Kirkham, R J (2005) Re-engineering the whole life cycle costing process. Construction Management and Economics, 23(1), pp. 9-14. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The application of Whole Life Cycle Costing (WLCC) within the construction industry is rapidly increasing; notwithstanding, the underlying methodology of many WLCC models is variable and inconsistent. The deficiency in detailed recording of decisions based on WLCC analyses is a particular concern and moreover, attempts to capture the data related to these decisions are not evident. Data capture is vital in facilitating the iterative and logical application of WLCC. In an attempt to re-engineer the WLCC design process, the evolving research described hereinafter reports on the development of the 'Logbook', a WLCC model decision-support software application. The application works simultaneously with a WLCC model to provide the designers of buildings with a repository of decision data (via the WLCC model), and a sequential, chronological record of the decisions made based on this data - from inception through to final design optimization. It is anticipated that the software will encourage the application of WLCC models as an iterative rather than retrospective process.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cost modelling; data collection; decision-making; design process; whole life cycle costing |
| Index terms: | costing, construction industry, modelling, whole life cycle, designer, engineer, decision-making, methodology, design optimization, design process |
| Subjects: | design process, sustainability assessment, accounting and finance, research methods, industry analysis, decision analysis, design methods, profession, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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