A Conceptual Framework For

7/31/2019 A Conceptual Framework For

1/13

A conceptual framework forhybrid building projects

Kemi AdeyeyeSchool of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton,

Brighton, UK, and

Dino Bouchlaghem and Christine PasquireDepartment of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,

Loughborough, UK

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to focus on hybrid projects as a type of building adaptation work. It seeks

to discuss the hybrid building design process in subsets of information and resulting decisions byhighlighting the relationship between them. It also aims to present a conceptual framework which wasdeveloped by refining, or customising the RIBA Plan of Work.

Design/methodology/approach Field theory formed the theoretical basis for the approach tomapping the hybrid project process. The conceptual framework itself evolved from a comprehensiveliterature review, case studies and a practice survey. In total, 11 design and construction professionalsevaluated the framework and their comments and feedback are also discussed.

Findings The discussion presents an approach which can be used to manage the delivery of hybridprojects, although it was found that the proposed framework can be applied to a wider spectrum ofconstruction projects.

Research limitations/implications The evaluation of the framework was limited by the numberof participants involved and the limited client representation.

Originality/value The paper makes an original contribution by further exploring an increasinglyrelevant area of construction activity; building adaptations. Although the research focused specificallyon the design-specific stages of hybrid project delivery, findings contribute towards processimprovement by emphasising the need for early information acquisition, early and precise definition ofdesign intent, and collaborative design decision making. These three factors contribute highly toclient/user satisfaction (value) and effective project delivery.

Keywords Buildings, Construction industry, Project planning, United Kingdom

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionAdaptation projects constitute a large percentage of work carried out by theconstruction industry in the UK. The range of building intervention classed under

building adaptation include; Refurbishment: upgrading the aesthetic and functionalperformance of a building (Douglas, 2006), Rehabilitation: modernisation with someextension work which may comprise major structural alteration to the existingbuilding; mostly housing (Douglas, 2006), Maintenance: work undertaken in order tokeep, restore or improve every part of a building, its services and surrounds, to acurrently accepted standard, and to sustain the utility and value of the building (Seeley,1987), Retrofit or renovation: a process undertaken if the building is in a good conditionbut the services and technology within it are outdated (Langston et al., 2007), as well as

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

F28,7/8

358

Received June 2009Accepted January 2010

Facilities

Vol. 28 No. 7/8, 2010

pp. 358-370

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0263-2772

DOI 10.1108/02632771011042464


2/13

adaptive reuse which occurs when a building is converted to accommodate newfunctions, e.g. an industrial building converted into apartments.

Hybrid projects is a phrase, used for the benefit of this research, to define a type ofadaptation project where new elements or buildings are combined with existing

buildings to completely modify it in order to provide better functionality and meetincreased spatial requirements. It is the adaptation of an existing building through acombination of refurbishment, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. A hybrid projectprocess can therefore be defined as the organised structure with which a hybridbuilding is delivered. This process will include procurement, design and constructionactivities. This research focused predominantly on the design stages of this process.

In contrast with new building; design, planning and construction within existingbuilt contexts necessitates a more complex interaction with the existing buildingsubstance, ancillary infrastructure and their respective spatial requirements. Adaptingan existing building could therefore present a number of difficulties, e.g. spatialconstraints, code compliance and disruptions to building use. The key challenge is toachieve value at the end of the works, and not to lose value. Addy (2004) observed thatloss of value occurs when briefs give no flexibility to the design team, inappropriatelyhigh quality standards, and delays in decisions perhaps due to poor informationsupply and unmanaged change. In addition to process issues, people factors caninclude: poor communication as well as conflicting agendas, fixed mindsets, recyclingold solutions and more importantly, lack of collaborative working.

The research presented in this paper started with the question of how as-builtinformation can influence and improve the design decisions made during a hybridbuilding project. In exploring answers to this question, it was necessary to explore howrelationships between the various players of the industry influence upon the designprocess. This was useful for assessing how to provide information sufficient for all keyparties to collaboratively contribute towards, and evaluate standards, needs and

resources. Frameworks such as the Generic Process Protocol (Kagioglou et al., 1998),the Refurbishment Process Model (Anumba et al., 2006), the RIBA plan of work etc.were explored. The RIBA Plan of Work organises the process of managing, anddesigning building projects as well as administering building contracts into a numberof key work stages (RIBA, 2008). Research findings suggested that these frameworkswere not entirely suitable in their current form for hybrid projects.

