This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A conceptual framework for hybrid building projects
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK, and
Received June 2009 Accepted January 2010
Dino Bouchlaghem and Christine Pasquire
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
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 by highlighting the relationship between them. It also aims to present a conceptual framework which was developed by reﬁning, or customising the RIBA Plan of Work. Design/methodology/approach – Field theory formed the theoretical basis for the approach to mapping the hybrid project process. The conceptual framework itself evolved from a comprehensive literature review, case studies and a practice survey. In total, 11 design and construction professionals evaluated 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 hybrid projects, although it was found that the proposed framework can be applied to a wider spectrum of construction projects. Research limitations/implications – The evaluation of the framework was limited by the number of participants involved and the limited client representation. Originality/value – The paper makes an original contribution by further exploring an increasingly relevant area of construction activity; building adaptations. Although the research focused speciﬁcally on the design-speciﬁc stages of hybrid project delivery, ﬁndings contribute towards process improvement by emphasising the need for early information acquisition, early and precise deﬁnition of design intent, and collaborative design decision making. These three factors contribute highly to client/user satisfaction (value) and effective project delivery. Keywords Buildings, Construction industry, Project planning, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper
Facilities Vol. 28 No. 7/8, 2010 pp. 358-370 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-2772 DOI 10.1108/02632771011042464
Introduction Adaptation projects constitute a large percentage of work carried out by the construction industry in the UK. The range of building intervention classed under building adaptation include; Refurbishment: upgrading the aesthetic and functional performance of a building (Douglas, 2006), Rehabilitation: modernisation with some extension work which may comprise major structural alteration to the existing building; mostly housing (Douglas, 2006), Maintenance: work undertaken in order to keep, restore or improve every part of a building, its services and surrounds, to a currently 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 condition but the services and technology within it are outdated (Langston et al., 2007), as well as
Adapting an existing building could therefore present a number of difﬁculties. design. 2003). Methodology Both qualitative and quantitative (mixed methodology) instruments were used during the course of this research. inappropriately high quality standards. the Refurbishment Process Model (Anumba et al. and not to lose value. recycling old solutions and more importantly. In exploring answers to this question. a questionnaire survey was conducted with a sample of one hundred RIBA registered architects. e. The research presented in this paper started with the question of how as-built information can inﬂuence and improve the design decisions made during a hybrid building project. people factors can include: poor communication as well as conﬂicting agendas. planning and construction within existing built contexts necessitates a more complex interaction with the existing building substance. spatial constraints.g. rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. 1998). case studies of a recently completed and a live hybrid project was carried out. lack of collaborative working. Frameworks such as the Generic Process Protocol (Kagioglou et al. and designing building projects as well as administering building contracts into a number of key work stages (RIBA. needs and resources. The key challenge is to achieve value at the end of the works. and delays in decisions perhaps due to poor information supply and unmanaged change. it was necessary to explore how relationships between the various players of the industry inﬂuence upon the design process. e. were explored.adaptive reuse which occurs when a building is converted to accommodate new functions. All ﬁndings were Framework for hybrid building projects 359 . “Hybrid projects” is a phrase. A hybrid project process can therefore be deﬁned as the organised structure with which a hybrid building is delivered. The RIBA Plan of Work organises the process of managing. In addition. The research commenced by exploring theoretical underpinnings surrounding the broad subject of building adaptations through literature review and translating this to further understand important characteristics of hybrid projects. an industrial building converted into apartments. code compliance and disruptions to building use. 2006). This process will include procurement. 2008).. In addition to process issues. In order to reinforce ﬁndings from literature. which allowed for any further inquiry in the long run (Yin. the RIBA plan of work etc. This research focused predominantly on the design stages of this process. It is the adaptation of an existing building through a combination of refurbishment.g. to deﬁne a type of adaptation project where new elements or buildings are combined with existing buildings to completely modify it in order to provide better functionality and meet increased spatial requirements. In contrast with new building. and evaluate standards. Qualitative methods such as participative observations and conceptual mapping were used to explore the subject area and assess research scope. Research ﬁndings suggested that these frameworks were not entirely suitable in their current form for hybrid projects. ancillary infrastructure and their respective spatial requirements.. used for the beneﬁt of this research. This was useful for assessing how to provide information sufﬁcient for all key parties to collaboratively contribute towards. ﬁxed mindsets. Addy (2004) observed that loss of value occurs when briefs give no ﬂexibility to the design team. This exercise created a knowledge base for the rest of the research. Exploratory (quantitative) methods such as surveys allowed the further development of relevant questions. design and construction activities.
