Fernie, S; Green, S D and Weller, S J (2003) Dilettantes, discipline and discourse: Requirements management for construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(5), pp. 354-367. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Requirements management (RM), as practised in the aerospace and defence sectors, attracts interest from construction researchers in response to longstanding problems of project definition. Doubts are expressed whether RM offers a new discipline for construction practitioners or whether it repeats previous exhortations to adopt a more disciplined way of working. Whilst systems engineering has an established track record of addressing complex technical problems, its extension to socially complex problems has been challenged. The dominant storyline of RM is one of procedural rationality and RM is commonly presented as a means of controlling dilettante behaviour. Interviews with RM practitioners suggest a considerable gulf between the dominant storyline in the literature and how practitioners operate in practice. The paper challenges construction researchers interested in RM to reflect more upon the theoretical debates that underpin current equivalent practices in construction and the disparity between espoused and enacted practice.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; context-sensitive languages; project management; systems engineering |
| Index terms: | systems engineering, disparity, construction industry, project management, requirements management, construction practitioner, interview, rationality, practitioner |
| Subjects: | professional development, project management theory and practice, decision-making and reasoning, industry analysis, systems engineering, social justice, practitioner, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Ethics, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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