Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 19 results ...

Abdirad, H and Dossick, C S (2019) Restructuration of architectural practice in integrated project delivery (IPD): two case studies. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(01), 104–17.

Abdul-Rahman, H, Yahya, I A, Berawi, M A and Wah, L W (2008) Conceptual delay mitigation model using a project learning approach in practice. Construction Management and Economics, 26(01), 15–27.

Alavipour, S R and Arditi, D (2019) Maximizing expected contractor profit using an integrated model. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(01), 118–38.

Alves Tenório de Morais, G and Casado Lordsleem Júnior, A (2019) Building maintenance management activities in a public institution. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(01), 85–103.

Bangwal, D and Tiwari, P (2019) Environmental design and awareness impact on organization image. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(01), 29–45.

Cole, R J (1998) Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods. Building Research & Information, 26(01), 3–16.

Curwell, S and Cooper, I (1998) The implication of urban sustainability. Building Research & Information, 26(01), 17–28.

Deb, A (1998) Sustainable cities in developing countries. Building Research & Information, 26(01), 29–38.

Dzeng, R-J and Wang, S-S (2008) An analysis of infrastructure development based on national competitiveness perspectives. Construction Management and Economics, 26(01), 47–61.

Green, S D, Larsen, G D and Kao, C-C (2008) Competitive strategy revisited: contested concepts and dynamic capabilities. Construction Management and Economics, 26(01), 63–78.

Guy, G B and Kibert, C J (1998) Developing indicators of sustainability: US experience. Building Research & Information, 26(01), 39–45.

Kunszt, G (1998) Sustainable development and the Hungarian construction industry. Building Research & Information, 26(01), 46–55.

Lai, L W C, Ng, F W N and Yung, P (2008) The Coase Theorem and a Coasian construction economics and management research agenda. Construction Management and Economics, 26(01), 29–46.

Li, X, Liu, Y, Wilkinson, S and Liu, T (2019) Driving forces influencing the uptake of sustainable housing in New Zealand. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(01), 46–65.

Mehmet, O and Yorucu, V (2008) Explosive construction in a micro-state: environmental limit and the Bon curve: evidence from North Cyprus. Construction Management and Economics, 26(01), 79–88.

Mujumdar, P and Maheswari, J U (2019) Alternate beeline diagramming method network analysis for interdependent design entities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(01), 66–84.

Neves, J C and Bugalho, A (2008) Coordination and control in emerging international construction firms. Construction Management and Economics, 26(01), 3–13.

Ribas, D A and Cachim, P (2019) Economic sustainability of buildings. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(01), 2–28.

Salvatierra, J L, Gálvez, M &, Bastías, F, Castillo, T, Herrera, R F and Alarcón, L F (2019) Developing a benchmarking system for architecture design firms. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(01), 139–52.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Organization; Key performance indicators; Architecture; Design management; Management; Productivity; Management practices; Workshops; Questionaire survey; Benchmarking system; Architecture offices;
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0969-9988
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2018-0211
  • Abstract:
    The construction industry’s business model is mainly based on the interaction among the architecture office, the engineering office and the construction company. The performance and practices of architects’ offices, unlike those of the other actors, are difficult to characterize and there have been few studies on these issues. To better understand architects’ performance, the purpose of this paper is to develop a benchmarking tool based on real practices identified by managers of Chilean architecture offices. Design/methodology/approach The research method includes a complete literature review, followed by a study of a sample of nine Chilean architecture offices, with whom a series of four workshops was developed, to establish both performance indicators and relevant management practices. Finally, these metrics were applied in an architectural office as a pilot case. Findings Four management dimensions were defined: client management, external coordination, internal organization and human resources. Key performance indicators were divided into process, financial and quality indicators. The workshops carried out with the architectural offices demonstrated the relevance of benchmarking tools such as the one developed, which enables the systematic measurement of both management practices and performance indicators. Originality/value Although there have been several efforts to create benchmarking tools for the construction industry, few efforts have focused on architecture offices. Therefore, this research aims to explicitly identify management practices that can be used for this type of organization and to coordinate among multiple actors to find the best way to measure their performance, other than the fulfilment of schedules and budgets.