MethodologyBoth qualitative and quantitative (mixed methodology) instruments were used duringthe course of this research. Exploratory (quantitative) methods such as surveysallowed the further development of relevant questions, which allowed for any furtherinquiry in the long run (Yin, 2003). Qualitative methods such as participative

observations and conceptual mapping were used to explore the subject area and assessresearch scope. The research commenced by exploring theoretical underpinningssurrounding the broad subject of building adaptations through literature review andtranslating this to further understand important characteristics of hybrid projects.This exercise created a knowledge base for the rest of the research.

In order to reinforce findings from literature, case studies of a recently completedand a live hybrid project was carried out. In addition, a questionnaire survey wasconducted with a sample of one hundred RIBA registered architects. All findings were

Framework forhybrid building

projects

359


3/13

triangulated and it was found that the standard process protocols were either toogeneric or specific and do not ideally represent a hybrid building process.

A theoretical or conceptual framework is defined as any empirical orquasi-empirical theory of social and/or psychological processes, at a variety of levels

(e.g. grand, mid-range and explanatory) that can be applied to the understanding ofphenomena (Anfara and Mertz, 2006). A number of theoretical approaches exist forsocial research, e.g. grounded theory and these are widely published. The theoreticalframework used for this research was Bourdieus Field Theory. This theory applies toa field as the common ground with boundaries where the action occurs by players inthe field (Mutch, 2006;, e.g. Bourdieu, 1993). It stems from the Physical Sciences and ismostly applied in Socio-Psychology realms, describing change due to action andeffects. It is particularly useful for explaining resultant change as opposed tocausal change. This was highly applicable to this research because solutions aresought for when change is based on a buildings adaptation processes rather than whatcaused the building to be adapted.

Field theory is most applicable to this research for the following reasons:

. Field theory does not attempt to give an explanatory account in terms of systemsor causation (Martin, 2003), instead, it agrees with some readily understandablecausal sequence that explains some theoretically accounted-for pattern(Lundberg, 1939, p. 375). This is also a key difference with other theories suchas functional theory, etc.

. The context of field gives the opportunity to detail the context in which theaction is taking place and put boundaries around the place of action (Mutch,2006).

. Multiplicity of settings is not required. The setting or field remains constant andit uses change to define and explain differentials between actions and effects.

.

It provides scope for time: functional, periodical or evolutionary. Models canshow a snapshot of time or changes over time (Mutch, 2006).

. In field theory, explanation stops at the constitution of the field. The fact that thefield at some place and time can be determined to be of a certain nature in no wayimplies that it must be this way indeed, field theory, by never makingexplanation reach outside the field, must forswear any legitimating argumentsthat there is a reason why the field must be as it is (Martin, 2003). Although, thisis considered a limitation for most, this is significantly beneficial to this research.

. It disallows personal prejudices and allows distancing. Field theory has thenotable advantage of forbidding us to apply our self-understanding wholesale,let alone to crown these prejudices with the title mechanism and congratulate

ourselves on a truly scientific understanding (Martin, 2003).. Field theory still has a general quality of being intuitively progressive, logical

and accessible.

. It allows for the allocation of roles and tasks. Each agent is defined by his or herposition in a field with its own themes and problems, at least so far as the fieldpossesses autonomy (Bourdieu, 1969, p. 161f). Within the field, players havepositions that have both roles to be enacted and status carried with them (Mutch,2006).

F28,7/8

360


4/13

. It supports decision-making activities and the impact on processes (or actionswithin the field).

. There is no need to show complexity within the framework: processes, roles aremore or less defined because models can show positions and relationships.Therefore, in this context, changes to a building can be implemented throughactivities (actions and decisions relative to processes).

