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

this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-7472.htm

What's in a name? What's in a

name?
Complexities in the definition of
``refurbishment''
John R. Mansfield 23
School of Property and Construction, Nottingham Trent University,
Received May 2000
Nottingham, UK Revised September 2001
Keywords Construction industry, Refurbishment, Problem identification, Problem solving
Abstract The lifecycle of a building is supported by a number of distinct processes that attempt
to address physical deterioration. Many of the processes ± maintenance, repair, replacement and
refurbishment ± are commonly discussed in ways that suggest that they are indistinguishable
from each other. The comparative lack of precision in using a range of terms further blurs the
boundaries between the tasks. ``Refurbishment'' may seem to be a simple term, yet its complexity
has led to continuing confusion by policy-makers and professionals. Many of the attempts to
provide an inclusive and concise definition of ``refurbishment'' have significant flaws,
compounding the problem in practice.

Introduction
Although buildings cannot have an infinite economic life, it is widely
acknowledged that the process of fabric and structural decline can be slowed
by the implementation of routine maintenance programmes. Failure to
maintain regularly the property can impair the structural integrity of the fabric,
accelerating the decline in investment returns until the point where
refurbishment or redevelopment options need to be considered.
In its simplest form, the life of a building may be considered to be cyclical
with a sequence of discrete work parcels ± maintenance, repair, replacement,
refurbishment and redevelopment. Refurbishment is part of this continuum,
initially appearing toward the end of this cycle. However, external, mainly
macro-economic influences have the effect of realigning investment values and
may reposition refurbishment earlier in the cycle.
An unusual aspect of the cycle is the considerable number of terms that are
in general use when discussing and describing the work parcels. Very similar
or identical terms are regularly used for processes that are essentially distinct,
masking the major differences between them. Quah (1988) argues that
``refurbishment'' in particular has become a generic, interchangeable term,
apparently indistinguishable from other specialist activities. The term can no
longer be considered to have a simple meaning, but has become multi-faceted
and contextually fluid.
This paper presents the findings of a detailed literature review of property-
based depreciation and refurbishment. The review material is mainly UK-
based and sources include academic research, practitioner reports and Property Management,
statements from leading built environment institutions. The distinct Vol. 20 No. 1, 2002, pp. 23-30.
# MCB UP Limited, 0263-7472
characteristics of refurbishment are evaluated and the limitations within the DOI 10.1108/02637470210418942
PM definitions are highlighted. The purpose of the paper is to raise the awareness
20,1 of property managers in all sectors to the definitional problems and to inform
the decision-making process.

Many terms, one meaning?

