Bordass, W and Leaman, A (1997) Design for manageability. Building Research & Information, 25(3), pp. 148-157. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Unmanageable complexity is a major source of chronic problems in building performance. Drawing evidence from studies of the performance of buildings in use, the authors explore the consequences of unnecessary complexity especially for usability and environmental efficiency. Briefing and designing for management and use raises strategic issues of how human and physical systems interact, how uncertainty and inefficiency in systems' operation and use can develop; how human behaviour is affected and how chronic failures occur. Attributes for more successfully briefing, designing, researching and evaluating buildings are discussed in terms of improving performance in use.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | briefing; building performance; feedback; manageability; risk reduction |
| Index terms: | risk reduction, efficiency, human behaviour, drawing, usability, building performance, evidence, complexity, briefing |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, user-centered design, health behaviours and lifestyles, scope management, technical documentation, performance management, financial risk, systems engineering, quality assurance |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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