Schweber, L and Haroglu, H (2014) Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessment and design processes. Building Research & Information, 42(3), pp. 300-317. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper explores the mapping of the environmental assessment process onto design and construction processes. A comparative case study method is used to identify and account for variations in the fit between these two processes. The analysis compares eight BREEAM projects (although relevant to LEED, GreenStar, etc.) and distinguishes project-level characteristics and dynamics. Drawing on insights from literature on sustainable construction and assessment methods, an analytic framework is developed to examine the effect of clusters of project and assessment-level elements on different types of fit (tight, punctual and bolt-on). Key elements distinguishing between types include: prior working experience with project team members, individual commitment to sustainable construction, experience with sustainable construction, project continuity, project-level ownership of the assessment process, and the nature and continuity of assessor involvement. Professionals with sustainable experience used BREEAM judiciously to support their designs (along with other frameworks), but less committed professionals tended to treat it purely as an assessment method. More attention needs to be paid to individual levels of engagement with, and understanding of, sustainability in general (rather than knowledge of technical solutions to individual credits), to ownership of the assessment process and to the potential effect of discontinuities at the project level on sustainable design.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | breeam; building assessment methods; building design; design process; environmental assessment; implementation; sustainable building; team dynamics |
| Index terms: | building assessment, commitment, mapping, environmental assessment, design and construction, sustainable building, project team, drawing, variation, team dynamics, dynamics, design process, sustainable construction, implementation, ownership, BREEAM accreditation, building design, case study, sustainable design |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, contractual condition, economics, architectural design, environmental policy, psychology, design methods, sustainable construction, design process, environmental impact, spatial and geospatial analysis, management, systems engineering, technical documentation, project delivery, asset management, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement, Business Strategy, Contract Administration, Project Management, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Research Practice, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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