There are more than 20 terms that are currently used to describe attempts to
24 redress the effects of depreciation. Many of these are used as if they are
interchangeable and, because of this inappropriate use, have become largely
indistinguishable. This has led to a continuing confusion among policy-makers
and professionals that has the potential to produce a misunderstanding of the
process and boundaries of refurbishment. It is possible that due to the
widespread and undiscriminating use of the many terms, refurbishment has
become the generic term suggested by Quah (1988), who comments that it is
now apparently indistinguishable from other specialist activities and routine
tasks. This is unfortunate as ``refurbishment'' has a very specific meaning,
which should be preserved to prevent a loss of clarity.
Seeley (1987) believes that ``rehabilitation'', which in many texts is used
synonymously with ``refurbishment'', has supplanted the terms ``conversion''
and ``modernisation'', implying an approach that embraces the wider localised
environment as well as individual structures. Yet the expansion into a broader
context can only be appropriate once either a critical mass of individual
projects has been achieved or local and central government are genuinely
committed to large-scale regeneration. The analysis of ``refurbishment'' in this
paper concentrates on the term as applied to individual units, rather than the
area-based focus identified by Seeley.
The overall purpose of refurbishment is to extend the beneficial use of an
existing building by providing a cost-effective alternative to redevelopment
(Markus, 1979). It is implicit within this definition that the building's present
economic life is over, or at least drawing to a close, and that a better and longer
life is possible (Bone, 1987). This is, however, not always the case and it is
possible that refurbishment is undertaken to change a sub-market or to secure
a position in a similarly changed sub-market.
By recognising refurbishment as a physical process, one of the key problems
is in accurately identifying the boundaries between the processes in the cycle
(e.g. repair, replacement and renewal). This is important because levels of
capital investment can be influenced not only by the physical deterioration of
the building, but also by various accounting regimes which may strongly
influence the extent and timing of particular building work to become a
legitimate tax-deductable expense.
It is commonly thought that refurbishment is located toward the end of a
property's life cycle and typically follows a series of increasing expenditure in
the form of repair, renewal and replacement. Yet the conventional models used
in standard urban economics textbooks are unable to assess exactly at which
time a particular building, or group of buildings, would be ready for
refurbishment or redevelopment. Aikivuori (1996) suggests that a
refurbishment project may be initiated suddenly because profound damage has What's in a
occurred to the physical structure, or alternatively may be planned in advance name?
for a chosen time according to the expected rate of deterioration. She continues
that in producing a taxonomy, a range of refurbishment types can be identified:
. corrective refurbishment;
. altering refurbishment; 25
. optimising refurbishment;
. pleasure refurbishment; and
. opportunity refurbishment.
Kirby (1979), in considering UK housing, cites Bagby's (1973) belief that to a
homeowner ``refurbishment'' will encompass everything from changing a
lightbulb to repairing the roof. This contrasts with the contractors' view that it
refers to the gutting and reconstruction of an interior, or the investors'
perspective, which is any improvement enabling a rental increase to be
achieved. Finally, Bagby commented that an economist would construe the
term as meaning any investment designed to forestall the capital depreciation
of a structure. This suggests that the ambit of the definition is impracticably
wide and requires a significant refinement to make it in any way useable.
The core component that is missing in Bagby's robust attempt at definition
is the temporal element. It is possible to consider refurbishment opportunities
from different time horizons and it is likely that they will have separate cost/
value threshold points. For example, the homeowner may only be able to
commit certain levels of physical, time and costs resources to particular
projects, and may not wish to undertake, for example, complete central heating
replacement. Similarly, a contractor may not readily accept commissions for
small-scale works because of the resultant opportunity costs.
It is possible to consider refurbishment from a number of perspectives; these
include technical, functional, economic, regulatory and philosophical
viewpoints. Bone (1987) feels that while these issues may interrelate, it is
necessary to distinguish between them. The distinctions are important as they
enable issues to be assessed individually within the larger definitional context.
Bone (1987) provides a range of words that are synonymous with
refurbishment, but which are in reality sub-categories of the refurbishment
process. The use of technical phrases underlines the large degree of confusion
in the texts and professional use ± each distinct viewpoint needs a different
word. For example:
. ``upgrading'' was coined to describe something better than repair;
. ``enveloping'' was better than a ``facelift'' but not necessarily such a
complete job as ``overcladding'';
. ``reinstatement'', ``rehabilitation'' and ``refitting'' may be less extensive
than ``refurbishment''; and
PM . ``conversion'' or ``restyling'' may describe the same operation depending
20,1 on whether the emphasis is to be on the change in the use or in the
appearance.
Generally, Lee (1987) considers the broader refurbishment process to be
described by a number of names ± adaptation, conversion, retrofitting,
26 renovation and modernisation. Seeley (1987), quoting the RICS (1973), considers
``rehabilitation'' to be ``aptly defined'' as the:
. . . carrying out of building work to any property, or series of properties, beyond routine
maintenance, thus extending its life to provide a building or buildings which are socially
desirable and economically viable.

Because he does not elaborate further, some problems are caused in attempting
to expand the analysis from an individual unit to a broader area.
Egbu (1996) considers ``refurbishment'' to encompass rehabilitation,
alteration, adaptation, extension, improvement, modernisation and repair work
carried out on an existing building to permit its re-use for various specific
reasons. Ironically, this definition is far too inclusive in the work parcels and
does not enable sufficient distinctions to be made clear between them.
Hardcastle et al. (1997) comment that the refurbishment of buildings to
renovate, re-equip or restore is a process which reflects the ethos of urban
regeneration. In an effort to impose their own discipline within the broader
work, they consider and amend the definition used by Industrial Market
Research in 1987 which defines ``refurbishment'' as:
. . . work which involves the structural alteration of buildings, the substantial replacement of
main services or finishes and/or the substantial improvement of floor space while at the same
time including associated redecoration and repair work on the one hand and related new
building work on the other.

Hardcastle et al. (1997) propose the following amended definition:

. . . work which involves the structural alteration of buildings, the replacement of main
services or finishes and/or the improvement of floor space and also any associated
redecoration and repair work. Rebuilding behind the facËade and other new building works are
excluded.

It is interesting that facËade retention works are explicitly excluded. The process
of facËade retention can be seen as a token gesture to placate many local
planning authorities, despite the actuality of an entirely new building being
developed behind.

