Leishman, C and Warren, F (2006) Private housing design customization through house type substitution. Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), pp. 149-158. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The private house building industry is increasingly under pressure to increase output and broaden the appeal of new-build housing to consumers. One possible method for meeting these objectives is through increased use of standardized components to facilitate house type customization. This research focuses on the role of planning and building regulations in permitting the house building industry to respond in this way. Using a database of standardized house types, the analysis examines variation within and between house builders' house type ranges. The analysis shows that the underlying variation between house types of a given size is relatively narrow but that volume builders maintain a comparatively large range of house types. Results from a simulation model demonstrate the positive impact of broadening house type choice on levels of consumer satisfaction. The main conclusion is that a form of house type customization could be achieved through the use of house type substitution.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | consumer choice; customization; house building; planning and building regulations; standardized house types |
| Index terms: | builder, variation, housing design, new-build housing, database, building regulation, customization, consumer choice, consumer satisfaction, building industry |
| Subjects: | construction manufacturing, consumer economics, practitioner, data management, regulatory law, industry analysis, economic development, contractual condition, design process |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Contract Administration, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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