Aalborg Universitet

Making the long tail work

Reflections on the development of the construction industry the past 25 years

Thuesen, Christian; Jensen, Jens Stissing; Gottlieb, Stefan Christoffer

Published in:Proceedings 25th Annual ARCOM Conference

Publication date:2009

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication from Aalborg University

Citation for published version (APA):Thuesen, C., Jensen, J. S., & Gottlieb, S. C. (2009). Making the long tail work: Reflections on the developmentof the construction industry the past 25 years. In A. Dainty (Ed.), Proceedings 25th Annual ARCOM Conference:7-9 September 2009 (Vol. 2, pp. 1111-1120). Nottingham, UK: ARCOM - Association of Researchers inConstruction Management.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. ? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain ? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at vbn@aub.aau.dk providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: January 01, 2020

Thuesen, C., Jensen, J.S. and Gottlieb, S.C. (2009) Making the long tail work - reflections on the development of the construction industry the past 25 years. In: Dainty, A. (Ed) Procs 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2009, Nottingham, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 1111-20.

1111

MAKING THE LONG TAIL WORK - REFLECTIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY THE PAST 25 YEARS

Christian Thuesen1, Jens Stissing Jensen2 and Stefan Christoffer Gottlieb3 1 Management DTU, Bygning 424 rum 118, DK 2800 Lyngby 2 Management DTU, Bygning 424 rum 117, DK 2800 Lyngby 3 Danish Building Research Institute, Dr. Neergaards Vej 15, DK 2970 Hørsholm, Denmark

The paper discusses the development and impact of construction research the past 25 years. Theoretically, the paper builds on two fundamental insights: The Pareto principle (the 80-20 rule) and the Thomas theorem: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences" (Thomas and Thomas 1928: 572) - a fundamental sociological principle. The Pareto principle is applied using the concept “The long tail” (Anderson 2006). Based on “the long tail” the three different production paradigms of mass production, mass customisation, and individual customisation are identified. The paper argues that construction in the 1950s and 1960s was driven by a “mass production” paradigm that from the beginning of the 1980s was replaced by an “individual customisation” paradigm in which construction became a matter of tailoring unique buildings to each customer. These two different paradigms have been driven by two more or less unarticulated myths. In the 1960s buildings were viewed as standardised while they from the 1980s onwards have been viewed as unique. Based on the Thomas theorem it is argued that these myths have had a substantial impact on the way we build. Consequently, today’s predominant view of buildings – as unique – implies that: 1) the nature of the construction processes is chaotic, 2) the buildings are realised through onsite project work rather than through offsite production; and 3) project management is the fundamental management principle. The paper further identifies how attempts to develop new construction practices like partnering and lean implicitly reproduce this myth. The result is that construction research the past 25 years has been constructing the long tail in a way that hinders radical development of the construction industry. The paper concludes that if we allow ourselves to view buildings as both unique but also as standardised we can create a new platform for developing the construction industry – a Mass Customisation paradigm.

Keywords: customisation, industrialisation, long tail.

INTRODUCTION The ambition of this paper is to reflect upon the development of the construction industry the past 25 years and try to outline a new agenda for research in construction. Acknowledging this is a very ambitious goal, the paper will of cause be a target for substantial critique. We hope the critique can give input to the further development of the paper and the thoughts behind. As our intention with the paper is to open a debate

1 chth@man.dtu.dk 2 jsti@man.dtu.dk 3 stg@sbi.dk

Thuesen,

1112

regardinargumen

The funthe conslarge dea concepmechan

We acknconstruccan creaand whecompangoverna

The papfundamframewparadigmhave dehave treThe papparadigmparadigm

THE CBased o“The Loof Businmarket bvariantsproductindividucustomiaccordin

Figure 1

Figure 1customifigure shprimary

Jensen and G

ng the histornt will cons

ndamental wstruction indegree is unept for under

nisms, which

nowledge thction industate new insiere it is hea

ny perspectiance perspec

per opens wmental frame

ork is subsems in the co

eveloped simemendous inper concludem that bridgm - Individu

CONCEPon the Paretoong Tail” anness Is Selliby juxtaposs. The Longt variants repualised sociised producng to Ander