Some professional and advisory body perspectives

The previous section has highlighted the relative difficulty in providing
detailed, concise and inclusive definitions of the processes that lead to a decline
in value or even in formulating guidelines for the establishment of these
definitions. The institutional and advisory bodies that are concerned in some
way with these processes would be expected to have a clearer perspective of the
distinctions between them. It is perhaps surprising, since these bodies are
generally experienced with these processes on a practical level, that definitional What's in a
chaos is found not only between institutions but also within them. This section name?
will consider the definitions and perceptions of some of the leading UK bodies.
As the key advisory service that helps shape the tactical component of larger
policy, the British Standards Institute (BSI) (1974) provides the following
definition of ``rehabilitation'':
. . . extensive maintenance intended to bring property or building up to current acceptable
27
conditions, often involving improvements.

The first point of note when considering the BSI's definition is that no
definition is proffered for ``refurbishment''. However, as has been previously
explained, ``rehabilitation'' can be accepted as proxy for ``refurbishment''. An
alternative explanation, albeit an unconvincing one, is that the BSI does
consider ``refurbishment'' to be a separate term, but one that is already well-
understood and does not need clarification.
Problematic aspects of the ``rehabilitation'' definition are that the boundaries
of extensive maintenance are not considered, the current acceptable standards
are insufficiently detailed and ``improvements'' are not defined to the extent that
it is possible to determine which, if any, are excluded. In a similar way, the
BSI's definition of ``maintenance'', ``repair'' and ``restoration'' include the phrase
``acceptable condition'', which is left unexamined in the text. These
inexactitudes severely limit the usefulness of the BSI definitions and are a
disappointment, because the BSI has a reputation as a provider of benchmark
commentary that can be used practically to ensure compliance.
The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) produces various codes of
estimating practice which are held by the industry to be authoritative, and
which are provided as good practice guides to be used in estimating and
tendering for building work. Since the late 1970s, refurbishment work has
increased in its importance within the broader construction output figures. To
support such work, a specific supplement to the code of measuring practice was
published ± the Refurbishment and Modernisation Supplement (CIOB, 1987).
The supplement contains a terminology explaining the meanings of the
principal specialist terms.
``Refurbishment'' is defined as:
. . . work carried out on an existing building in an attempt to improve and to update it to
modern standards while retaining its current use (CIOB, 1987, p. viii).

A slightly more detailed definition is also provided:

. . . the alteration of an existing building designed to improve the facilities, re-arrange internal
areas and/or increase the structural life span without changing its original function (CIOB,
1987, p. 2).

Although some elements of the definitions agree ± the building is existing, and
does not change its original function ± the rest are sufficiently different to cause
confusion. The first definition, which is extremely vague, refers only to
``improvement'' and ``updating to modern standards'', both extremely loose
PM terms that could potentially refer to anything from major to minor repairs
20,1 through to the addition of extensions or extra facilities. The second definition,
in which three types of alteration are specifically enumerated (improve the
facilities, re-arrange internal areas and/or increase the structural life span)
would lead the reader to believe that the types of improvement that would be
classified as ``refurbishment'' are strictly limited. This definition is, however,
28 less restrictive in that it does not set ``updating to modern standards'' as a
criterion, an omission which could be significant, particularly when
considering conservation projects.
An interesting definition is provided by Jones Lang Wootton, Estates Gazette
and South Bank Polytechnic (1989) who consider that ``refurbishment'' is:
Improvement and modernisation of a building falling short of rebuilding or redevelopment
and thus not normally requiring planning permission other than for alterations to the external
appearance, except in the case of listed buildings.

This definition forms a bridge between the CIOB and the RICS definitions by
acknowledging some of the work parcels that can be undertaken in the existing
building.
The RICS Building Conservation Practice Panel has produced a set of
definitions that are possibly the most comprehensive yet produced (RICS,
1998). Although prepared for conservation works, the detail is such that it is
possible for the definitions to be used for more general building work.
``Refurbishment'' is defined as:
. . . the extensive repair, renewal and modification of a building to meet economic and/or
functional criteria equivalent to those required of a new building for the same purpose. This
may involve the installation of current standards of building services, access, natural
lighting, equipment and finishes, using historic fabric as the carcass of what is, effectively, a
new building.

The major advantages of this definition are that it:

. explicitly incorporates particular work descriptions ± repair, renewal
and modification ± that are missing from other definitions;
. clearly establishes the rationale for the refurbishment works ± to meet
changed economic and/or functional criteria; and
. benchmarks certain performance requirements attainable from new
buildings used for the same purpose.
While the RICS Conservation Panel's definition is extremely useful, other
definitions provided by academics and practitioners are less detailed. For
example, the Connaught Report (RICS, 1997), commissioned by the RICS to
report on office sector refurbishment, considered ``refurbishment'' to be:
. . . any building work that enhances the exterior and/or interior structure or aesthetic
appearance of an office building.

