Murtagh, N; Owen, A M and Simpson, K (2023) Engaging UK repair–maintain–improve practitioners in improved building performance. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 41(1), pp. 11-24. ISSN 23984708
Abstract
Purpose: To improve building performance and meet statutory carbon reduction targets, a radical transformation of existing UK building stock is needed. Much previous research on building performance has focussed on large-scale construction. However, retrofit of existing housing stock – which will contribute the majority of the requisite efficiency improvement – is carried out by practitioners in the repair–maintain–improve (RMI) subsector. These practitioners are the sole traders and micro-firms who constitute two-fifths of employment in the construction sector. The study aims to examine the factors influencing these practitioners in RMI work to understand how better to engage them with improved building performance. Design/methodology/approach: A total of 31 semi-structured interviews were conducted with RMI professionals from around the UK and analysed using template analysis. Findings: The analysis identified capabilities of the practitioners who influence building performance, including knowledge and co-ordination of people and resources; opportunities including state action and customer demand; and motivations including pride in work, customer care and satisfaction, maintaining a viable business and working relationships. Research limitations/implications: The participants were a small, mixed group in terms of firm size and specialisation. The qualitative approach adopted provided detailed insights but does not make claims for statistical generalisability or representativeness of the findings. Future work could look to extend the findings with a statistically representative survey. Practical implications: For a successful transition to high standards of building performance, modelling is not enough. Initiatives are needed to address the multiple factors which determine engagement in energy-efficient retrofit: capacities, opportunities and motivations. The desire of RMI practitioners to meet customer expectations could be used to develop pragmatic building performance evaluation, guided by householder satisfaction criteria. Originality/value: The study examined the attitudes and experiences of an under-researched sector who are essential to the delivery of improved building performance. This study makes a novel contribution by applying an established psychological model of behaviour change, the capability, opportunity, motivation – behaviour model, for the first time in this domain.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | motivation; repair-maintain-improve; retrofit; sustainable behaviour; zero-carbon |
| Index terms: | building performance, building stock, housing stock, motivation, survey, interview, behaviour change, specialization, construction sector, repair, methodology, practitioner, employment, qualitative approach, transformation, efficiency, carbon reduction, satisfaction, modelling, building performance evaluation |
| Subjects: | performance management, research methods, maintenance engineering, management, quality assurance, behavioral psychology, industry analysis, asset management, building performance, practitioner, climate science, business, data collection methods, project delivery, analytical methods, psychology |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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