Beadle, K (2008) Analysis of the design process for low-energy housing. PhD thesis, De Montfort University, UK.
Abstract
The present thesis presents an extensive description and analysis of the design process for a large-scale low-energy housing development (196 houses). The research is used to question the appropriateness of the RIBA Plan of Work for the delivery of low-energy housing and to give a unique insight into the motivations and interrelationships ofproject team members. A mixed-methods approach was used to collect and analyse data. Qualitative data were collected from participant observation of over 40 design and construction meetings at the case-study development, as well as from documents distributed at these meetings. In addition, members of the core design team were interviewed. Data from these various sources were analysed using template, documentary and quantitative content analysis. Decision analysis was used to investigate factors that affected the environmental impact of the houses. The impact of these decisions (and of particular decision makers) is discussed. The EcoHomes Standard had the largest influence on decisions, and many were renegotiated in construction to the detriment of the houses' environmental performance. The research reveals that some project team members lacked understanding of the cost of sustainable construction. Several parties added up to 30% to actual construction costs. The experience of designing and constructing the low-energy houses increased all project team members' knowledge, and apparently changed how many operated and thought in their professional roles. Partnering and trust were very important in the project team, and good working relationships were essential. Cost (especially affordability of the houses) and sustainability were the strongest influences on decisions cited by project team members. However, compromises on the sustainability of the houses were observed because of the cost implications of some low-energy technologies, materials and building techniques. The RIBA Plan of Work did not hold the key to incorporating sustainability into the design process, as this was shown to be embedded in other issues, such as project team relations.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; construction cost; content analysis; decision analysis; design process; environmental impact; housing development; interview; motivation; partnering; professional; project team; RIBA; sustainability |
| Index terms: | design team, content analysis, housing development, motivation, observation, interview, low-energy house, sustainable construction, design process, energy technology, plan of work, affordability, housing, documents, environmental impact, decision analysis, construction cost, partnering, environmental performance, case study, project team, design and construction |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, innovation and technology management, professional practice, economic analysis, financial and cost management, project delivery, psychology, operations management, environmental impact, design methods, construction type, data collection methods, partnership management, decision analysis, sustainable construction, professional development, sustainability assessment |
| Topics: | Project Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Risk Management, Human Resources, Design Practice, Information Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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