Dawson, R; Ojiako, U and Hughes, L (2008) Assessing the impact of amended building regulations on the operations of UK construction companies. In: Dainty, A (ed.) Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
The UK government continues to make regular amendments to building regulations. This is in order to keep these regulations relevant to today’s prevailing construction environment. More recently, UK building regulations have been amended to facilitate the introduction of the sustainability concepts in UK building design and delivery. This paper examines the impact that these amendments on the operations of UK Construction companies. To conduct the study, five major building practitioners were interviewed. We found from this preliminary study that changes to building regulations do have a considerable impact on the operations of UK Construction companies. It is however important to highlight that a full assessment of the impact of these changes in building regulations is still not fully assessed due to the limitations with the sample size.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building regulation; energy policy |
| Index terms: | building design, building regulation, sample size, regulation, energy policy, construction company, building practitioner |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, political science, regulatory law, public policy, organization, practitioner, architectural design |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Legal Issues, Governance |
| 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