Maseko, L and Root, D (2021) Collaborative risk management within the design phase of green buildings. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 37th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-7 September 2021, Online Event, UK.
Abstract
Green building projects are ambitious in terms of the complexity of structures, design requirements, information flows, stakeholder integration and technological integration. As a consequence, management of these projects is becoming increasingly integrated. However, risk management (RM) has taken little account of these emergent interconnected stakeholders, interdependent tasks, inseparable risks and iteration in the design process. This leads to poor risk management outcomes, where traditional risk management practices that rely on allocating risks to specific individual entities are not able to accommodate the complexities of a collaborative integrated design. As part of a comprehensive research into how project stakeholders in collaborative design teams manage inseparable risks within their interdependent design tasks, multiple case studies were analysed using empirical data from semi-structured interviews of experienced practitioners. The abductive approach provided explanations of the continuous interplay between theory and various real-life examples. To bridge the current research gap, a matrix-based approach of using Dependency Structure Matrix to integrate the stakeholder dimension and the task dimension to solve for inseparable risks, enabled Collaborative Risk Management (CRM) to filter out most complexities, so that efforts could be directed to appropriate risk sharing and analysis of important parts of the design process. In order to judge the collaborative climate and satisfaction of each stakeholder in the design team, stakeholders suggested a decentralized process that foster a co-operative culture, contract negotiation and communication as key to ensuring that all parties are able to perform their respective tasks adequately. To manage inseparable risk, stakeholders suggested proportional risk sharing approaches, regular team meetings and timeous information sharing. The project should have a shared insurance cover that will balance the risks fairly between stakeholders; in absence of bad faith; leading to a reasonable price; qualitative performance and the minimization of disputes.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; design risks; green buildings; long-term relationships; risk sharing. |
| Index terms: | becoming, satisfaction, minimization, case study, design process, interview, information flow, contract negotiation, dispute, design team, green building, design risk, abductive approach, risk management, project stakeholder, design phase, practitioner, information sharing, collaboration, integration, insurance, stakeholder integration, complexity, operative, dimension, collaborative design |
| Subjects: | philosophical process, systems engineering, information systems, organizational analysis, sociology, financial risk, contract management, management, design practice, data exchange, algorithms, professional practice, participation process, health monitoring assessment and metrics, economic analysis, project delivery, design methods, practitioner, dispute resolution, risk assessment, data collection methods, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management |
| 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