1: The long ta

1 relates theisation and hould be re

y focus is re

Gottlieb

rical and prsequently be

wondering isdustry, whicxplored andrstanding thh for good a

hat there extry. This papights on whding. In parve while wective.

with an introework for unequent usedonstruction multaneouslnfluence ones with an iges the tradual Custom

PT OF THo principle nd developeing Less of sing the volug Tail refers present onlyety and as nts - the tail rsen is sellin

ail and produ

e long tail toindividual cad as a concgarding var

resent devele held at a c

s that there ch is not supd taken for ghis particulaand bad are

xists a varietper, howeve

here the consrticular, we e in another

duction to tnderstandind for underst

industry. Itly with a par

n the way controduction

ditional Masmisation.

HE LONG(the 80-20 r

ed it furtherMore” (Anume/populato the tail o

y 20 % of thnew technolpart gets intng less of m

uction parad

o different pcustomisatioceptualisatiriation and m

lopment of tconceptual l

seem to be pported by granted. Thar developm

structuring

ty of perspeer, is dedicastruction inwill addres

r paper will

the concept g different ptanding the t is argued thrticular view

onstruction in to Mass Cuss Productio

G TAIL rule) Ander

r in the booknderson 200arity of prodof the Paretohe market. Alogies enablteresting. T

more.

digms

production pon) exemplion of wheremarket size

the construclevel.

an ongoingresearch – ais paper intr

ment and indg the constru

ectives on thated to expldustry is tod

ss the develodiscuss the

of the long production developmehat these prw or myths is practiced ustomisatio

on with toda

rson (2004)k ”The Long6). It gives ducts with tho distributioAs we live ile productio

That’s why t

paradigms (ified by the e each produ.

ction indust

g developmeand which troduces the

dentifies somuction indus

he developmore how theday, where opment frome trend from

tail, which paradigms.

ent of produroduction paof buildingand develo

on as a produay's construc

termed the g Tail: Whyan overviewhe number oon - that 80 in an increaon and distrthe future of

(mass producar industr

uction para

try, the

ent/drift in to a very e long tail asme of the stry.

ment of the e long tail it has been

m a m a

is our This

uction aradigms

gs, which oped today. uction ction

concept y the Futurew of a of product % of the

asingly ibution f business

uction, massry. The digm's

s

e

s

Traditionalthat are the paradigm leModel T, wstandardiselong as it is

However, thyears. By ththe well kncustomer tacompany caal. 2000). Iand bigger,

The last prostrategy, whindustry thiAston Mart

THE LOBut what do

Back in theof Europe, developmenCorbusier. industrialisconstructio

Buildings wthe new buiequipped wwindows ar

Figure 2: Th In the beginfrom upcom(BoxenbaumJean Nouveand they de

ly, industriamost popul

everaging ewhich in the ed product. As black”

he developmhe use of prow example

ailored cars an still leven this way, by applyin

oduction pahere every pis paradigmtin.

NG TAILoes the long

e 1950s and was driven nt was initiaBy his workation and thn industry b

were erectedildings were

with the latesreas, etc.

he long tail of

nning of theming architem and Daudel and Frankeveloped a t

al companielar, as theseconomies obeginning

As Henry F

ment of car roduct platfoes from VWincreases th

erage the ecocar manufa

ng mass cust

aradigm of tproduct is r

m is only ada

L OF THEg tail of con

1960s the bby a “Mass

ated as earlyk and blessihe implemenbegan (Boxe

d for the groe an increasst technolog

of the buildin

e 1980s the ects against digeous 200k Gehry chatrend to pro

es have focue can be delof scale. Theonly was pr

Ford put it: “

manufacturorms, custo

W, Skoda, Ahe customeronomies of acturers havtomisation s

he long tailealised uniq

apted for cer

E BUILDnstruction in

building inds Productiony and in theing, it becamntation of menbaum and

owing popuse in the sizgies such as

ng industry

mass markethe results

07). In this nallenged Le duce buildin

D

ussed on theivered, basee most well roduced in o“You can ha

ring has evomers can to

Audi and Sears’ perceivescale of ma

ve addressedstrategies.