Lastly, a structured interview was used to evaluate the framework. A group of 11experts participated in the evaluation exercise.

Developing the conceptual framework for hybrid projectsFindings from the review of existing literature, case studies and surveys cannot befully discussed within the constraints of this paper but key findings are summarised asfollows:

. The architectural practice survey reinforced the importance of a process

approach to design delivery. The findings from the survey questionnaire helpedto fine-tune important work stages, roles of design professionals and designresponsibilities. Specifically, the survey also helped to map design information:type, format against work stages. It also flagged that qualitative (performance)information is highly important for making design decisions in hybrid projects.The factors that could affect an effective information process were alsoidentified.

. The case studies highlighted the impact of procurement systems and client-leddecisions/approach on a design information management process. It alsoprovided an insight into building surveying processes and the impact on designdecision making. Importantly, it was found that contributions towards client anduser satisfaction can be achieved by a collaborative and integrated approach to

information sourcing, communication and interpretation within the design. Thiscan be achieved if important parties are allowed relevant degrees of participationduring the early design-specific stages of the process.

A defined building process helps to define tasks, actions, decisions and resourcesneeded to implement the project. Having a process implies that information; actionsand resources can be tracked throughout the spectrum of the project. The RIBAprocess was therefore a good point to commence the analysis of a hybrid buildingprocess.

Using Field Theory as a theoretical approach facilitated a more systematicapproach to analysing the hybrid project process more systematically and bycombining information and materials with people and logistics, a clearer picture of a

hybrid project process was derived (Figure 1). Theoretically, the main driver for ahybrid-building project is change implemented over time. People using information toderive a more functional finished project implement change throughout the process.The map shows the building as the context but also as a constant. The buildingchanges but the site setting remains the same. At the core of the model is change, as afactor of people, product (the building) and process. Powering the change isinformation and function. Information is dynamic within and throughout the process.By comparison, to information, function is less dynamic because its dynamism is


projects

361


5/13

bound by variables that are determined at the beginning (from the brief) of the process,e.g. cost and almost fixed by design.

The three main groups of people influencing and participating are the client group,the user group and building professionals. Their tasks and roles will vary according toprocess per time. Change can be divided into subsets of entities i.e. building layers(Brand, 1994; Duffy, 1993) which are not mutually exclusive. This is because the hybridbuilding can only be described by changes within its entities but not changes of allentities. That is, it ceases to be hybrid if nothing changes or if everything changes.

Ideally, a detailed framework will also include roles, cost, tasks, players, timeframes as well as responses and feedback loops. Although in this instance, Time (t) the time allocated to the works, is considered insignificant compared to the buildings

life cycle Time (T).The initial stages of a hybrid project usually comprises the building itself, its

inherent information and key parties: the client, users and/or the design team. Thechallenge at this stage is to unlock the buildings potential by utilising availableresources. Information and communication technologies could potentially play a keyrole at this stage. As work progresses and with the interaction of more people,materials, information to achieve the end product, the hybrid building process andactivities becomes more complex. Lack of quality information could lead to wrong

Figure 1.Simplistic conceptual map

F28,7/8

362


6/13

decisions being made and things going contrary to plan so design information was alsomapped within the process. The evolving map was then separated into sub-levels ofinformation, parties, sub-processes, decisions and actions (Figure 2). The result, theconceptual framework represents important milestones in the hybrid project process

defined from literature, case studies and the questionnaire survey. It integrates thevarious elements of a hybrid project with milestones redefined based on the RIBA Planof Work, 2007 (Table I).

There are eight milestones in the framework. The outline appraisal anddevelopment plan where a high-level appraisal is conducted by the client team toassess the potential of an existing building and determine the resources (includinghistorical data) available for its transformation. The core team procurement stage ismostly designed for the early selection and contractual arrangement with importantprofessionals. This stage is important for collaborative decisions to take place.Conceptual designs and preparations for planning permission and other legalrequirements commence at this stage too. The third milestone is the buildingperformance evaluation stage. At this stage, historical documents are brought up todate by integrating previous data with current data abstracted from the existingbuilding itself. Historical data and as-built information are superimposed and layeredto determine conflicts and resolve them collaboratively prior to commencement of workon site.

