Lutz, J D; Chang, L M and Napier, T R (1990) Evaluation of new building technology. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(2), pp. 281-299. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a proposed system for evaluating the expected utility of a new building technology and for aiding the decision-maker in making an appropriate and logical decision in implementing a new building technology. The developed evaluation system is a three-part approach consisting of technical-, economic-, and risk-assessment phases. An overall assessment factor (OAF) is determined, which provides a measure of the potential utility of the new technology. The technology index (TI) can also be determined, which expresses the expected utility of an evaluated technology relative to an existing or comparable technology. Four possible outcomes can result from the evaluation, ranging from large-scale implementation to discarding the technology from further consideration. Decision aids, including a decision nomograph and a decision flow chart, were developed to aid the decision-maker in determining the appropriate implementation decision based on evaluation results. An example application of the proposed evaluation methodology applied to a new exterior closure technology is provided.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | new technology, implementation, building technology, methodology |
| Subjects: | research methods, engineering systems, contractual arrangements, innovation and technology management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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