is the “indiquely for eartain extrem

DING INDndustry look

dustry in Den” paradigme 1920s fuelme legitimamass producd Daudigeou

ulation in thee of the apa

s refrigerato

et for housinof the massnew postmoCorbusier's

ngs which w

Development o

e small amoed on the mknow exam

one variant ave all the c

olved dramaoday design at. This caped value of tass productid the long ta

ividual custach customeme luxury ca

DUSTRY k like?

enmark, as wm (Bertelsenlled by the iate for architction principus 2007).

e cities. A vartments andors, large ba

ng decreases productionodern moves ideas of "lwere sensiti

of constructio

ount of prodmass productmple is the F

– an extremcolors you w

atically ovetheir own c

pability to dethe car whilion (Kruschail, making

tomisation” er. Within thars such as t

well as in thn 1997). Thiideas of Le tects to thinples in the

valued qualid they were

athrooms, la

ed and a revn paradigm ment architliving machive to the co

n industry

1113

ducts tion Ford mely want, as

er the cars like eliver le the

hwitz et it longer

he car the

he rest is

nk of

ity of e further arge

volution evolved tects as hines" ontext in

Thuesen, Jensen and Gottlieb

1114

which they were built. Consequently, construction became a matter of tailoring unique buildings to each customer and location. Figure 2 illustrates this paradigm shift.

Still today we are predominately and tacitly following this “individual customisation” paradigm as every project starts from scratch trying to satisfy the customer’s individual needs. The result is that the long tail in the construction industry is extraordinary long.

THE DRIVING MYTHS OF CONSTRUCTION "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences" (Thomas and Thomas 1928: 572).

The two paradigms treated above, mass production and individual customisation, have co-evolved with two more or less unarticulated myths which are discussed further below. First, we will however briefly explain the notion of myths, as it is used in this paper.

The concept of myths We adopt a Laclaudian reading of the concept. According to Laclau a myth can be seen as: “…a space of representation which bears no relation of continuity with the dominant 'structural objectivity'. Myth is thus a principle of reading of a given situation, whose terms are external to what is representable in the objective spatiality constituted by the given structure.” (Laclau 1990: 61).

Departing from this definition a myth can be seen as a discourse which has been institutionalised to such an extent that its contingency is forgotten – i.e. as a discourse which was become objective. Objectivity in this sense should be seen as an extension of the political as a concept referring to the continuous constitution of the social in specific ways, which excludes other alternatives; the political takes precedence in the construction of social configurations. Objectivity can thus be seen as a historical result of political processes and struggles; as sedimented discourse, being the institutionalisation of certain rationalities and power in such a way that other alternatives are forgotten (Laclay 1990).

On the other hand, we have the concept of reactivation of the political, which takes place as new antagonisms dislocate existing structures and reveal the objective world as fundamentally contingent and constituted on basis of previous political struggles. Pedersen (1993) argues that antagonisms are the very basis for talking about political processes: “The political struggle consists of overcoming or eliminating these antagonisms hereby weaving together the ruptured social (dis)order in a new stable order” (Pedersen 1993: 42, own translation).

According to Laclau, this happens as various political groups advocate a specific critical version of a situation based on their own interests and perspectives. This process of weaving together the ruptured social order through the constitution of a new discourse (that is forming a new objectivity by means of rearticulation) is referred to by Laclau as proposing a myth. In this light, a myth can also be understood as a hegemonic intervention, a ‘dissolver’ of antagonisms, and “…a critique of the lack of structuration accompanying the dominant order” (Laclau 1990: 62, in Pedersen, 1993: 42). Thus, myths are on the one hand a misconception of the nature of reality and on the other hand a necessary horizon for our actions.

