Emmitt, S and Heaton, B (2003) The introduction of Approved Document L: A study of enforced change. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
The majority of designers exhibit conservative rather than innovative behaviour when specifying. Earlier research found that specifiers tend to seek out products that are new to them only when their usual solution is inappropriate. In this paper we report the observation of two specifiers working in an architect’s office and their response to the introduction of Approved Document Part L, which forced them to pursue new solutions. This ethnographic study helps to illustrate different approaches to the decision-making process by individuals working within the same office and within the same organizational culture. Analysis of the specifiers' action also helps to highlight a number of issues concerning the management of design and knowledge transfer. In particular some of the pressures associated with the adoption of a more ecologically friendly approach to design are revealed in the work reported here. A number of issues are raised for practitioners and design managers as well as identifying areas for further research, some of which is currently being addressed in ongoing research work.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | change; decision-making; design management; innovation; specification |
| Index terms: | specification, practitioner, designer, design management, design manager, decision-making process, knowledge transfer, organizational culture, decision-making, architect |
| Subjects: | contractual condition, research dissemination and communication, profession, design process, sociology, decision analysis, practitioner |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Design Practice, Risk Management, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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