Importantly, the buildability and adaptability of the building is also determined andthe designs are revised to reflect the conflicts and constraints identified from as-builtinformation. In addition, the brief is revised to reflect information from the appraisaland performance evaluation milestones. With all possible information acquired andcommunicated, the brief can be sealed at this stage. The next milestone designactivity does not represent the stage where design commences, but it is at this stagethat design options are investigated, choices and decisions made collaboratively and

the final design and specifications produced. Although the design is finalised at thisstage, design decisions may still be required during the construction stages dependingon how the framework was implemented. However, the expectation is that designchanges will be minimal as all design uncertainties have been resolved prior toconstruction. Milestone 6 and 7 planning/logistics and the construction stages werenot evaluated as they were outside the scope of the research. After construction, allbuilding information for design and construction monitoring, building operation andmaintenance can then be consolidated in the last milestone.

The design subset of the hybrid building processAccording to Sheil (2005), architectural design does not end as the tools of fabricationare put into action. On the contrary, making is a discipline that can instigate rather

than merely solves ideas in other words a design process. Design itself is however, acontinual process of selecting and organising elements, trying to establish which arethe most important and how they might all play a part in the creation of the newproduct and inevitably ideas change as possibilities are added or discounted, asproposals are conceived and considered (Tunstall, 2007). Tunstall (2007, pp. 25-6) alsostated that a typical design development process will involve the following actions:analysis, synthesis, appraisal and feedback, adding that these actions are cyclical andnot linear.


projects

363


7/13

Figure 2.Proposed processframework hybrid projects

F28,7/8

364


8/13

It has been shown that more than 80 per cent of commonly associated problems in theconstruction industry are process related (Kagioglou et al., 1998), therefore aninvestigation into the hybrid building process, as for any other building project, is aworthwhile exercise. In addition, design process for hybrid buildings is fundamentally

different from that of new-build work. Hybrid buildings, as with most adaptation work,deal more with synthesis rather than analysis (Gregg and Crosbie, 2001). In new-buildwork, the designer starts with a clean sheet and progressively builds up his design abinitio while in existing built context, the task is more akin to detective work, with thedesigners endeavouring to gather information by assessing the existing building andto develop the design work to be comparable with it (CIRIA, 1997).

Findings from research unanimously indicate that planning and control aresubstituted by chaos and improvising in design, causing: poor communication, lack ofadequate documentation, deficient or missing input information, unbalanced resourceallocation, lack of coordination between disciplines, and erratic decision making (Freireand Alarcon, 2000). The complex, inter-disciplinary and fragmented nature of thedesign and construction process is often used as an excuse. After all, a chaotic designprocess is not the one where superior functional properties are systematically providedfor the client and where constructible design solutions and clear, error-free documents,for their part, ensure a smooth construction phase. Clearly, in order to improveconstruction in general, the design process has to be better controlled (Koskela, 1997).

Information, decision, people and activity subsets of the hybrid building processThe nature of hybrid projects is likely to necessitate effective information, decisionsand activity protocols which can be used to organise people and material processes.Information for design consists of general and project-specific information. Generalinformation is information that is not generated for a particular project but which ismost often the product of a research institution, a codes body or a commercial firm.

While, project-specific information is information that is generated for a particularproject, which flows between the participants, receiving additions and undergoingtransformations as the project progresses (Davidson, 2004). Project-specificinformation is further divided into process and product information (Bouchlaghemet al., 2004). The research on which this paper is based focused on the latter. Productinformation comprises information about the product the building.