The myths

We suggestoperated asbuildings wnotably from

Figure 3: Th

We contendproducts an

Recently thwhat some

As an exambuilding promore or lesPlanner Sysenables ma

Lean Constgoverned bmanagemen1991). Thisnavigating realising buis still the psummarisesTable 1 Con

Societal framPerceived natprocess Production paValue chain Vehicle for re

Management

Cost

Implementati

s of the Stan

t - as figures horizons fowere viewedm the 1980

he constructi

d that these nd practices

he myth of Ihave come

mple, the “Locess is cha

ss impossiblstem (LPS)

anagers to co

truction wery the myth nt as the strs project main a chaotic

uildings – anpredominants the differe

nstruction in

me ture of the bu

aradigm

ealisation

paradigm

on of Lean

ndardised a

3 illustrateor action. D

d as standards onwards)

ion of myths

myths have in each per

Individual Cto define as

Lean Construaotic and cole. It is withfor short te

ope with a c

re thus transof Individuategy for m

anagement dc and imperfnd project mt way organences of thethe light of M

StanMod

uilding Com

MasIntegPrefa

Scien

Low

LongBala

and the Un

es - that the During the mdised while have been v

in modern an

e had a definriod.

Customisatios the “natur

uction” comonsequently hin this undeerm planninchaotic buil

slated into aual Customismanaging condiscourse gefect world. managemennising the bu two paradi

Mass Produc

ndardised dern mplex - but kno

s productiongrated fabrication

ntific Manage

w

g term planninance)

D

nique myths of th

modernist pethey in the

viewed as u

nd postmode

nitive impa

on has thus re” of the bu

mmunity oftit follows t

erstanding tg should beding proces

an expressiosation, whicnstruction (enerated tooThe “projec

nt became thuilding procigms ction and Ind

own

ement

ng (Line of

Development o

he Standardieriod (up intpost-moder

unique.

ern construct

act on the co

been implicuilding proc

en states thathat long terthe developme understoodss.

on of a broach focussed(Kreiner andols and stratct” thus beche managemcess today.

dividual Cust

Unique PostmodeChaotic

IndividuaFragmentProject

Project m

High

Short termSystem)

of constructio

ised and theto the 1960rn era (mos

tion industry

onstruction

citly embedcess.

at the naturrm planningment of thed, as LPS ex

ader strategid on project d Christensetegies for came the vehment principTable 1

tomisation

ern

al Customisatited

management

m planning (L

n industry

1115

e Unique s) t

y

dded in

e of the g is Last xactly

ic field,

en

hicle for ple. This

ion

Last Planer

Thuesen,

1116

In this wbeen re-to suppothey hav

A limitaimproviof the uindustryargue ththe root

Howevelook (fras uniquThe ansprocessereprodumyth.

From anvisible aOne couThe shocalled “interestithat ourreactivabeing bobecomeindustry

THE R

Figure 4

Jensen and G

way, concep-shaped by ort the perceve been put

ation, as weing the perf

unique and cy still strugghat most of tt courses to

er, despite tom an outsiue and in a cswer could pes where th

uce the domi

n industrialiand hidden uld thus raisort answer is“nature” of ting point is r view of buate the sedimoth standard

e possible toy – a platfor

ROAD AH

4: Optimisati

Gottlieb

pts that werethe logics oeived chaott to use in th

e see it in thformance in chaotic natugling with inthe initiativthe problem

the prevailinider's perspechaotic wayperhaps be f

he different pinant order

ised perspecsimilaritiesse the quests that this isthe buildinghence not w

uildings havmented socidised and uno create a nerm which co

HEAD

ion of cost/va

e originallyof the myth tic nature ofhe construct

is perspectithe constru

ure of constrnefficiency,

ves have beems of the co

ng myth aboective) paray, when in tfound in theprofessions(Thuesen 2

ctive it is ho as benefits

tion whethers dependentg process is whether the

ve consequenal strata; to nique (insteew “platformould be term

alue related t

y developed of the Uniqf the “indivition industry

ive, is accoruction indusruction. Con, high costs en symptomonstruction i

out the uniqadoxically ththe end it loe institution in their mu

2007) and ar

owever absus of economr there existt on the cultsocially conre exists a “nces. This iexperiment

ead of eitherm” for the dmed “Mass C

to the long ta

to support mqueness of bidual customy.

