Bird, B (1987) Costs-in-use: Principles in the context of building procurement. Construction Management and Economics, 5(4), ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The paper suggests that severalfactors are responsible for the relatively low level of application of the costs-in- use approach in the UK: attention has focused on costs alone, to the exclusion of performance: assumptions such as the oft-repeated assertion that increasing capital outlay will reduce running costs have diverted attention from the more fundamental principles of costs-in-use; while the absence of post-occupancy feedback about buildings' running costs and performance has placed a very real obstacle in the way of widespread acceptance. Ideally, statements about costs and performance should be clearly and explicitly made before the design brief is finalized, using the best information possible and with the client and other interested parties as fully aware as they can be of the commitment into which they are entering. Some clients have recognized that the costs-in-use approach is one which may help in this respect, but their demand is so far largely not yet met.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building research; costs-in-use; design feedback; performance; running costs |
| Index terms: | design brief, running cost, commitment, building research, low level, building procurement |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, psychology, measurement and scaling, technical documentation, financial and cost management, research management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Design Practice, Procurement, Organizational Design, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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