Koskela, L; Huovila, P and Leinonene, J (2002) Design management in building construction: From theory to practice. Journal of Construction Research, 3(1), pp. 1-16. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
The design process can be conceptualized in at least three different ways: 1) as a process of transforming inputs into outputs, 2) as a flow of information through time and space, and 3) as a process for generating value for customers. Case studies and research findings to date indicate that design management in construction is deficient from all three of these points of view. In this paper, a series of experiments aiming at creating clarity and introducing systematic management principles from all three perspectives is described. The results of these experiments suggest that the use of relatively simple, albeit theory-driven, tools can achieve major improvements in the process of construction design. It is argued that only when based on suitable conceptualizations, and informed by empirical data, can effective methods be devised to ameliorate construction design and engineering.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building design; design management; concurrent engineering; lean construction |
| Index terms: | experiment, design management, concurrent engineering, lean construction, building construction, case study, building design, design process |
| Subjects: | engineering methods, building construction, architectural design, data collection methods, design process, design methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Site Management, Construction Technology, Engineering Principles, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PE |
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