Mayouf, M.; Kay, K. and Ashayeri, I. (2026) Building performance in refurbishment projects: A hybrid framework for holistic performance delivery. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 44(4), pp. 1121-1137. ISSN 2398-4708
Abstract
Purpose – Refurbishment projects are recognised as complex in nature, as they embed a high number of uncertainties and risks. One of the optimum aims in a refurbishment project is ensuring that performance is holistically and systematically accounted for. Although many studies have attempted to focus performance, limited studies have focused on the process followed or complexities encountered. This paper aims to provide an improved mechanism that support building performance accountancy for refurbishment projects. Design/methodology/approach – Data have been attained using secondary data from the literature and primary data using semi-structured interviews. The secondary data supported identifying building performance attributes for refurbishment projects whereas the primary data were obtained from two building surveyors, two quantity surveyors, an architect and an MEP engineer who are involved in managing performance when executing refurbishment projects. Findings – The findings show that refurbishment projects are primarily managed in the same way as new-build projects, which can be one of the major issues that cause many pitfalls as the project progresses. Analysis revealed that there is a lack of coordination between stakeholders and relevant data/information, which cause poor consideration of performance indicators. Analysis also showed that there is a lack of standardised approach to follow for refurbishment projects, which lead to poor performance considerations. Originality/value – This paper presents a novel hybrid framework designed to proactively enhance building performance in refurbishment projects. By addressing the unique complexities and data requirements of existing structures, this framework aims to drive both immediate performance improvements and long-term optimisation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; refurbishment; risk; services; stakeholders |
| Index terms: | performance improvement, architect, refurbishment project, coordination, quantity surveying, engineer, secondary data, methodology, complexity, interview, performance indicator, building performance, building surveyor |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, profession, systems engineering, management, performance measurement, performance management, quality assurance, infrastructure engineering, research methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Quality Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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