rdingly that stry implicitnsequently ietc. To be p

m treatment windustry.

queness of bhe same. Hooks like the

nalised practutual interacre shaped in

urd not to tamies of scale

ts a “right” tural settingnstructed ba“right” way implies that t with our vr standardisdevelopmenCustomisati

ail (based on

mass produbuildings anmisation” pa

most initiattly reproducis the constrprovocativewhile not ad

buildings, thow come it e adjacent butice-based lctions continn the image

ake advanta could be acway to view. In this wayased on the to view buif we are ab

view of builsed or uniqunt of the builion”.

n Andersen 2

uction have nd tailored aradigm as

tives for ce the myth ruction e one could ddressing

he buildingsis produceduilding? earning nuously of the

age of these chieved. w buildingsy the so myths. Theildings, butble to dings as

ue), it will lding

2006)

s d

.

e

F

The concepfurther devin Business

TraditionalMass produon the othergenerally mindustry’s c

The basic idthe cost/valas "produciproduction

The interesin the makilike the (no

Especially tBoth Skanscoordinatedand platform

Thuesen anand the Gercustomisatitwo initiativbenefit fromthe Germanon deliverin

Figure 5: NC As illustratNCC Kompindeed deveradical innocompared tDecember 2managed towhile still osegment.

Figure 4: Op

pt Mass Cuseloped by Js Competitio

ly, customisuction provir hand, char

made it a pricustomers to

dea of Masslue ratio - asing goods anefficiency"

ting point ising. Variousow discontin

the large coska and NCCd purchasingms, etc.

nd Jonsson (rman platfoion paradigmves - being m flexibilityn platform wng value to

CCs flirting w

ed in figureplett™ seemeloped a proovation throto their norm2007 to aboo reduce theoffering a hi

ptimisation o

stomisationJoseph Pine on (Pine 19

sation and lided low coracterised thivilege of thoday are stu

s Customisas illustratednd services .

s that the fies actors are nued) Danis

ontractors arC have laung, supply ch

(2009) haverm for housm. They foutheir point

y through inwas to manathe custome

with Mass C

e 5 was theirmed to do alofound newoughout the mal construcolish the inve productionigh quality

of cost/value

was first coin his book93).

low cost havst but at thehe productshe rich. (It isuck with thi

ation is to bd in the figur

to meet ind

eld of Massexperiment

sh initiative

re moving tnched initiathain manage

e evaluated tsing), whichund that theof departure

ndustrialisedage flexibiliers and to re

Customisation

r point of dell the right t

w approach findustry. H

ction practicvestment. Con cost with mproduct car

related to th

D

oined by Stak Mass Cust

ve been pere expense of of designers tempting tis privilege

bridge these re 4. Tseng

dividual cus

s Customisating with mBuilding L

owards mastives for levement, deve

two NCC inh both have ere exists a ke. While NCd manufactuity in traditieduce costs

n

eparture difhings theorfor building

However, theces and the ompared to more than 3refully targe

he long tail (b

Development o

an Davis in tomisation -

rceived as mf uniformityrs and craftsto state that despite thei

two paradigand Jiao (2

stomer's nee

ation in consass customi

Lab DK (ww

ss customisveraging theelopment of

nitiatives (Naimed to im

key differenCC Kompleuring procesional constru.

fferent, and etically spe

g – a well ceey lost contNCC Boardthis, the Ge

30 % over theted at a spe

based on And

of constructio

Future Perf- The New F

mutually excy. Customissmen and itthe constru

ir income).

