Minato, T (2004) Representing causal mechanism of defective designs: Exploration through case studies. Construction Management and Economics, 22(2), pp. 183-192. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
To learn lessons from past defective designs, it is best to analyse multiple past defect events using a common classification framework. This may reveal patterns of cause and effect that are rarely evident in single-case investigations. This paper aims to explore the causal mechanism of defective design by means of a case-studies approach. By analysing 119 defect cases from selected 101 projects, the paper presents which active failures and influencing factors that are recurrently responsible for the defective designs. More importantly, with the use of correspondence analysis it reveals five patterns of failure pathways that explain how and why defective design can occur. In the patterns, defective designs are classified into team, major, and minor errors, in which team and major errors are relatively influenced more by organizational factors, whereas minor errors by workplace factors. Countermeasures are recommended to manage the recurrent defective designs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | active failures; correspondence analysis; defective design; defences failures; human error; influencing factors |
| Index terms: | case study, influencing factor, organizational factor, investigation, exploration |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, environmental resource management, risk assessment, business |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Research Practice, Risk Management, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CEA |
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