this is considered a limitation for most. logical and accessible. This is also a key difference with other theories such as functional theory. 2003). it agrees with some readily understandable causal sequence that explains some theoretically accounted-for pattern (Lundberg. 1969. 2006).g. It stems from the Physical Sciences and is mostly applied in Socio-Psychology realms. It disallows personal prejudices and allows distancing. players have positions that have both roles to be enacted and status carried with them (Mutch. Field theory still has a general quality of being intuitively progressive. etc. . instead. . . Although. 1993). . Models can show a snapshot of time or changes over time (Mutch. This theory applies to a ﬁeld as the common ground with boundaries where the action occurs by players in the ﬁeld (Mutch. explanation stops at the constitution of the ﬁeld. . The theoretical framework used for this research was Bourdieu’s Field Theory. e. grounded theory and these are widely published. Field theory is most applicable to this research for the following reasons: . . Within the ﬁeld. A number of theoretical approaches exist for social research. grand. p. by never making explanation reach outside the ﬁeld. 2006).g. In ﬁeld theory. at a variety of levels (e. 2003).F 28. It allows for the allocation of roles and tasks. It is particularly useful for explaining “resultant” change as opposed to “causal” change. The fact that the ﬁeld at some place and time can be determined to be of a certain nature in no way implies that it must be this way – indeed. 2003). describing change due to action and effects. Field theory has the notable advantage of forbidding us to apply our self-understanding wholesale. 161f). . this is signiﬁcantly beneﬁcial to this research. 2006. A theoretical or conceptual framework is deﬁned as any empirical or quasi-empirical theory of social and/or psychological processes. 2006). . let alone to crown these prejudices with the title “mechanism” and congratulate ourselves on a truly scientiﬁc understanding (Martin. Field theory does not attempt to give an explanatory account in terms of systems or causation (Martin. must forswear any legitimating arguments that there is a reason why the ﬁeld must be as it is (Martin.g. at least so far as the ﬁeld possesses autonomy (Bourdieu. p. 375). e. It provides scope for time: functional.. This was highly applicable to this research because solutions are sought for when change is based on a building’s adaptation processes rather than what caused the building to be adapted. Multiplicity of settings is not required. Each agent is deﬁned by his or her position in a ﬁeld with its own themes and problems. Bourdieu. 2006). ﬁeld theory. The context of ﬁeld gives the opportunity to detail the context in which the action is taking place and put boundaries around the place of action (Mutch. periodical or evolutionary. mid-range and explanatory) that can be applied to the understanding of phenomena (Anfara and Mertz. 1939.7/8 360 triangulated and it was found that the standard process protocols were either too generic or speciﬁc and do not ideally represent a hybrid building process. The setting or ﬁeld remains constant and it uses change to deﬁne and explain differentials between actions and effects.
