By Farook Hamzeh, Associate Professor, University of Alberta (hamzeh@ualberta.ca)
Photo by Shivendu Shukla on Unsplash
Managers of organizations always prefer planning and resourcing in a routine and repetitive environment (Weick, 1998). However, according to chaos theory, numerous organizational actions can have unintended or unexpected consequences (Cunha et al., 1999). Woods and Hollnagel (2006) indicated that organizations cannot develop plans and procedures for all possible scenarios. In addition, natural or technological emergencies, whether randomly or intentionally induced, can challenge the planning performance of organizations (Mendonca & Wallace, 2007). Even though there was an approach to eradicate improvisation from business organizations, improvisation continued to exist in many emergent situations (Ciborra, 1999). This led to a new approach that considers improvisation as a complementary part to planning rather than considering it as an undesired fluctuation in plans (Ciborra, 1999).
Ciborra (1999) defined improvisation as the act of producing new combinations of resources, routines and structures in order to cope with the present wicked situations. Furthermore, Moorman and Miner (1998) focused on the time aspect while defining improvisation by considering it as planning and executing simultaneously. They additionally considered improvisation as a spontaneous and deliberate organizational action. Moreover, Cunha et al. (1999) provided a definition for improvisation as the effort performed by an individual or an organization to compose and perform simultaneously at the spur of the moment using the available material, cognitive, affective and social resources.
Hamzeh et al. (2012) have pioneered research addressing improvisation in the construction industry. Conducting interviews with construction specialists, the study evaluated the performance of look-ahead planning and the complementary role of improvisation identifying when, how much, and where it is utilized. Results highlight a difference between white-collar and blue-collar workers when it comes to attitude and freedom to be proactive when the situation requires improvisation. Results indicate that, improvisation may serve to adapt the standard operating procedures or create ones that are more suitable for complex and dynamic environments.
Uncertainties and variations often impact construction planning; what is executed on site may differ from what is planned. Some tasks, not included in the weekly schedule or are included in it but are allocated within the wrong time frame, have to be executed within a given week. These tasks appear at the week of their execution on site and are called ‘New Tasks’. Although they might impact a project’s progress, the reasons behind their emergence are not known. Exploring planning behaviors and the situations where ‘new tasks’ emerge can provide more understanding of the planning process and pave the way for improving the planning system. Rohana and Hamzeh 2016 have identified the reasons behind the emergence of ‘new tasks’ in construction planning as observed on several case study projects, described the planning behaviors responsible for their emergence, and developed a model that explains the emergence process.
To understand improvisation in construction, Hamzeh et al. 2018a have analyzed improvisational practices in construction and investigated factors contributing to successful improvisation. Using data from practitioners on actual constructions projects, the study elucidates antecedents, behaviors and consequences of improvisation in various construction operations. Moreover, Hamzeh et al. 2018b have modelled improvisation as a decision-making process to illustrate how construction personnel can properly improvise and reach their desired actions. The outcomes of this research are expected to produce a monumental shift in the understanding of decision making in construction while laying a foundation to guide managers and decision makers in the construction industry to identify personal, organizational, and other characteristics that may improve the practice of improvisation for complementing planning processes rather than undermining them
References:
- Ciborra, C. U. (1999). Notes on improvisation and time in organizations. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 9(2), 77-94.
- Cunha, M. P., Cunha, J. V., & Kamoche, K. (1999). Organizational Improvisation: What, When, How and Why. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(3), 299-341.
- Hamzeh, F. R., Faek, F., and Al Hussein, H.. (2018a). Understanding Improvisation in Construction through Antecedents, Behaviours, and Consequences. Construction Management and Economics, Taylor and Francis, 37(2): 61-71.
- Hamzeh, F. R., Al Hussein, H., Faek, F. (2018b). Investigating the Practice of Improvisation in Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 34(6): 04018039-1-10.
- Hamzeh, F.R., Abi Morshed, F., Jalwan, H., and Saab, I. (2012). Is Improvisation Compatible with Lookahead Planning? An Exploratory Study, Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, IGLC 20, 18-20 July, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 441-450.
- Mendonca, D. and Wallace, W., (2007). A cognitive model of improvisation in emergency management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 37 (4), 547–561.
- Rouhana, C., Hamzeh F.R., (2016) “An ABC Approach to Modeling the Emergence of ‘New Tasks’ in Weekly Construction Planning”, Lean Construction Journal. USA. pp. 35-56.
- Weick, K.E. (1998). Introductory essay: Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9(5), 543-555.
- Woods, D.D. & Hollnagel, E. (2006).Prologue: resilience engineering concepts.In: E. Hollnagel, D.D. Woods & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate, 1–8,9-17.