Bakens, W; Foliente, G and Jasuja, M (2005) Engaging stakeholders in performance-based building: Lessons from the performance-based building (PeBBu) network. Building Research & Information, 33(2), pp. 149-158. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Despite decades of recognition and development, performance-based thinking and practice have not been as widely adopted by industry. To address this, the Performance-Based Building (PeBBu) Networks in Europe and Australia engaged a wide variety of industry stakeholders (on both 'supply' and 'demand' sides) in advancing the application of the performance approach in building processes. The background development, activities and accomplishments of the PeBBu Networks are presented together with some lessons learned from the experience of running the Network programmes. To engage stakeholders effectively, the performance approach should be presented as a business issue rather than primarily as a technical issue. The dominant need is for clear communication of the meaning, application and benefits of the performance approach, with emphasis on actual benefits and value.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | diffusion; innovation; performance approach; performance concept; performance-based design; stakeholder engagement |
| Index terms: | Europe, programme, Australia, meaning, stakeholder engagement, performance-based, building process, lessons learned |
| Subjects: | project controls, sociology, building construction, Geography, professional development, performance measurement, physical geography and landforms, community and social dimensions |
| Topics: | Site Management, Time Control, Quality Management, Stakeholder Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, 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