the main driver for a hybrid-building project is change implemented over time. At the core of the model is change. format against work stages. This can be achieved if important parties are allowed relevant degrees of participation during the early design-speciﬁc stages of the process. The factors that could affect an effective information process were also identiﬁed. a clearer picture of a hybrid project process was derived (Figure 1). changes to a building can be implemented through activities (actions and decisions relative to processes). actions and resources can be tracked throughout the spectrum of the project. roles are more or less deﬁned because models can show positions and relationships.. decisions and resources needed to implement the project. it was found that contributions towards client and user satisfaction can be achieved by a collaborative and integrated approach to information sourcing. It also ﬂagged that qualitative (performance) information is highly important for making design decisions in hybrid projects. Powering the change is information and function. Therefore. the survey also helped to map design information: type. Using Field Theory as a theoretical approach facilitated a more systematic approach to analysing the hybrid project process more systematically and by combining information and materials with people and logistics. . roles of design professionals and design responsibilities. A deﬁned building process helps to deﬁne tasks. to information. Framework for hybrid building projects 361 Lastly. a structured interview was used to evaluate the framework. in this context. Speciﬁcally. People using information to derive a more functional ﬁnished project implement change throughout the process. A group of 11 experts participated in the evaluation exercise. product (the building) and process. It supports decision-making activities and the impact on processes (or actions within the ﬁeld). The case studies highlighted the impact of procurement systems and client-led decisions/approach on a design information management process. function is less dynamic because its dynamism is . Importantly. It also provided an insight into building surveying processes and the impact on design decision making. The architectural practice survey reinforced the importance of a process approach to design delivery. Having a process implies that information. The map shows the building as the context but also as a constant. Developing the conceptual framework for hybrid projects Findings from the review of existing literature. By comparison. case studies and surveys cannot be fully discussed within the constraints of this paper but key ﬁndings are summarised as follows: . communication and interpretation within the design. actions. . The building changes but the site setting remains the same. Information is dynamic within and throughout the process. There is no need to show complexity within the framework: processes. Theoretically. The RIBA process was therefore a good point to commence the analysis of a hybrid building process. The ﬁndings from the survey questionnaire helped to ﬁne-tune important work stages. as a factor of people.
F 28. Although in this instance. the hybrid building process and activities becomes more complex. Lack of quality information could lead to wrong . materials. 1994.e. The three main groups of people inﬂuencing and participating are the client group. e. the user group and building professionals. The challenge at this stage is to unlock the building’s potential by utilising available resources. tasks. Simplistic conceptual map bound by variables that are determined at the beginning (from the brief) of the process. The initial stages of a hybrid project usually comprises the building itself. This is because the hybrid building can only be described by changes within its entities but not changes of “all” entities. it ceases to be hybrid if nothing changes or if everything changes. cost and almost ﬁxed by design. a detailed framework will also include roles. Their tasks and roles will vary according to process per time. information to achieve the end product. is considered insigniﬁcant compared to the building’s life cycle – Time (T). building layers (Brand. time frames as well as responses and feedback loops. Time (t) – the time allocated to the works.7/8 362 Figure 1. That is. cost. 1993) which are not mutually exclusive. Ideally. users and/or the design team. As work progresses and with the interaction of more people. Duffy. its inherent information and key parties: the client. Change can be divided into subsets of entities i. Information and communication technologies could potentially play a key role at this stage. players.g.
synthesis. Tunstall (2007. With all possible information acquired and communicated. Although the design is ﬁnalised at this stage. sub-processes. the buildability and adaptability of the building is also determined and the designs are revised to reﬂect the conﬂicts and constraints identiﬁed from as-built information. Design itself is however. architectural design does not end as the tools of fabrication are put into action. On the contrary. After construction. 25-6) also stated that a typical design development process will involve the following actions: analysis. parties. as proposals are conceived and considered (Tunstall. Importantly. The core team procurement stage is mostly designed for the early selection and contractual arrangement with important professionals. building operation and maintenance can then be consolidated in the last milestone. but it is at this stage that design options are investigated. At this stage. making is a discipline that can instigate rather than merely solves ideas – in other words a design process. all building information for design and construction monitoring. The evolving map was then separated into sub-levels of information. design decisions may still be required during the construction stages depending on how the framework was implemented. Framework for hybrid building projects 363 . 2007). trying to establish which are the most important and how they might all play a part in the creation of the new product and inevitably ideas change as possibilities are added or discounted.decisions being made and things going contrary to plan so design information was also mapped within the process. The next milestone – design activity does not represent the stage where design commences. The outline appraisal and development plan where a high-level appraisal is conducted by the client team to assess the potential of an existing building and determine the resources (including historical data) available for its transformation. This stage is important for collaborative decisions to take place. adding that these actions are cyclical and not linear. However. 2007 (Table I). The design subset of the hybrid building process According to Sheil (2005). a continual process of selecting and organising elements. appraisal and feedback. There are eight milestones in the framework. Historical data and as-built information are superimposed and layered to determine conﬂicts and resolve them collaboratively prior to commencement of work on site. choices and decisions made collaboratively and the ﬁnal design and speciﬁcations produced. historical documents are brought up to date by integrating previous data with current data abstracted from the existing building itself. decisions and actions (Figure 2). The third milestone is the building performance evaluation stage. The result. Conceptual designs and preparations for planning permission and other legal requirements commence at this stage too. It integrates the various elements of a hybrid project with milestones redeﬁned based on the RIBA Plan of Work. In addition. the brief is revised to reﬂect information from the appraisal and performance evaluation milestones. pp. case studies and the questionnaire survey. Milestone 6 and 7 – planning/logistics and the construction stages were not evaluated as they were outside the scope of the research. the expectation is that design changes will be minimal as all design uncertainties have been resolved prior to construction. the conceptual framework represents important milestones in the hybrid project process deﬁned from literature. the brief can be sealed at this stage.