As Albert Einstein said, Knowledge is experience, everything else is justinformation. Experience acquired through the practice of design is seen as readily

RIBA Plan of Work 2007 Hybrid Project Process framework

Stages Milestones

A/B/C Appraisal, strategic brief, concept design 1 Outline appraisal and development planC/G Outline proposals, tender documents 2 Development core team procurementA/D/H Appraisal, detailed proposals, tender action 3 Building performance evaluation (survey)B/D Design brief, design development 4 Briefing developmentE/F/G/H Technical design, production information,

tender documents/action5 Design activity (procurement of

sub-contractors)J Mobilisation 6 Planning and logisticsK Construction, practical completion 7 ConstructionL Post-practical completion 8 Evaluation and operations

Table I.Comparing the RIBA

Plan of Work 2007 andthe Hybrid Project

Process framework


projects

365


9/13

available, quicker to use, and more palatable compared to information in a writtenform (Mackinder and Marvin, 1982). However, Gigerenzer (1996) pointed out thatpeople are interested in good judgement, and good judgement requires an analysis ofcontent, in addition to laws, principles, and axioms. Accurately presented information

aids good judgement and this could translate to informed design decisions made at theearly stages of the process.

Design decisions require a combination of both knowledge and information tovarying degrees. Galbraith said that a basic proposition is that the greater theuncertainty of the task, the greater the amount of information that has to be processedbetween decision makers during the execution of the task. However, if the task is wellunderstood prior to performing it (because of the amount of information available)much of the activity can be pre-planned. But if it is not understood, then during theactual task execution, more knowledge is acquired which then leads to (decision)changes in resource allocations, schedules and priorities (Galbraith, 1974).

For design, different types of information are required for decision makingdepending on the requirements of the project. The type of information and extent ofdetail would clearly be related to the project and the parties involved but wouldgenerally include the management of time, cost, quality, health and safety,environmental impact, and the exchange of information and communications (i.e.administrative, technical, financial or legal information, and the systems andprocedures that they use) (Bouchlaghem et al., 2004).

Broadly, during the project execution, the interests of three distinct client groups arerepresented the owners, the users and society. These three groups of interest eachvalue different things at different times in the life of the building (Bertelsen andEmmitt, 2005) and the information requirements at different stages of projects willdefer. Emmitt and Gorse (2003) linked everything together in describing a collaborativeapproach to design, where different people with varying knowledge and expertise will

work together. When working in a group, making an informed decision is aboututilising the relevant specialist information that is relevant to the problem, somemembers will possess more knowledge on issues than others. What is important is thatthe most relevant information is accessed (Emmitt and Gorse, 2003).

EvaluationThe aim of evaluating the framework was to explore the accuracy and extent by whichit describes and facilitates an improvement of the hybrid building process. Elevendesign and construction professionals; 2 architects, 2 engineers, 1 building surveyor, 1development manager/employer agent, 2 collaboration managers and 1 designconsultant reviewed the framework and provided perceived feedback on its coverage,

efficiency and functionality. Each evaluator had a working knowledge of hybridprojects with the exception of one engineer who was working on his first hybridproject. The evaluation session commenced with a discussion of the research objectivesand an introduction to the framework. The participant is then allowed time to evaluatethe framework and ask questions. After which they were required to answer pre-setquestions by rating variables based on the Likert scale (1 low and 5 high). Eachsession lasted at least 45 mins. Time and logistical constraints limited the use ofworkshops or stakeholder forums.

F28,7/8

366


10/13

The evaluation was, however, limited by the number of participants involved andthe limited client representation. Feedback from clients and other stakeholders wouldhave been highly beneficial for the research.

Discussion of findingsParticipants highlighted that for the framework to work, a contract/agreement must bemade early in the process to promote confidence and commitment by the coredevelopment team who may be required to provide professional services and adviceprior to tendering. The assurance of a job commission or payment will ensure theparticipation of the core development team, especially contractors.

As per framework efficiency, one participant said, I think it will act as an effectivefiltering of non-participation and incompleteness. Another said, the frameworkhighlights the importance of obtaining information early this is important forreducing defects at a later stage.

In terms of functionality, participants feedback could be summarised in the

comment that, the framework will be most effective if engaged by the client tofacilitate with brief development prior to design team appointment. Anothercommented that, I think that most designers follow a chaotic development path,influenced by all forms of variability. And to have a systematic path that guides thethinking and decision-making process will be extremely useful. One participantwondered if it were possible to map cost/cost implications as well as risks across theprocess. It was also suggested that the granularity of information (i.e. type ofinformation and corresponding level of detail) be displayed within the framework foreach milestone.

