Hopkin, T; Lu, S L; Rogers, P and Sexton, M (2016) A soft systems methodology approach to the improvement of a housing association. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Rapid growth in the production of new homes in the United Kingdom (UK) is putting build quality under pressure as evidenced by rising numbers of defects. Housing Associations (HAs) contribute approximately 20% to the UK’s housing supply. HAs however are experiencing challenges of central government funding cuts and rental revenue reductions. Maximising the benefit of learning from defects is recognised as being a key opportunity for HAs to help meet these challenges. This paper reports progress from an on-going action research (AR) project, aimed at better understanding house builders' localised defects analysis procedures and learning processes. The action research is currently co-developing a defects assessment information system with a HA using a soft systems methodology (SSM) approach. The SSM approach aims to develop a deeper understanding of the system of concern to identify feasible and desirable changes with a view to taking action to improve practice. The findings identify a significant mismatch between what the current system should be doing to enable the HA to manage and learn from defects and the real world situation. The mismatch has revealed to the HA that a modification to their information system is necessary to improve performance and enhance learning through live data analysis and reporting. The paper concludes by outlining the recommended system modifications to be adopted by the HA.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | defects; housing associations; new-build housing; soft systems methodology |
| Index terms: | funding, mismatch, information system, housing, housing association, soft systems methodology, data analysis, action research, new-build housing, United Kingdom, builder, revenue |
| Subjects: | research methods, economic development, Geography, information systems, engineering problems, construction type, data collection methods, practitioner, institutional client, economic analysis, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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