Proposed process framework hybrid projects .F 28.7/8 364 Figure 2.
in order to improve construction in general. receiving additions and undergoing transformations as the project progresses (Davidson. 2001). 2000). Comparing the RIBA Plan of Work 2007 and the Hybrid Project Process framework . tender documents Appraisal. deal more with synthesis rather than analysis (Gregg and Crosbie. While. practical completion Post-practical completion Hybrid Project Process framework Milestones 1 Outline appraisal and development plan 2 Development core team procurement 3 Building performance evaluation (survey) 4 Brieﬁng development 5 Design activity (procurement of sub-contractors) 6 Planning and logistics 7 Construction 8 Evaluation and operations Framework for hybrid building projects 365 Table I. a codes body or a commercial ﬁrm. for their part. 1997). the task is more akin to detective work. The research on which this paper is based focused on the latter. unbalanced resource allocation. Information for design consists of general and project-speciﬁc information. causing: poor communication. General information is information that is not generated for a particular project but which is most often the product of a research institution. the designer starts with a clean sheet and progressively builds up his design ab initio while in existing built context. tender documents/action Mobilisation Construction. Clearly. Project-speciﬁc information is further divided into process and product information (Bouchlaghem et al. Experience acquired through the practice of design is seen as readily RIBA Plan of Work 2007 Stages A/B/C C/G A/D/H B/D E/F/G/H J K L Appraisal. detailed proposals. 1997). decisions and activity protocols which can be used to organise people and material processes. therefore an investigation into the hybrid building process. the design process has to be better controlled (Koskela. The complex. with the designers endeavouring to gather information by assessing the existing building and to develop the design work to be comparable with it (CIRIA. design development Technical design. project-speciﬁc information is information that is generated for a particular project. In new-build work. In addition. “Knowledge is experience. Product information comprises information about the product – the building. error-free documents. strategic brief. and erratic decision making (Freire and Alarcon. is a worthwhile exercise. as with most adaptation work.. people and activity subsets of the hybrid building process The nature of hybrid projects is likely to necessitate effective information. Findings from research unanimously indicate that planning and control are substituted by chaos and improvising in design. as for any other building project. a chaotic design process is not the one where superior functional properties are systematically provided for the client and where constructible design solutions and clear. 2004)..It has been shown that more than 80 per cent of commonly associated problems in the construction industry are process related (Kagioglou et al. tender action Design brief. design process for hybrid buildings is fundamentally different from that of new-build work. 2004). lack of coordination between disciplines. As Albert Einstein said. 1998). inter-disciplinary and fragmented nature of the design and construction process is often used as an excuse. Hybrid buildings. decision. After all. which ﬂows between the participants. production information. ensure a smooth construction phase. lack of adequate documentation. deﬁcient or missing input information. Information. everything else is just information”. concept design Outline proposals.
