Oduyemi, O; Okoroh, M and Dean, A (2014) Barriers to life cycle costing usage. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is widely recognized amongst practitioners and academics as a valuable tool in assessing the economic efficiency of constructed facilities. Clients now want buildings that demonstrate value for money over a long term, and are not interested simply in the design solution which is the least expensive. This change have led to and highlighted the importance of LCC approaches to the design, construction and operation of buildings. However, the majority of building designs are still currently produced unsullied by thoughts of maintenance implications, life expectancy or energy consumption. In a forward looking approach, the paper attempts to provide some recommendations that should facilitate and enhance the implementation of LCC in the UK. A questionnaire was distributed to two group samples of 80 practitioners; the quantity surveyors and builders with a total of 70 practitioners (35 aside) completing the survey. The key findings of the statistical analysis indicated that builders ranked the lack of data as the most prevalent problem while quantity surveyors felt it was the lack of a universal framework. The results suggest that there are different opinions and perplexity on issues relating to LCC application. This research will be of interest to industry practitioners and academic researchers with an interest in life cycle costing
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | barriers; life cycle costing; techniques |
| Index terms: | practitioner, questionnaire, energy consumption, value-for-money, implementation, life expectancy, costing, efficiency, building design, quantity surveying, survey, statistical analysis, builder, life cycle |
| Subjects: | architectural design, data science, energy systems, contractual arrangements, value management, practitioner, data collection methods, profession, demography, evaluation, accounting and finance, performance management |
| Topics: | Procurement, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Quality Management, Value Management, Design Practice, Urban Studies |
| 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