Long, P W (2021) A conceptual framework for sharing knowledge and information between facility management/operations and building design teams. PhD thesis, University of Salford, UK.
Abstract
It is generally accepted that decisions made in early design phases significantly impact the quality of a built project. However, much of the information necessary to assess the validity of early design decisions is not available until later in a project’s lifecycle. The impact of early design decisions on project quality suggests that accurate, relevant, and timely information is important at the earliest design phases to improve a designer’s ability to make well-informed design decisions. This thesis proposes that because of their active engagement with the built environment, facility managers (FMs) have unique insights that strategically position them to play an essential role in the early phases of building design by providing knowledge and feedback from buildings in use. Because early design sets the foundation for linking strategic and technical decisions, the most significant opportunities for improving overall project results are at the beginning of a project. Facility management and operations (FM/O) involvement in early architecture and engineering (AE) design phases makes it possible to incorporate construction and FM related knowledge into design decisions. This involvement may lead to buildings that are better suited to owners’ needs, more attractive, easier to maintain, more cost-effective, and better at addressing occupant needs. However, while research suggests design teams and design processes will increasingly become integrated and multi-disciplinary as advanced automated construction and information management systems become standard, obstacles persist, limiting the sharing of information and knowledge between FM/O and AE-design teams. This thesis evaluates and develops mechanisms and procedures to enhance the sharing of information and knowledge between FM and AE-design teams. With a focus on built environment industries in the midwestern region of the United States (US), data is collected from AE and FM professionals to support the development of a framework that offers solutions for enhancing information sharing between FM/O and AE-design. The developed framework is presented as a design decision support system (DDSS) made up of conceptual design decision support tools (DDSTs). The thesis describes a mixed method, design science research (DSR) strategy, used to develop the conceptual DDSS framework and DDSTs
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building design; built environment; facility management; design decision; feedback; designer |
| Index terms: | information sharing, design decision, validity, design science research, design process, conceptual design, strategy, design team, building design, decision support, built environment, automated construction, management system, United States, design phase, mixed method, designer, owner, manager, lifecycle, conceptual framework |
| Subjects: | profession, architectural design, practitioner, data collection methods, theoretical framing, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, evaluation and assessment methods, project delivery, management, Geography, design practice, professional practice, design methods, decision analysis, data exchange, automation and robotics |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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