Burrell, P A (2017) Structural errors and failures in construction: is knowledge hidden? PhD thesis, Anglia Ruskin University, UK.
Abstract
Structural errors and failures within construction appear to be not reported to other professionals in the industry. This results in little advancement of knowledge and understanding, with the consequence that similar failings are repeated. For example, in 2016 Construction accounted for 6% of the Gross Domestic Product, of this 7% was lost in disputes. There were, however, 30 fatalities. A study of cases from the author?s Practice, into building defects, errors and failures was undertaken. This identified four areas: the education of chartered structural engineers, legislation, the management of construction projects and business ethics, as contributing to errors and failures. A series of open-ended, semi-structured interviews was also undertaken with senior professionals, including the Judiciary, Professors of Engineering, Global Consultants, and Professional Indemnity Insurers. Research findings revealed that technical knowledge is deliberately withheld due to non-disclosure clauses in mediated settlements, and through the practices of global Professional Indemnity Insurers. A Study of pass rates for chartered membership of the Institution of Structural Engineers showed a decrease despite, an increase ... (continues)
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building defects; errors; interview; litigation; professional indemnity; knowledge sharing; quality assurance |
| Index terms: | fatalities, gross domestic product, structural engineer, judiciary, interview, construction project, legislation, building defect, professional indemnity, quality assurance, litigation, business ethics, knowledge sharing, dispute |
| Subjects: | production management, legal systems, knowledge management, health risk and incident analysis, data collection methods, liability law, profession, dispute resolution, economic analysis, professional practice, quality assurance |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Information Management, Ethics, Design Practice, Quality Management, Project Management, Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Research Practice |
| 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