de Laat, P (2019) Resource depletion: Where is an intervention most effective? Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 8(4), pp. 307-321. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose: Where does one need to intervene in to be most effective? The purpose of this study is to rank areas of the resource system, according to how much of a change can be expected from interventions in an area, in relation to the problem of depleting resources. Design/methodology/approach: Principles of structured analysis are used to model how society uses resources. From this model, nine intervention areas are defined. These intervention areas are ranked in terms of effectiveness, through the use of the analytic hierarchy process. Findings: To be most effective, one must prioritize intervention areas as follows: material inputs to the operation phase; process inputs to the operation phase; products' longevity; process inputs to the manufacturing phase; and material inputs to the manufacturing phase. Practical implications: Most decisions are not made on the basis of rigorous analysis but by using heuristics (rules of thumb). The results of this study are expressed as rules of thumb. They can help decision makers prioritize what is most important, but without imposing new ways of working. Originality/value: In the construction domain, heuristics that generalize the impact of actions (content), instead of intervention areas (context), currently seem to prevail. The heuristics of this study generalize the impact of intervention areas. Therefore, they provide an extra perspective for many decision makers. This extra perspective can help reduce mistakes that are typically made by oversimplifying matters.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | effectiveness; efficiency; heuristics; intervention areas; resource depletion; sustainability |
| Index terms: | society, methodology, operation phase, efficiency, heuristic, depletion, effectiveness |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, environmental resource management, project delivery, research methods, performance management, communities and social development |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Quality Management |
| 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