ﬁnancial or legal information. efﬁciency and functionality. and more “palatable” compared to information in a written form (Mackinder and Marvin. 2003). some members will possess more knowledge on issues than others. For design. Eleven design and construction professionals. the users and society. 1982). the greater the amount of information that has to be processed between decision makers during the execution of the task. Each session lasted at least 45 mins. 1974). These three groups of interest each value different things at different times in the life of the building (Bertelsen and Emmitt. . and axioms. making an informed decision is about utilising the relevant specialist information that is relevant to the problem. during the project execution. environmental impact. Accurately presented information aids good judgement and this could translate to informed design decisions made at the early stages of the process.. different types of information are required for decision making depending on the requirements of the project. 2 collaboration managers and 1 design consultant reviewed the framework and provided perceived feedback on its coverage. and the exchange of information and communications (i. Broadly. 1 development manager/employer agent. Time and logistical constraints limited the use of workshops or stakeholder forums. Galbraith said that a basic proposition is that the greater the uncertainty of the task.F 28. However. After which they were required to answer pre-set questions by rating variables based on the Likert scale (1 ¼ low and 5 ¼ high). quicker to use. principles. cost. technical. and the systems and procedures that they use) (Bouchlaghem et al. Emmitt and Gorse (2003) linked everything together in describing a collaborative approach to design. However. The evaluation session commenced with a discussion of the research objectives and an introduction to the framework. quality. administrative.7/8 366 available. the interests of three distinct client groups are represented – the owners. 1 building surveyor. then during the actual task execution. if the task is well understood 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. health and safety. schedules and priorities (Galbraith. in addition to laws. more knowledge is acquired which then leads to (decision) changes in resource allocations. When working in a group. 2 engineers. where different people with varying knowledge and expertise will work together. What is important is that the most relevant information is accessed (Emmitt and Gorse. Each evaluator had a working knowledge of hybrid projects with the exception of one engineer who was working on his ﬁrst hybrid project. The type of information and extent of detail would clearly be related to the project and the parties involved but would generally include the management of time. 2 architects. 2005) and the information requirements at different stages of projects will defer.e. Design decisions require a combination of both knowledge and information to varying degrees. Evaluation The aim of evaluating the framework was to explore the accuracy and extent by which it describes and facilitates an improvement of the hybrid building process. Gigerenzer (1996) pointed out that people are interested in good judgement. The participant is then allowed time to evaluate the framework and ask questions. and good judgement requires an analysis of content. 2004).
collaborative planning and decisions especially for design. a contract/agreement must be made early in the process to promote conﬁdence and commitment by the core development team who may be required to provide professional services and advice prior to tendering. the successful implementation of the framework for hybrid projects will require the re-orientation of the mindset of project stakeholders. type of information and corresponding level of detail) be displayed within the framework for each milestone. 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. In general. The framework covers all milestones for any design and construction project and it highlights key information. evaluators said it was good to see extrapolation of table to programmes. One reason is because it recommends early procurement of the core development team. Participating architects however. Architects considered that the information-intensive nature of the framework was onerous and would not wish to take on the responsibility without remuneration. The framework is particularly relevant for hybrid projects and it has been evaluated to be Framework for hybrid building projects 367 . one participant said. However. participants feedback could be summarised in the comment that. the framework would apply for most building projects. The assurance of a job commission or payment will ensure the participation of the core development team. And to have a systematic path that guides the thinking and decision-making process will be extremely useful”. The efﬁciency of the framework depends on this as it has direct impact on establishing buildability criteria. all the participants generally considered the framework an improvement to the RIBA process. As per framework efﬁciency. stated that the framework currently requires tailoring to standard terminology. especially contractors. however. inﬂuenced by all forms of variability.e. With the exception of architects. critical paths and priority within each category. One participant wondered if it were possible to map cost/cost implications as well as risks across the process. “the framework highlights the importance of obtaining information early – this is important for reducing defects at a later stage”. Discussion of ﬁndings Participants highlighted that for the framework to work. “I think it will act as an effective ﬁltering of non-participation and incompleteness”. However. limited by the number of participants involved and the limited client representation. reﬁning the brief as well as reducing design risk and change as the process progresses. In terms of functionality. Feedback from clients and other stakeholders would have been highly beneﬁcial for the research. It was also suggested that the granularity of information (i. Another commented that. “I think that most designers follow a chaotic development path. Another said. as opposed to based on the architect’s recommendation. The key functionality of the framework was considered to provide process improvement.The evaluation was. ‘the framework will be most effective if engaged by the client to facilitate with brief development prior to design team appointment. Evaluators of the framework suggested that despite being developed for hybrid buildings. decisions and actions that needs to be made en-route.