gms by opti2001: 685) deds with nea

struction is isation strat

ww.building

ation strategeir size throf standard s

NCC Komplmplement thnce betweenett™ was trysses, the effruction - foc

so was the eaking and telebrated catrol of the cod decided inerman platfohe past 10 yecific marke

dersen 2006)

n industry

1117

fect, and Frontier

clusive. sation, ts cost uction

imising define it ar mass

already tegies glab.dk).

gies. ugh olutions

lett™ he mass n the ying to fort of cusing

result. hey

ase on osts n form has years et

)

Thuesen,

1118

The Gerhigh degCompartech as ipractice

The twoa challeanalysisthat thercustomi

On a geseen as in figuresimilaritowardsreduce t

Figure 6

A prereoperatinpartnersto followvalue-ch

Today tis therefaware odiscusse

RESEDespiteconstrucboth fai

Jensen and G

rman case igree of manred to NCC it takes its s

es.

o NCC initiaenge. Salvads of 200 comre is no bestisation] to a

eneric level,a developme 6. The figty and still

s mass produthe flexibili

6: Leveraging

quisite for lng with masships and mw the develhain have th

the institutiofore of outm

of what kinded in Jensen

ARCHIN an increasiction and thilures and su

Gottlieb

s interestingnufacturing

Komplett™starting-poin

atives showdor, Holan ampanies wot way to do

an existing b

the movemment focusingure should maintain thuction the mity towards

g similarity i

leveraging sss customisa

maybe even nopment of Ahe organisat

onal setup hmost importd of structurn et al. (fort

NG THE Ring interest he existenceuccesses – t

g as it contris the way f

™ the Germant in existin

w that findinand Piller (2orking with m

mass custobusiness - ra

ment towardng on leverabe read as h

he necessarymore you stathe market.

in the long ta

similarity isation presupnew types oAEC compational capab

however hinance that th

res they are thcoming).

ROAD AHin applying

e of plenty othe moveme

radicts the pforward foran platform

ng, predomi

ng a success2009) reachmass custom

omise, but thather than v

ds Mass Cusaging similahow to integy flexibility.andardise y

ail - a “stair

s an integratppose the deof companieanies, whichbilities for w

nders the aphe regulatorenacting w

HEAD g mass custoof cases of ient is more

predominantr the constru

m is extremenant in-situ

ful mass cua similar co

misation. Thhat "Managvice versa" (

stomisationarity - a “stagrate the ab. The more y

your process

model”

ted value chevelopmentes. Here it ish due to theworking wit

plication ofs of the induithin the ind

omisation prmplementator less unsu

t understanduction indusly practical

u constructio

ustomisationonclusion inheir conclusers must tai(p79)

in construcair model” aility to leveyou move tses and prod

hain. This imt of strategics extremelyeir position ith mass cust

f mass custoustry is stardustry. This

rinciples in tions - encoupported by

ding that a stry. and low-

on

n strategy isn the sion was ilor [mass

ction can be as illustratederage to the left ducts and

mplies that c

y interestingin the tomisation.

omisation. Irting to be s further

ompassing y research.

s

d

It

Development of construction industry

1119

The only example in Denmark is the work of Center for Industrial Architecture (Cinark) which looks upon this field from an architectural perspective.

Existing research within this field (including Cinark and Manubuild1) share the belief, that the road ahead for the development of construction is increased off site production. This however seems like a too rigid conclusion as NCCs German platform for housing has showed that substantial results can be achieved by on site production.

There is an urgent need for supporting the development with research. There is however no reason for reinventing the wheel. There is a large potential for exploring the existing body of knowledge (e.g. Hvam, Mortensen and Riis (2008); Cooper and Slagmulder (1999)) regarding traditional development, planning and realisation of products and the possibilities for application in the construction industry. This includes tools and practices like:

• Modularisation • Configuration • Platform thinking • Purchasing activities, volume concentration and internationalisation. • Postponement strategies • Target costing and value engineering

In developing a new field of research it is important to be aware what kind of reality we are constructing by our research. As mentioned, construction is not driven by its own nature – although it sometimes could appear so. As practitioners and researchers we are constructing this nature ourselves while we are at the same time also constructed by it. Accepting this introduces a dilemma in terms of the validity of the research. A way forward is to legitimate research within construction in two ways – a constructive and deconstructive way. Within the constructive area focus should not be on “finding the truth”, but in what kind of “truth” we are creating with the research. Research within this area should be driven by the impact of the research.

