Kristiansen, K (2010) Taking care of caretaking. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
It has been put forward in recent years that facilities management considerations should be better integrated into planning, design and construction of new buildings. It is difficult to disagree with the idea that it would good to establish a feedback mechanism from buildings in use to the production of new buildings, but is it possible? And are there obstacles? This paper will through examples from construction management literature and some cases outline issues related to this integration of facilities management. It is the intention to improve the understanding of the complexities in the integration of FM considerations by linking to a more general debate in construction management. It is demonstrated that it is not as easy as it may seem to create such a learning loop. There is an important and seemingly neglected link to the discussion on fragmentation of the construction industry. A feedback mechanism cannot simply be engineered into construction. A demand from up front in the construction process for knowledge about existing buildings will be needed, as well as mechanisms for passing on the knowledge through the construction process.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | change; facilities management; fragmentation |
| Index terms: | facilities management, construction industry, complexity, integration, construction process, design and construction, fragmentation |
| Subjects: | business, contractual arrangements, management, building construction, organizational analysis, systems engineering, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Procurement, Organizational Design, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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