Hughes, W P (2003) A comparison of two editions of the RIBA plan of work. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(5), pp. 302-311. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The RIBA Plan of Work describes the way a construction process should be organized. Although not officially approved by the RIBA council, a new plan of work was published in 2000 with the intention of replacing the RIBA Plan of Work, so it is useful to analyse both in terms of the organizational structure they impose upon construction projects. Using analytical principles from organizational theory, both plans are analysed by converting them into organizational matrices and assessing their relative complexities, the load on participants, decentralization of responsibility, number of interfaces and the extent to which they provide for co-ordination and control. This demonstrates first, that the analysis of organizational structure is an appropriate approach for undertaking comparisons of such documents; and second, that while both plans of work are of roughly equal complexity, the new one is more demanding on the participants; produces a higher number of interfaces between processes, and provides for more co-ordination than the old one. Neither plan deals with controlling the output of individuals, leaving it as an internal matter for each participating organization.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; organizational analysis; procurement; project management; work instructions |
| Index terms: | organizational analysis, decentralization, project management, organizational structure, organizational theory, complexity, plan of work, benchmarking, documents, construction process, construction project |
| Subjects: | production management, project management theory and practice, professional development, performance measurement, systems engineering, political science, sociology, building construction, business, operations management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Governance, Quality Management, Organizational Design, Site Management |
| 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