Cook, S J and English, C (1997) Overspecification of speculative UK commercial office building: An international comparison. In: Stephenson, P (ed.) Proceedings of 13th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September 1997, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
There is a view expressed by some authors that the UK is currently over specifying speculative commercial office space. Comparative studies between the costs of constructing speculative office buildings in the UK and those constructed abroad have indicated the existence of many cost differentials that have not been further investigated. This paper illustrates the different levels of standards and specifications typically used in the construction of a medium sized, six storey office block in the UK based on a questionnaire survey with those same standards used in Australia, North America, Japan, France, Germany and the UK. A comparison was made using a questionnaire, with five other countries having a similar climate and/or enjoying similar levels of economic development. This paper illustrates the major similarities and differences that currently exist between standards and specifications in speculatively built six storey office within the six countries and posit reasons for these differences.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | over specification; commercial buildings; international comparison |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, Germany, comparative study, commercial building, international comparison, specification, economic development, France, Japan, office building, Australia, survey, commercial office |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, data collection methods, construction type, data analysis and analytics, economic development, contractual condition, Geography |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Sustainability, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here