Bibby, L; Bouchlaghem, D and Austin, S (2003) Design management in practice: Testing a training initiative to deliver tools and learning. Construction Innovation, 3(4), pp. 217-229. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Drives to improve industry performance are being hindered by difficulties in managing the construction design process, preventing the UK construction industry from delivering projects on time, to budget and to the specified quality. This paper reports on a research project at a major UK civil and building design and construction company to develop and deploy a training initiative capable of making significant improvements to its design management performance and deliver benefits to many project stakeholders. It describes the development, content and trailing of the training material and a suite of 21 design management tools to drive change throughout the organization. The paper is likely to be of interest to those involved in design management and the development of tools and practices to help the industry improve design management performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; design; industry practice; management; process; tools |
| Index terms: | design management, project stakeholder, construction company, design process, testing, construction industry, industry performance, building design |
| Subjects: | design process, sociology, industry analysis, financial analysis, organization, design methods, professional practice, architectural design |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management |
| 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