The interdisciplinary conceptualization of future proofing in the context of hospital buildings

Memari, S; Kocaturk, T; Lozanovska, M; Andrews, F and Tucker, R (2022) The interdisciplinary conceptualization of future proofing in the context of hospital buildings. Building Research & Information, 50(7), pp. 810-826. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

Due to constantly changing requirements, future proofing is increasingly seen as an urgent need in hospital building design. However, as knowledge on future proofing hospital building design is yet to be consolidated, this study reviews the literature to clarify understanding of the concept in hospital building contexts. A scoping review methodology was considered appropriate to elucidate concepts in the literature. As future proofing has been developed in multiple industries, an interdisciplinary approach is taken to investigate the concept across three contexts: design (in general), the built environment and hospital buildings. Findings reveal that most studies adopted a crisis-driven approach to conceptualize future proofing–largely limited to consideration of adaptability and resilience. By synthesizing the data, the research provides a comprehensive definition of future proofing by answering the WHY, WHAT and HOW of its application to hospital building design. A future proofing model is proposed that is composed of passive–active and reactive–proactive dichotomies that identify four future proofing objectives. These objectives are addressed via six future proofing capabilities: maintainability, resilience, changeability, mitigation, improvement and transition. The study clarifies future proofing objectives in hospital building design and informs directions for further research and dialogue in policy, research, education and practice.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: adaptability; future proofing; Hospital buildings; life-cycle thinking; resilience; sustainability
Index terms: building design, built environment, maintainability, methodology, adaptability, mitigation
Subjects: financial risk, maintenance engineering, research methods, infrastructure and transport systems, user focus, architectural design
Topics: Urban Studies, Design Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

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