But this paradigm can’t live without a deconstructive paradigm continuously operating to deconstruct the developed solutions and the nature/culture of construction. It is within the dialog between these two paradigms – a fruitful research agenda for construction can be developed.

CONCLUSION This paper has introduced the concept of the long tail as a framework for understanding the development of the building industry. It is argued that most of the construction industry today is driven by the myth of uniqueness of building. This myth is inherently disabling the possibilities for fundamentally changing the construction industry into an effective and systematically innovative industry. The paper argues further that if we allow ourselves to look at buildings as both unique but also similar we can create a new platform for developing the construction industry – a platform within the Mass Customisation paradigm. The industry is already developing and implementing strategies inspired by this approach, but research to backup and question this development is missing.

1 An industry-led collaborative research project on industrialised construction, part-funded by the EU (www.manubuild.org).

Thuesen, Jensen and Gottlieb

1120

REFERENCES Anderson, C. (2004) The Long Tail Wired Magazine, 12(10),

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html.

Anderson, C. (2006) The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More New York: Hyperion.

Bertelsen, S. (1997) Bellahøj, Ballerup, Brøndby Strand - 25 år der industrialiserede byggeriet. Hørsholm: By og Byg.

Boxenbaum, E. and Daudigeos, T. (2007) Concrete innovations: Prefabrication in Denmark and France. In Managing the Construction of Buildings Conference, 15-16 November 2007, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.

Cooper, R. and Slagmulder, R. (1999) Supply Chain Development for the Lean Enterprise Montvale New Jersey: FAR Institute of Management Accountants.

Davis, Stan (1996) Future Perfect. 10th anniversary edition. Harlow England : Addison-Wesley Pub Co.

Hvam, L., Mortensen, N. H., Riis, J., (2008) Product Customisation, Berlin : Springer.

Jensen, J. S. (forthcoming) A governance approach to systemic innovation in the Danish construction industry, Working paper, DTU Management.

Kreiner K. and Christensen S. (1991) Projektledelse i løst koblede systemer – ledelse og læring i en ufuldkommen verden København: DJØF.

Kruschwitz, R., Schettler-Köhler, R. And Hoch, C. (2000) Product development and Platform Strategy at Volkswagen, Slides, IBC Euroforumkonferens, Effektiv Produktutveckling med Modularisering, Sweden.

Laclau, E. (1990) New reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso

Pedersen, K. (1993) Om Politikken og det Sociale – Aktøren og Strukturen. Teoretiske overvejelser for politisk Strategi, Arbejdspapir nr. 16, Institut for Miljø, Teknologi og Samfund, Roskilde Universitetscenter: TEK-SAM-Forlaget.

Pine, B. Joseph II (1993) Mass Customisation - The New Frontier in Business Competition. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press

Salvador, Fabrizio, Holan, Pablo Martin de and Piller, Frank (2009) Cracking the Code of Mass Customisation MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(3).

Thuesen, C. (2006) anvendelsen ad den rette viden – et studie af byggeriets kulturelle organisering Published Ph.D. Thesis, Byg.DTU, Technical University of Denmark.

Thuesen, C. and Jonsson, C. C. (2009) The Long Tail and innovation of new construction practices - Learning points from two case studies. In A.S. Kazi, M. Hanus and S. Boujabeur, (eds.) Open Building Manufacturing: Key Technologies, Applications, and Industrial Cases, Manubuild

Tseng, M. and Jiao, J. (2001) Mass Customisation, In G. Salvendy, Handbook of Industrial Engineering: Technology and Operation Management (3rd ed.), Wiley-Interscience.