Yau, Y (2009) On the proposed private certification of building works in Hong Kong. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 1(3), pp. 221-233. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose – The responsibility for ensuring the safety and standard of building works in Hong Kong has long rested with the government. In 2003, the government proposed a new control regime to streamline the process of building proposal approval by allowing privatesector practitioners to certify certain types of minor building works. The purpose of this paper is to consider the likely effectiveness of the proposed regime by examining the views of local building professionals. Design/methodology/approach – Following an overview of the government's initiative in private certification of building works, a literature review is conducted to collate the collective views of the local professional institutions about the proposals. A total of 90 local architects, building surveyors and structural engineers in the private and public sectors are then interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Findings – The proposed regime is generally perceived as having the capacity to speed up the process of building proposal approval whilst also improving overall standards of building performance in Hong Kong. Concerns are however expressed about the clarity of the definition of minor works, and about the level of professional competence of the private certifiers. The respondents also expressed further general concern over the adequacy of government support offered to the private certifiers under the proposed system. Research limitations/implications – Stakeholders of the proposed minor works regime are not confined to building professionals such as architects, engineers and building surveyors, but also include contractors and the general public as a whole. Owing to limited resources, only the views of the local building professionals are solicited. Practical implications – The findings of this study provide valuable insights for public administrators into the design and subsequent operation of the new regime. They will also assist the Hong Kong Government in making more informed decisions about the future streamlining of the building control system without, at the same time, sacrificing the overall building safety of the city. Originality/value – This is the first published study on the views of building professionals from different professional backgrounds on the proposed private certification regime.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building specifications; buildings; Hong Kong; technical regulations |
| Index terms: | competence, effectiveness, building performance, methodology, public sector, certification, Hong Kong, building control, structural engineer, literature review, practitioner, building specification, regulation, building professional, questionnaire, government support, proposal, architect, engineer, streamlining, building surveyor, approval |
| Subjects: | administrative law, professional practice, project planning, government bodies, data analysis and analytics, administrative processes, contractual role, research methods, practitioner, Geography, political science, data collection methods, personnel development, management, health safety and environment, quality assurance, profession, performance management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Legal Issues, Health and Safety, Quality Management, Project Management, Design Practice, Geographical Context, Governance, Contract Administration, Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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