design decision making. Workshop Report E4135. (2006). N. information. Proceedings of the 13th International Group for Lean Construction Conference. decision making is never an exact science. a supporting structure on which thoughts. 8. parties. CIRIA. Loughborough. London. Bourdieu. (1969). it acts a guide. Construction Productivity Network. New Paint Systems for the Protection of Construction Steelwork. S. 2008). pp. A.J. since the research focus was information. “Intellectual ﬁeld and creative project”.. these issues have been raised by evaluators to be of equal importance and will be worth investigating in future research projects. 104 No. Social Science Information. Vol. . NY. C. New York. decisions and actions required at each stage of a hybrid project. Bourdieu. CIRIA (1997). (2004). 3. the procurement method. and Anumba. London. the level of information available/acquired. Australia. Universite de Montreal. Sage Publications. Depending on the nature of the project. Sydney. (2004). The framework is explicit in deﬁning processes. which are not highly visible within the framework. Bertelsen. Avoiding Structural Collapses in Refurbishment: A Decision Support System. (2004). C. London. Report 174. C.T. “Agenda 21: Information and documentation – a research agenda“. Anumba. which could be reiterated depending on the peculiarity of each individual project. P.F 28. “Integrating product and process information in the construction sector”. (1994). activities and products are delivered.7/8 368 progressively relevant and applicable for the efﬁcient delivery of these classes of projects and indeed any other building project. Viking. Anfara. Brand. Sociology in Question. among others.. planning and construction activity. Findings from evaluating the framework showed that it realises its objective and provides a high-level guide for facilitating informed. V. 218-33. Davidson. Sage. M. and Emmitt. pp. Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. rational or irrational (McElroy. C.. design/design decisions. legal and contractual issues were mentioned but not emphasised within the framework. London. D. S. Egbu. (2005). Lastly. There are subjective issues. Any framework however detailed cannot be all-encompassing. Construction Industry Research and Information Association. N. References Addy.A. Loughborough University for the Health and Safety Executive. (1993). Vol. “The client as a complex system”. yet collaborative. Kimmance. The hybrid project process framework provides the basic structure and its application will vary depending on the complexities of each project. Research Report 463. P. July 2005. How Buildings Learn. Bouchlaghem. 89-119. October. Summary This paper presented a conceptual process framework for the delivery of hybrid projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems. and Kashyap. client type. and Mertz. time/delivery. Montreal. ´ ´ ´ IF Research Group. Nonetheless. client involvement etc.G. it can be objective. subjective. decisions and actions taken in each project might differ. “Planning the path to best value”. Factors such as cost. It also promotes concurrency in design. (2006). S.
