (re) configuring: Business model innovation processes in established firms. Strateg. Organ. 2016, 14, 181–219.
  80. Pekuri, A.; Pekuri, L.; Haapasalo, H. Business models and project selection in construction companies. Constr. Innov. 2015, 15, 180–197.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Construction & Building Technology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Priyadarshini Das
,
Amer A. Hijazi
,
Duncan W. Maxwell
,
Robert C. Moehler
View Times: 327
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 13 Sep 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback