Wallace, W A (1987) Capital costs versus costs-in-use: A content analysis of design team member communication patterns. Construction Management and Economics, 5(4), ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The verbal interaction of a number of building design teams was observed, recorded and analyzed using content analysis. A pilot and main study design team were observed on a longditudinal basis while a range of validation design teams were observed on a cross sectional basis. Variations in the communication content of individual design team members were recorded and measured in relation to a number of specific interest areas. One interest area was the measurement of the reconciliation between capital costs and expected costs-in-use, as a function of design team communication content in the pre-contract design stages. This paper considers the development of design team communication, particularly conflict development, in relation to the essential incompatibilities between capital cost minimization and cost in use optimization objectives and how this relates to design team development.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | capital costs; content analysis; costs-in-use |
| Index terms: | building design, cost in use, interaction, content analysis, design team, minimization, capital cost, design stage, validation, variation |
| Subjects: | architectural design, data analysis and analytics, professional practice, financial analysis, behavioral psychology, professional development, contractual condition, accounting and finance, algorithms |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Information Management, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| 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