Hussey, H and Atanasov, V (2024) Improving the methods of description of building works in the UK. In: Thomson, C (ed.) Proceedings of 40th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2024, London South Bank University, UK.
Abstract
Since 1922, methods and rules of measurement have been developed to address the continual need to describe and quantify building work in the UK and revised to adapt to changes in industry practices and materials, yet not all changes have been addressed adequately. Currently, surveyors often work directly for clients and, as a result, have lost the knowledge relating to some aspects of construction cost which was historically provided by builders and merely describe the material content of elemental building designs produced by architects. Therefore, a knowledge gap exists in the belief that the current methods are efficient and effective (i.e. produce full descriptions of building work). This paper identifies key issues with these methods and develops the main criteria for a superior solution. The research method includes the analysis, synthesis and evaluation of thirteen documents, which represent the evolution of the rules of measurement in the UK, and academic literature. An improved system based on describing 'workpieces' of work on-site, including the key criteria required to produce an enhanced standard method of description of building work is offered.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building work; communication; cost; description; measurement |
| Index terms: | building design, documents, builder, evolution, construction cost, architect |
| Subjects: | profession, professional development, financial and cost management, architectural design, environmental science, practitioner |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Cost Management, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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