ARCOM

Search or browse again.

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

Burton, R, Dickson, M and Harris, R (1998) The use of roundwood thinnings in buildings: a case study. Building Research & Information, 26(02), 76–93.

Cheung, S O and Li, K (2019) Biases in construction project dispute resolution. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(02), 321–48.

Chiang, Y-H, Tang, B-S and Wong, F K W (2008) Volume building as competitive strategy. Construction Management and Economics, 26(02), 161–76.

Edirisinghe, R (2019) Digital skin of the construction site. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(02), 184–223.

Hong, Y, Hammad, A W, Sepasgozar, S and Akbarnezhad, A (2019) BIM adoption model for small and medium construction organisations in Australia. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(02), 154–83.

Hwang, B-G, Thomas, S R, Degezelle, D and Caldas, C H (2008) Development of a benchmarking framework for pharmaceutical capital projects. Construction Management and Economics, 26(02), 177–95.

Langston, Y L and Langston, C A (2008) Reliability of building embodied energy modelling: an analysis of 30 Melbourne case studies. Construction Management and Economics, 26(02), 147–60.

Lin, Y-H, Lee, P-C and Chang, T-P (2008) Integrating grey number and Minkowski distance function into grey relational analysis technique to improve the decision quality under uncertain information. Construction Management and Economics, 26(02), 115–23.

Lizarralde, G and Root, D (2008) The informal construction sector and the inefficiency of low cost housing markets. Construction Management and Economics, 26(02), 103–13.

Loosemore, M and Galea, N (2008) Genderlect and conflict in the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 26(02), 125–35.

Parn, E A and Edwards, D (2019) Cyber threats confronting the digital built environment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(02), 245–66.

Petrovic-Lazarevic, S (2008) The development of corporate social responsibility in the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 26(02), 93–101.

Plantinga, H, Voordijk, H and Doree, A (2019) The reasoning behind infrastructure manager’s choice of procurement instruments. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(02), 303–20.

Steemers, K, Baker, N, Crowther, D, Dubiel, J and Nikolopoulou, M (1998) Radiation absorption and urban texture. Building Research & Information, 26(02), 103–12.

Sutrisna, M and Goulding, J (2019) Managing information flow and design processes to reduce design risks in offsite construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(02), 267–84.

• Type: Journal Article
• Keywords: Design management; Risk management; Project management; Quality of information; Design risks; Offsite construction;
• ISBN/ISSN: 0969-9988
• URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-11-2017-0250
• Abstract:
  Following the increasing need for faster construction, improved quality and evidence value propositions, offsite construction is increasingly being proffered as a viable contender to “traditional” construction approaches. However, whilst evidence supports the move towards offsite, its uptake has been lower than expected. Whilst the precise reasons for this seem to be influenced by a number of issues, including contextual drivers and market maturity; some project stakeholders also view offsite as carrying greater risks. The purpose of this paper is to report on the quality of information flow, in particular, the impact and influence of this on design risks in offsite construction projects. An existing design risk framework is used as the point of departure for this research. This is further expanded into a specific model for evaluating offsite construction projects design risks, the rubrics of which were informed by two case studies of offsite construction projects in Australia and the UK analysed with a process-tracing technique. Whilst these cases were geographically separated, the constructs were aligned to uncover fundamental design information requirements and concomitant risks associated with offsite. The findings of the research reported in this paper include the crucial information feeding into the design process emanating from the lifecycle of offsite construction projects, namely, design, offsite (manufacturing), handling and transporting, site works and installation and also occupancy. These are contextualised within the four categories, namely, client requirements, project requirements, regulation aspects and social aspects and the final outcomes were summarised into a holistic diagram. Given that the offsite construction has shifted the working paradigm into assigning a significant level of efforts and emphasis at the front end of the construction projects, the importance of its design process and hence design risks management has gone up significantly in construction projects delivered using this technique. This research and paper contributes significantly to the built environment domain by identifying the crucial aspects along the project lifecycle to be considered to minimise the potential occurrence of design risks and hence increasing the confidence of project stakeholders in adopting offsite construction techniques in their projects.

Thomas, T (1998) Domestic water supply using rainwater harvesting. Building Research & Information, 26(02), 94–101.

Ungureanu, L C, Hartmann, T and Serbanoiu, I (2019) Quantitative lean assessment of line of balance schedules’ quality. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(02), 224–44.

Utama, W P, Chan, A P, Zahoor, H, Gao, R and Jumas, D Y (2019) Making decision toward overseas construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(02), 285–302.

Waara, F (2008) Mitigating contractual hazards in public procurement: a study of Swedish local authorities. Construction Management and Economics, 26(02), 137–45.