Hartmann, A. and van den Berg, M. (2026) Circularity on demand and at the side: Working rule patterns in construction design practices. Construction Management and Economics, 44(8), pp. 639-652. ISSN 0144-6193
Abstract
The shift towards circular construction necessitates comprehensive, systemic alterations of deeply ingrained practices. This research seeks to gain a deeper understanding of how the underlying working rules that govern daily construction practices impact the ability to create circular solutions. It utilises the Institutional Analysis and Development framework to analyse two embedded case studies that encompass five (circular) design processes within Dutch engineering firms. We identified twenty-five working rules that underlie the design practices examined and how they affect circularity. From this, two key patterns of rules were identified: one in which working rules restrict circularity as a demand criterion, requiring action only when clients request it; and another in which circularity is treated as a peripheral consideration, viewed as a desirable but not necessary add-on. These patterns of rules demonstrate that circularity has yet to become the underlying design principle of design processes, requiring a fundamental change in the rules constituting construction practices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | circular economy; design practices; institutional analysis and development; working rules |
| Index terms: | design process, case study, engineering firm, circularity, design principle, design practice, circular economy |
| Subjects: | sustainable materials, sustainable design, data collection methods, design process, design methods, firms |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Sustainability, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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