Moua, B and Russell, J S (2001) Comparison of two maintainability programs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(3), pp. 239-244. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Research by the Construction Industry Institute Maintainability Research Team investigated how maintainability is being incorporated into the project delivery process. This paper presents a comparative analysis of two formal maintainability programs drawn from that research. The programs differ in terms of application and project type and size, in addition to the organization leading the implementation (owner-led versus contractor-led). This paper identifies program attributes contributing to effective maintainability programs. These have been grouped into five categories: (1) corporate commitment; (2) program resources; (3) maintainability planning; (4) maintainability implementation; and (5) program updating. Additionally, the comparative analysis provides readers with insights into different applications used to implement maintainability.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | commitment, comparative analysis, maintainability, program, owner, Construction Industry Institute, implementation, project delivery |
| Subjects: | software systems, maintenance engineering, sociology, research organizations, psychology, project delivery, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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