Mootanah, D (2005) Researching whole life value methodologies for construction. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, London, UK.
Abstract
Whole life value (WLV) can be seen to encompass economic, social and environmental aspects associated with the planning, design, construction, operation, decommissioning and where appropriate, the re-use of the asset or its constituent materials at the end of its useful life. WLV represents the optimum balance of stakeholders' aspirations, needs and requirements, and the costs over the life of an asset. Various methods, techniques and tools have been used for supporting whole-life value principles in construction. Among these methods, whole-life costing, life-cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis, value and risk management are the most prominent. This paper reviews these key methods and techniques in an attempt to integrate the current thinking on whole life value. Building on these available methods and techniques, the paper then introduces a research-in-progress, which is reviewing whole-life thinking, concepts and methods outside construction in different industry contexts that can be applicable to the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | whole life value; whole life costing; risk and value; asset management; innovation; technology transfer; cross-industry learning |
| Index terms: | re-use, asset management, risk management, whole-life costing, value methodology, decommissioning, technology transfer, construction industry |
| Subjects: | renovation and retrofit, professional development, health safety and environment, asset management, industry analysis, occupational health, risk assessment, knowledge management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Risk Management |
| 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