With the exception of architects, all the participants generally considered theframework an improvement to the RIBA process. Participating architects however,stated that the framework currently requires tailoring to standard terminology.

However, they would not object if the client wishes to adopt it in its current form.Pointing out that the framework will be more effective if client-led, as opposed to basedon t he arc hitec ts rec omm en dation . Arc hitec ts c on side re d t hat t heinformation-intensive nature of the framework was onerous and would not wish totake on the responsibility without remuneration.

In general, evaluators said it was good to see extrapolation of table to programmes,critical paths and priority within each category. However, the successfulimplementation of the framework for hybrid projects will require the re-orientationof the mindset of project stakeholders.

Evaluators of the framework suggested that despite being developed for hybridbuildings, the framework would apply for most building projects. One reason isbecause it recommends early procurement of the core development team. The

efficiency of the framework depends on this as it has direct impact on establishingbuildability criteria, refining the brief as well as reducing design risk and change as theprocess progresses.

The key functionality of the framework was considered to provide processimprovement, collaborative planning and decisions especially for design. Theframework covers all milestones for any design and construction project and ithighlights key information, decisions and actions that needs to be made en-route. Theframework is particularly relevant for hybrid projects and it has been evaluated to be


projects

367


11/13

progressively relevant and applicable for the efficient delivery of these classes ofprojects and indeed any other building project.

Lastly, decision making is never an exact science, among others, it can be objective,subjective, rational or irrational (McElroy, 2008). Depending on the nature of the

project, the procurement method, client type, client involvement etc., the level ofinformation available/acquired, decisions and actions taken in each project mightdiffer. Any framework however detailed cannot be all-encompassing; it acts a guide, asupporting structure on which thoughts, activities and products are delivered. Thehybrid project process framework provides the basic structure and its application willvary depending on the complexities of each project.

SummaryThis paper presented a conceptual process framework for the delivery of hybridprojects. Findings from evaluating the framework showed that it realises its objectiveand provides a high-level guide for facilitating informed, yet collaborative, design

decision making. The framework is explicit in defining processes, parties, information,decisions and actions required at each stage of a hybrid project. It also promotesconcurrency in design, planning and construction activity, which could be reiterateddepending on the peculiarity of each individual project. There are subjective issues,which are not highly visible within the framework. Factors such as cost, time/delivery,legal and contractual issues were mentioned but not emphasised within the framework,since the research focus was information, design/design decisions. Nonetheless, theseissues have been raised by evaluators to be of equal importance and will be worthinvestigating in future research projects.

References

Addy, N. (2004), Planning the path to best value, Workshop Report E4135, Construction

Productivity Network, CIRIA, London.

Anfara, V.A. and Mertz, N.T. (2006), Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research,Sage Publications, London.

Anumba, C., Egbu, C. and Kashyap, M. (2006), Avoiding Structural Collapses in Refurbishment:A Decision Support System, Research Report 463, Loughborough University for the Healthand Safety Executive, Loughborough.

Bertelsen, S. and Emmitt, S. (2005), The client as a complex system, Proceedings of the13th International Group for Lean Construction Conference, Sydney, Australia, July 2005.

Bouchlaghem, D., Kimmance, A.G. and Anumba, C.J. (2004), Integrating product and processinformation in the construction sector, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104No. 3, pp. 218-33.

Bourdieu, P. (1969), Intellectual field and creative project, Social Science Information, Vol. 8,pp. 89-119.

Bourdieu, P. (1993), Sociology in Question, Sage, London.

Brand, S. (1994), How Buildings Learn, Viking, New York, NY.

CIRIA (1997), New Paint Systems for the Protection of Construction Steelwork, Report 174,Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London.

Davidson, C. (2004), Agenda 21: Information and documentation a research agenda,IF Research Group, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, October.

F28,7/8

368


12/13

Douglas, J. (2006), Building Adaptation, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Duffy, F. (1993), Measuring building performance, Facilities, Vol. 8, May, pp. 17-20.

