Minato, T (2003) Representing causal mechanism of defective designs: A system approach considering human errors. Construction Management and Economics, 21(3), pp. 297-305. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Reducing design defects by proactive actions requires comprehensive understanding of how and why they happen. To achieve this, it is necessary to know the causal relationships of inherent factors, by which design defects arise. This paper represents a causal mechanism of defective design occurrence by considering interactions of underlying factors in designing process. The mechanism draws on the system approach to human errors to describe defects in design caused by designers' active failure and failure of design reviews as defences to catch defects. It portrays the causal process of the failures with workplace factors and organizational factors as influencing factors. Workplace factors arise from designers' working conditions and include internal and external factors to the actors. Organizational factors comprise elements due to client and designer company's conditions. Then, two failure pathways are discussed to show how the factors lead to design defects. Two case studies are presented in this paper to clarify and explain the mechanism.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | active failures; defective design; defences failures; human error; latent factors; mechanism; system approach |
| Index terms: | case study, organizational factor, influencing factor, designer, design defect, interaction, working conditions |
| Subjects: | employment law, behavioral psychology, risk assessment, profession, data collection methods, business, professional practice |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Research Practice |
| 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