Johnson, R E; Sherif, A and Becker, F D (1987) Economics of university research laboratories: policy considerations. Construction Management and Economics, 5(4), ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper reports on research to develop an understanding of how life-cycle cost models might be more appropriately applied to improve university research facility performance. Because of the wide variety of research laboratories found in universities, the project focused its efforts on chemistry facilities. The research used a three part methodology consisting of a telephone survey, site visits and a survey questionnaire that was mailed to principal investigators. Both qualitative and quantitative factors were evaluated. The research found that the effective use of life-cycle cost analysis was limited because of the importance of non-economic qualitative policy considerations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision making; life cycle cost analysis; university research facilities |
| Index terms: | life cycle cost analysis, research facility, survey, laboratory, cost analysis, decision-making, methodology, questionnaire, cost model |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, data collection methods, construction type, research management, decision analysis, research methods, economics |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Cost Management, Construction Technology, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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