This definition is so ill-detailed and unspecific that it serves only to highlight

the range of divergent definitions currently available and emphasises the
confusion that exists. Very unusually the definition incorporates external or What's in a
aesthetic enhancement, an issue not raised elsewhere. Adams et al. (1999), name?
within their report examining constraints to urban development, make a
similarly odd comment. Included in their definition of ``redevelopment'' is: ``the
re-use of property by substantial refurbishment''.
It seems they consider ``refurbishment'' not as an economically viable
alternative to redevelopment, but as an integral component of it. A further 29
problem-limiting factor is the scope and extent of ``substantial'' is not clearly
explained, making the definition less convincing.
A number of specialist amenity groups, such as the Society for the
Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), could be expected to make responsible
contributions by providing definitions or detailed guidelines. Unusually SPAB
do not produce formalised definitions, believing they would be difficult to
apply unilaterally because of the uniqueness of individual projects. They do,
however, provide brief verbal guidance suggesting that refurbishment is ``any
work other than the process of conservation repair''. While accepting that this
is open to very wide interpretation and involves considerable perceptional
input, they consider that any attempt to transform a ``historic'' building is an
aggressive act and not recommended.
In the social housing sector, the Housing Corporation is the main source of
funds for many housing association development programmes. Such
programmes typically include the rehabilitation of property together with the
provision of new-build accommodation to a wide range of client groups. Given
the size of the annual financial commitment to social housing, it is unusual that
the Corporation does not have definitive guidelines or statements regarding
rehabilitation.

Conclusion
A surprisingly large number of terms have evolved to describe the various
processes used to counter the effects of depreciation; perhaps inevitably, this
has resulted in a loss of clarity when discussing these terms, particularly with
respect to the term ``refurbishment''. The meaning of this term has become
blurred to the extent that it now acts as a synonym for a range of other
processes, a confusion that may have wide implications in a number of
contexts.
There have historically been a number of attempts by academic
commentators to form a clear definition of ``refurbishment''. These attempts
have considered the problem from a range of different perspectives and there is
seemingly little agreement between them. Professional institutions and
advisory bodies could be expected to formulate useful definitions for practical
use; however, the guidance they provide is mostly unspecific or non-existent.
The lack of clarity in both the academic literature and professional guidance is
disappointing and the continuous confusion can only disadvantage the various
built environment professions.
PM References
20,1 Adams, D., Disberry, A., Hutchison, N. and Munjoma, T. (1999), Do Landowners Constrain
Urban Redevelopment? Aberdeen Papers in Land Economy Discussion Paper 99-01,
Department of Land Economy, University of Aberdeen.
Aikivuori, A. (1996), ``Periods of demand for private sector housing refurbishment'', Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 14, pp. 3-12.
30 Bagby, D.G. (1973), Housing Rehabilitation Costs, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Bone, S. (1987), ``Refurbishment of post-war buildings'', The Architect, February, pp. 49-72.
British Standards Institute (1974), BS 3811: 1974 Glossary of Maintenance Terms in Tero-
technology, BSI, London.
Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) (1987), Code of Estimating Practice Supplement One:
Refurbishment and Modernisation, CIOB, Ascot.
Egbu, C. (1996), Characteristics and Difficulties Associated with Refurbishment, Construction
Papers No. 66, CIOB, Ascot.
Hardcastle, C., Holmes, A. and Nairn, C. (1997), ``Requirements from refurbished office space: the
views of occupiers, planners and developers'', a paper presented at the RICS Cutting Edge
Conference, University of West of England, Bristol.
Industrial Market Research (1987), Private Office Refurbishment ± The Current Market and
Future Prospects, a report commissioned by Touche Ross, London.
Jones Lang Wootton, Estates Gazette and South Bank Polytechnic (1989), The Glossary of
Property Terms, Estates Gazette, London.
Kirby, D.A. (1979), Slum Housing and Residential Renewal: The Case in Urban Britain, Longman,
London.
Lee, R. (1987), Building Maintenance Management, 3rd. ed., BSP Professional, Oxford.
Markus, A.M. (Ed.) (1979), Building Conversion and Rehabilitation: Designing for Change in
Building Use, Newnes-Butterworth, London.
Quah, L.K. (1988), ``An evaluation of the risks in estimating and tendering for refurbishment
work'', an unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) (1973), The Rehabilitation of Homes and Other
Buildings, RICS, London.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) (1997), Refurbishment in the Office Sector
1997/8: The Connaught Report, RICS, London.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) (1998), Building Conservation Practice Panel
Note 6 ``The Principles of Building Conservation'' Appendix B, RICS, London.
Seeley, I. (1987), Building Maintenance, 2nd ed., Macmillan, Basingstoke.