Okehielem, N (2011) A benchmark for impact assessment of affordable housing. PhD thesis, University of Wolverhampton, UK.
Abstract
There is a growing recognition in the built environment for the significance of benchmarking. It is recognized as a key driver for measuring success criteria in the built environment sector. In spite of the huge application of this technique to the sector and other sectors, very little is known of it in affordable housing sub-sector and where it has been used, components of housing quality were not holistically considered. This study considers this identified deficiency in developing a benchmark for assessing affordable housing quality impact factors. As part of this study, samples of four affordable housing projects were examined. Two each were originally selected from under five categories of operational quality standards within UK. Samples of ten projects were extracted from a total of 80 UK affordable housing projects. Investigative study was conducted on these projects showing varying impact factors and constituent parameters responsible for their quality. Impact criteria found on these projects were mapped against a unifying set standard and weighted with 'relative importance index'. Adopting quality function deployment (QFD) technique, a quality matrix was developed from these quality standards groupings with their impact factors. An affordable housing quality benchmark and a relative toolkit evolved from resultant quality matrix of project case studies and questionnaire served on practitioners' performance. Whereas the toolkit was empirically tested for reliability and construct validity, the benchmark was subjected to refinement with the use of project case study.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | affordable housing; benchmarking; prototype development; quality function deployment; questionnaire survey; ISBN/ISSN: |
| Index terms: | toolkit, benchmarking, housing, questionnaire, impact assessment, practitioner, relative importance index, prototype, survey, success criteria, quality function deployment, affordable housing, built environment, validity, quality standard, case study |
| Subjects: | practitioner, construction type, evaluation and assessment methods, quality assurance, assessment methods, modelling and simulation, value management, risk assessment, data collection methods, infrastructure and transport systems, software systems, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Risk Management, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Quality 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