Egbu, C O; Young, B A and Torrance, V B (1996) Refurbishment management practices in the shipping and construction industries: lessons to be learned. Building Research & Information, 24(6), pp. 329-338. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Comparative study of refurbishment management practices conducted to extend the boundaries of knowledge and encourage transfer of information between the sectorsThe management of refurbishment work in both sectors is complex, highly specialized and contains elements of works which are unique to refurbishment and which are different from new work. Ship refurbishment clients are better informed and more knowledgeable about refurbishment processes and products than construction clients and are more involved in the planning and decision making process. The authors claim, that there is very little evidence of formal or structured processes of managing risks and uncertainty in refurbishment, in both sectors, especially the quantification and evaluation of risks. There is also an urgent need for educators and refurbishment organizations to address the issue of under-provision of refurbishment management courses.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; shipping industry; decision making; risk management; planning; control; refurbishment management |
| Index terms: | decision-making process, construction client, refurbishment work, quantification, construction industry, boundaries, management practice, decision-making, comparative study, evidence, risk management |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, measurement and scaling, industry analysis, renovation and retrofit, management, property law, evaluation and assessment methods, risk assessment, research design and methodology, practitioner |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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