- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
The innovativeness of the traditional construction sector, composed of construction companies or contractors, is not one of its strong points. Likewise, its poor productivity in comparison with other sectors, such as manufacturing, has historically been criticized. Similar features are found in the Spanish traditional construction sector, which it has been described as not very innovative. However, certain characteristics of the sector may explain this behavior; the companies invest in R+D less than in other sectors and release fewer patents, so traditional innovation evaluation indicators do not reflect the true extent of its innovative activity. While previous research has focused on general innovation evaluation models, limited research has been done regarding innovation evaluation in the macro-construction sector, which includes, apart from the traditional construction companies or contractors, all companies related to the infrastructure life-cycle. Therefore, in this research an innovation evaluation model has been developed for macro-construction sector companies and is applied in the Spanish case. The model may be applied to the macro-construction sector companies in other countries, requiring the adaption of the model to the specific characteristics of the sector in that country, in consultation with a panel of experts at a national level.
7. Lessons learned
Having completed this, it was concluded that a preliminary pilot evaluation test with direct personal contact and support from the evaluator was needed, to validate the evaluation model. To that end, several companies were invited to perform a self-evaluation pilot test, with the objective of checking the behavior of the evaluation model. With this objective in mind, the preliminary evaluation model was distributed to a number of companies by email, followed by a telephone call, through which the project was presented. Perhaps as a consequence of the everyday working conditions of these companies, with insufficient time for activities not directly linked to production, the response rate and the commitment shown to the project were not very satisfactory at this stage. Therefore, personal contact was established with the companies, through visits to their facilities and meetings with management and by doing so, the results improved considerably. The lessons that have been learned are therefore in that area and stress the importance of personal contact and support from the evaluator in the development of the pilot evaluation process in each company.