Robinson, A; Gibb, A G and Austin, S A (2012) Standardisation of specification driven buildings with serial and repeat order designs. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Government policy-makers are continuing to affirm the need for greater economies through standardization. The benefits of standardization seem straightforward: repeated designs offering economies through rationalization and greater use of preassembled manufactured components as a result of a closer engagement with supply chains. However, a closer investigation of standardization shows it to be more complex; individual client needs, unique site conditions, planning legislation, late contractor engagement, inadequate knowledge and intermittent manufacturer supply are some of the factors that conspire to limit the benefits of standardization. This research, as part of an Engineering Doctorate study, examines repeat- and serial-order standardized buildings through multiple case studies where the reasons for their adoption are explored from various stakeholder perspectives. It tests existing theories from literature on standardization in design and construction efficiency, with an emphasis on specification driven 'non-iconic' buildings. With one-off projects the benefits of standardization are expected to be limited to efficiencies within a project, and there may be limited engagement with a supply-chain. On multiple projects, with dimensionally standard spaces, even in multi-stage tender situations, standardization is also limited and clients are not strongly motivated to engage with manufacturing. However, there are other projects where clients, designers and contractors have taken an 'enlightened self-interest' to collaborate, particularly for repeat order projects, and this leads to an optimized process between the design team, the contractor and their supply chains. These latter projects have better defined briefs and benefit from successive refinements of more linear rationalized design processes with increased use of standardization and preassembly, particularly for the more dimensionally standard areas of the buildings.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | client; briefing; design; standardisation; prefabrication |
| Index terms: | investigation, design and construction, government policy, standardization, briefing, prefabrication, planning legislation, specification, case study, design process, manufacturer, efficiency, designer, design team |
| Subjects: | building construction, contractual condition, performance management, performance measurement, planning law, professional practice, contractual arrangements, public policy, scope management, design methods, practitioner, data collection methods, profession |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Construction Technology, Procurement, Governance, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Contract Administration |
| 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