Koskela. Kagioglou. Blackwell Publishing. and Hinks. NY. (2003). L. Cooper. Duffy. A. (Ed. Encyclopedia of Decision Making and Decision Support Technologies.com/Browse/open. London. pp.. 3. Vol. (2001). T. and Shen. L. Langston. J. Foundations of Sociology. Bullen. F. and Mertz. G. and Marvin. Building and Environment. S. R. Cambridge University Press.. and Staudinger. 8. (2008). engineering and construction information. Code of practice”. Sheil. 20-31. 43 No. Martin. E. Vol. “Design through making: an introduction”. C. American Journal of Sociology. CA. RIBA Enterprises. Facilities. London. Interfaces. J. Yin. and Alarcon. 4. “What is ﬁeld theory?”. Building Engineer.). Galbraith. (Eds). London. Cambridge. Elsevier Science & Technology. London. Construction Communication.R. 319-46. (Eds). L-Y. M. 4 No. Facilities. “The process protocol: process and IT modelling for the UK construction industry”. T. Vol. Gigerenzer. and Gorse.K. J. Vol. 1709-18.M. “Organization design – an information processing view”. pp. in Alarcon. G.asp?ID¼64237&loc¼ii (accessed 9 April 2009). “Achieving a lean design process”. in Anfara. R. “Adapting Bourdieu’s ﬁeld theory to explain decision-making processes in education policy”. M.T. 109. B. Macmillan. in Adam. F. Framework for hybrid building projects 369 Further reading BSI (2007).. (2005). Thousand Oaks. “Lean production in construction”. Proceedings of the 8th International Group for Lean Construction Conference. Vol. Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research.H. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.). illustrated ed.A. Lean Construction. 2nd ed. Interactive Minds: Life-span Perspectives on the Social Foundation of Cognition. L. (1974). P. dual processes and framing: current thoughts and perspectives”.myilibrary. P. BS 1192:2007. 2nd ed. (2000). Tunstall. University of York. (2007).. Balkema. 4. 76 No. January 2008. pp. V. Vol. Information Science Reference.. BRE. (1993). Seeley. Building Maintenance. (1998). 25 Nos 1/2. Emmitt.C. H. “Collaborative production of architectural. (2007). Freire. 3rd ed. RIBA (2008). Plan of Work: Multi-disciplinary Services. Oxford. (Ed. Lundberg.. (1987). and Humphreys. P. Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies. (2003). (1982). Butterworth-Heinemann. G. McElroy. J. Managing the Building Design Process. Architectural Design. Vol. “Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings”. Rotterdam. C. J. (1996). Aouad. U. Oxford. Mackinder. in Baltes. (2006). I.. Watford. (1939). available at: www. . Wong. Gregg. Sage Publications. 75 No. pp. 10. Mutch. Process and Process Modelling in the Building Industry. and Crosbie. in Amor.. 17-20. May. F. C.L. pp. R.Douglas. 2nd ed. Building Adaptation. (2003). (Eds).A. “Rationality: why social context matters”. “Rational decision making.. British Standards Institution.A. “Measuring building performance”. (1997).M. (2007). Research Paper 19.W.A. N. (2006). 1-49. “Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong”. G. Macmillan Education. Hui. “Design decision making in architectural practice”. Lean Construction Institute. J. “Refurbishment of buildings for residential use”. Sage Publications. New York. York.F.R.
Lee. CAADRIA. Lavy. (2008). 27 No. 153-64.. “On the effect of service life conditions on the maintenance costs of healthcare facilities”. “Innovation in facilities maintenance management”. Johnstone.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. pp. and Sapri. G. 1.adeyeye@brighton. 97-108. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology. Nanjing. “Periodic refurbishment and reductions in national costs to sustain dwelling services”. 25 No. Vol. I.M. and Froese. (2007). pp. Halin. (2005). Koutamanis. M. May 1.ac. “Building integrated architecture/engineering/construction systems using smart objects”. “Information standardization from a design perspectives”. J-J. CAADRIA 2007. Construction Management & Economics. pp. A. 20. (2007). Goyal. pp. M. Pitt. Laurence King.M. Y-S. Environmental Building News. Interdependence and Uncertainty. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. 172-81. Malin. Architecture Reborn: The Conversion and Reconstruction of Old Buildings. I. Powell.7/8 370 Halfawy. H-K.. (2001). S. Vol.F 28. Vol.uk To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. T. “A cost-based interior design decision support system for large-scale housing projects”. 1087-98. Vol. Construction Management and Economics. S. N. and Kvan.. (2006). 20-38. “Building information modelling and green design”. London. and Kim. (2007).com/reprints . Tavistock Institute. K. 10. ITcon. M. Lee. T. (1999). Tavistock Institute (1966). 19 No. 19 No. pp. 13. Vol. 2. Corresponding author Kemi Adeyeye can be contacted at: o.emeraldinsight. and Shohet. London.