Zou, P X W; Redman, S and Windon, S (2008) Case studies on risk and opportunity at design stage of building projects in australia: Focus on safety. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 4(3-4), pp. 221-238. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to gain a better understanding of the context, practice, benefits and critical success factors in assessing safety risks and opportunities at the design stage of building projects in Australia. Through case studies and interviews, it is found that the assessment and management of risks and opportunities at the design stage of building projects in relation to safety issues could be effectively implemented with a number of benefits including safety performance improvement through the 'think tank' processes (safety knowledge sharing and application), buildability check, value management and quality improvement. It is suggested that this method could be promoted to the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building project; construction management; design stage; risk assessment; safety |
| Index terms: | critical success factor, construction industry, safety performance, risk assessment, design stage, value management, safety issue, knowledge sharing, quality improvement, Australia, interview, buildability, case study |
| Subjects: | professional practice, knowledge management, project delivery, control systems, data collection methods, design efficiency, industry analysis, occupational health and safety management, Geography, financial risk, management |
| Topics: | Value Management, Quality Management, Design Practice, Information Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Cost 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