Kalantari, S; Shepley, M M; Rybkowski, Z K and Bryant, J (2017) Designing for operational efficiency: Facility managers' perspectives on how their knowledge can be better incorporated during design. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 13(6), pp. 457-478. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
There is a growing agreement among researchers and practitioners that the input of facility managers (FMs) can be a vital resource during the architectural design process. FMs are responsible for the everyday operations of buildings, and are therefore aware of many practical details of maintenance and efficiency that designers may overlook. However, despite the recognized benefits of collaboration between designers and FMs, there are significant obstacles that have so far prevented the widespread implementation of this partnership. The current study used data from 30 in-depth interviews and a widely distributed survey of FMs in three international regions to identify some of the obstacles that prevent collaboration between FMs and designers. Based on these data, the authors also developed specific recommendations for better incorporating the knowledge of FMs into the design process. Difficulties in communication and cultural barriers between the two fields were found to be the most pervasively reported obstacles, closely followed by the perception that designers are unaware or uninterested in the contributions that FMs can offer. Educational initiatives, technology training, and structural incentives were among the proposed solutions. The study resulted in a simple visual model of best practices for promoting collaboration, as well as a separate model for organizing the contributions of FMs during design.There is a growing agreement among researchers and practitioners that the input of facility managers (FMs) can be a vital resource during the architectural design process. FMs are responsible for the everyday operations of buildings, and are therefore aware of many practical details of maintenance and efficiency that designers may overlook. However, despite the recognized benefits of collaboration between designers and FMs, there are significant obstacles that have so far prevented the widespread implementation of this partnership. The current study used data from 30 in-depth interviews and a widely distributed survey of FMs in three international regions to identify some of the obstacles that prevent collaboration between FMs and designers. Based on these data, the authors also developed specific recommendations for better incorporating the knowledge of FMs into the design process. Difficulties in communication and cultural barriers between the two fields were found to be the most pervasively reported obstacles, closely followed by the perception that designers are unaware or uninterested in the contributions that FMs can offer. Educational initiatives, technology training, and structural incentives were among the proposed solutions. The study resulted in a simple visual model of best practices for promoting collaboration, as well as a separate model for organizing the contributions of FMs during design.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design process; facility management; designer; building performance; collaboration; design; incentives; designers; buildings; cooperation; barriers; architectural design; facilities management; visual perception; best practice |
| Index terms: | design process, efficiency, manager, interview, survey, designer, building performance, partnership, practitioner, visual perception, best practice, collaboration, architectural design, implementation, cooperation, facilities management |
| Subjects: | psychology, contractual arrangements, business, profession, data collection methods, design methods, practitioner, cognitive psychology, partnership management, quality assurance, performance management, management, design practice |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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