Luo, L Z; Mao, C; Shen, L Y and Li, Z D (2015) Risk factors affecting practitioners' attitudes toward the implementation of an industrialized building system a case study from China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 22(6), pp. 622-643. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: An industrialized building system (IBS) is regarded as an effective residential building system that provides several benefits, including high quality, low cost, short time, good flexibility, reduced waste, and strong environmental performance. This system is considered to be valuable in promoting sustainable practices in China, where plans for urbanization have been established. However, the adoption of IBS in China is extremely limited. Potential risks exist and affect the attitudes of practitioners toward the use of this system. The purpose of this paper is to prioritize and analyze these risks and to develop corresponding strategies for mitigating these risks in China. Design/methodology/approach: In total, 24 risks that inhibit the implementation of IBS in China are identified through literature review and examined through interviews for consistency. A questionnaire survey is conducted to quantify the significance of these risks. Cronbach's coefficient α is employed to measure the internal consistency among the risk factors. The survey results are further analyzed using three case studies. Findings: The top five risks identified are "poor cooperation between multi-interface," "inappropriate design codes and standards for industrialized buildings," "lack of management practices and experiences," "enormous difficulty in achieving return on high initial investment," and "lack of a quality monitoring mechanism for the production process." The findings emphasize the government's leading role in promoting the new building system in its introduction and enforcement of adequate policies and regulations. Practitioners are also instrumental in establishing proper understanding and knowledge of IBS and its application. Originality/value: This study bridges the knowledge gaps on risk identification for implementing IBS in China. The findings provide practitioners and decision makers with valuable references for adopting adequate risk management methods and policies to promote IBS in China. 0969-9988.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; China; industrialized building system; practitioner; risk; risk factor |
| Index terms: | production process, survey, risk identification, strategy, literature review, interview, cooperation, China, questionnaire, practitioner, regulation, methodology, management practice, industrialized building system, low cost, sustainable practice, case study, environmental performance, urbanization, residential building, enforcement, implementation, industrialized building, risk management, risk factor, monitoring, building system |
| Subjects: | bidding, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, psychology, urban planning, control systems, practitioner, engineering systems, data collection methods, construction type, risk assessment, environmental hazards, political science, sustainable practices, building construction, financial risk, health safety and environment, Geography, research methods, sustainability assessment, management, manufacturing engineering |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Governance, Construction Technology, Procurement, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Organizational Design, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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