Higham, A and Fortune, C (2011) Sustainable asset management (SAM) decision making: An exploration of current practice. In: Egbu, C and Lou, E C W (eds.) Proceedings of 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
The fundamental aim of any construction client is to gain maximum benefit or utility from any project or programme proposed. Traditionally the utility of the project has been evaluated using monetary based techniques including, although not limited to, cost planning and whole life or life cycle cost analysis. In recent years, however, social housing providers have become increasingly aware of the importance of sustainability; both in terms of sustainable development and sustainable communities, leading some to consider a multiplicity of other non-financial attributes, cutting across the social and environmental aspects of sustainability during project appraisal. The results of an exploratory qualitative survey are reported, based on a series of semi-structured interviews undertaken with senior housing professionals from a range of social housing providers and local authorities. The research indicated a desire within the social housing sector to embed the three high level criteria associated with sustainability within their asset appraisal processes. Attempts to integrate sustainable benefit planning into the decision making process require further refinement as no apparent tool yet exists to facilitate this process.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | asset management; project appraisal; social housing; sustainability |
| Index terms: | appraisal, social housing, housing, cost planning, exploration, decision-making, project appraisal, life cycle cost analysis, local authority, sustainable development, decision-making process, asset management, sustainable community, construction client, programme, survey, interview |
| Subjects: | economics, factor and component analysis, financial management, health safety and environment, decision analysis, sociology, asset management, project controls, housing and residential development, communities and social development, construction type, data collection methods, practitioner, environmental resource management, project delivery |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Urban Studies, Time Control |
| 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