Emmitt, S. and Gorse, C. (2003), Construction Communication, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Freire, J. and Alarcon, L.F. (2000), Achieving a lean design process, Proceedings of the8th International Group for Lean Construction Conference, Lean Construction Institute.

Galbraith, J.R. (1974), Organization design an information processing view, Interfaces, Vol. 4No. 3.

Gigerenzer, G. (1996), Rationality: why social context matters, in Baltes, P. andStaudinger, U.M. (Eds), Interactive Minds: Life-span Perspectives on the Social

Foundation of Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 319-46.

Gregg, T.R. and Crosbie, J. (2001), Refurbishment of buildings for residential use, BuildingEngineer, Vol. 76 No. 4.

Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G., Cooper, R. and Hinks, J. (1998), The process protocol: process and ITmodelling for the UK construction industry, in Amor, R. (Ed.), Process and Process

Modelling in the Building Industry, BRE, Watford.

Koskela, L. (1997), Lean production in construction, in Alarcon, L. (Ed.), Lean Construction,A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Langston, C., Wong, F.K.W., Hui, E.C.M. and Shen, L-Y. (2007), Strategic assessment of buildingadaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong, Building and Environment, Vol. 43 No. 10,pp. 1709-18.

Lundberg, G.A. (1939), Foundations of Sociology, Macmillan, New York, NY.

McElroy, T. (2008), Rational decision making, dual processes and framing: current thoughts andperspectives, in Adam, F. and Humphreys, P. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Decision Making and

Decision Support Technologies, illustrated ed., Information Science Reference, London.

Mackinder, M. and Marvin, H. (1982), Design decision making in architectural practice,Research Paper 19, Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, University of York, York.

Martin, J.L. (2003), What is field theory?, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 109, pp. 1-49.Mutch, C.A. (2006), Adapting Bourdieus field theory to explain decision-making processes in

education policy, in Anfara, V.A. and Mertz, N.T. (Eds), Theoretical Frameworks inQualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.

RIBA (2008), Plan of Work: Multi-disciplinary Services, RIBA Enterprises, London.

Seeley, I.H. (1987), Building Maintenance, 2nd ed., Macmillan Education, London.

Sheil, B. (2005), Design through making: an introduction, Architectural Design, Vol. 75 No. 4.

Tunstall, G. (2007), Managing the Building Design Process, 2nd ed., Elsevier Science &Technology, available at: www.myilibrary.com/Browse/open.asp?ID64237&locii(accessed 9 April 2009).

Yin, R. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand

Oaks, CA.

Further reading

BSI (2007), Collaborative production of architectural, engineering and construction information,Code of practice, BS 1192:2007, British Standards Institution, January 2008.

Bullen, P. (2007), Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings, Facilities, Vol. 25Nos 1/2, pp. 20-31.


projects

369


13/13

Halfawy, M. and Froese, T. (2005), Building integrated architecture/engineering/constructionsystems using smart objects, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 2,pp. 172-81.

Johnstone, I.M. (2001), Periodic refurbishment and reductions in national costs to sustain

dwelling services, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 97-108.Koutamanis, A., Halin, G. and Kvan, T. (2007), Information standardization from a design

perspectives, CAADRIA 2007, CAADRIA, Nanjing.

Lavy, S. and Shohet, I.M. (2007), On the effect of service life conditions on the maintenance costsof healthcare facilities, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 10,pp. 1087-98.

Lee, H-K., Lee, Y-S. and Kim, J-J. (2008), A cost-based interior design decision support system forlarge-scale housing projects, ITcon, Vol. 13, pp. 20-38.

Malin, N. (2007), Building information modelling and green design, Environmental BuildingNews, May 1.

Pitt, M., Goyal, S. and Sapri, M. (2006), Innovation in facilities maintenance management,Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 27 No. 20, pp. 153-64.

Powell, K. (1999), Architecture Reborn: The Conversion and Reconstruction of Old Buildings,Laurence King, London.

Tavistock Institute (1966), Interdependence and Uncertainty, Tavistock Institute, London.

Corresponding authorKemi Adeyeye can be contacted at: [email protected]

F28,7/8

370

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

A Conceptual Framework For