Requiements engineering in construction (Anforderungs-engineering im bauwesen)

Krönert, N (2010) Requiements engineering in construction (Anforderungs-engineering im bauwesen). DSc thesis, ETH Zürich, Switzerland.

Abstract

In today's financial situation, it is more important for investors that the proposed rate of return can be achieved as early as possible. In order to secure the return of the investment, it is also important that the construction project develops a win-win situation for all involved. However, recent observations show that this is rather a rare case. The lack of success of projects may be primarily by the incomplete construction target definition, the lack of involvement of relevant stakeholders and the frequent changes based on construction target definition in the late phases of the project. The arguments show that in the construction industry the necessary requirements are often not formulated in the early phases of the project. Based on this issue, a research project was started of the company HOCHTIEF and the Institute of Construction Engineering and Management at the ETH Zurich, from which the present work origins. The target of the research was to determine if and how a requirements-engineering in construction can be implemented. The studies within the research project have shown that in other industries, primarily in software development, requirements engineering is consistently applied. Thus, the present thesis fulfils an extensive analysis of the approach in other industries and is examining their applicability in the construction industry. Based on this analysis a process model for requirements engineering in the construction industry will be developed, which considered mainly the early development phases. Since at present time there is no requirements engineering in the construction industry, the generic-logically-deductive approach was chosen as an epistemological approach. For the validation of this approach a theory-based justification and a realizability test is chosen. Using this triangulation will ensure the scientific quality of the work. To reduce the complexity of the model and to ensure the applicability the process model is structured on systems theory and cybernetics. Furthermore, the content design is developed in consideration of the elements and findings of the principal-agent theory. The application of these scientific methods frames the theoretical framework of the process model and supports the validity of the model. With the described research methodology, a process model for requirements engineering in the construction industry will be developed, which provides a viable guideline for practice based on the scientific approach.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Uncontrolled Keywords: complexity; systems theory; construction project; construction engineering; investment; validation; stakeholder
Index terms: construction industry, construction engineering, research methodology, validity, investor, systems theory, agent, complexity, triangulation, construction project, validation, software development
Subjects: evaluation and assessment methods, research design and methodology, practitioner, sociology, industry analysis, systems engineering, theoretical framing, engineering methods, software systems, production management, professional development
Topics: Engineering Principles, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Research Practice
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