Abstracts – Browse Results
Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 18 results ...
Axon, C J, Bright, S J, Dixon, T J, Janda, K B and Kolokotroni, M (2012) Building communities: reducing energy use in tenanted commercial property. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 461-72.
Berker, T and Bharathi, K (2012) Energy and buildings research: challenges from the new production of knowledge. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 473-80.
Bourdic, L and Salat, S (2012) Building energy models and assessment systems at the district and city scales: a review. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 518-26.
Calderon, C and Keirstead, J (2012) Modelling frameworks for delivering low-carbon cities: advocating a normalized practice. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 504-17.
Galardo, L and Trottier, M (2022) How supervisor, co-worker, and spousal social support influences the experience of workload and work-family conflict: results from a survey of construction workers in Québec. Construction Management and Economics, 40(04), 331–42.
Gansmo, H J (2012) Municipal planning of a sustainable neighbourhood: action research and stakeholder dialogue. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 493-503.
Grenzfurtner, W, Rudberg, M, Mayrhofer, R, Loike, K and Gronalt, M (2022) Performance measurement and management practices of on-site activities in industrialized housebuilding. Construction Management and Economics, 40(04), 239–53.
Gupta, R and Gregg, M (2012) Appraisal of UK funding frameworks for energy research in housing. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 446-60.
Khalef, R, Ali, G G, El-adaway, I H and Gad, G M (2022) Managing construction projects impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic: a contractual perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 40(04), 313–30.
Koch, A, Girard, S and McKoen, K (2012) Towards a neighbourhood scale for low- or zero-carbon building projects. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 527-37.
Kohler, N and Hassler, U (2012) Alternative scenarios for energy conservation in the building stock. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 401-16.
Lehtovaara, J, Seppänen, O and Peltokorpi, A (2022) Improving construction management with decentralised production planning and control: exploring the production crew and manager perspectives through a multi-method approach. Construction Management and Economics, 40(04), 254–77.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: Construction production management; decentralisation; production planning and control; case study; social network analysis;
- ISBN/ISSN: 0144-6193
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2022.2039399
- Abstract:
Decentralised, autonomous planning and control is a potential avenue of improvement in several fields, including construction. However, research on this topic, particularly involving the production crew viewpoint, remains scarce within the construction production management domain. This study explores the effects of decentralisation (and in contrast, effects of centralisation) for construction production planning and control (PP&C) from the combined perspectives of production crews and managers, and utilises these viewpoints to suggest improvements for PP&C practices. The study answers the following research questions: How do decentralisation/centralisation affect construction PP&C practices when considering both the production crew and manager perspectives? and Based on the aforementioned perspectives, how may construction PP&C practices overall be improved? To achieve holistic assessment, the research is conducted as a multi-method comparative case study using survey-based social network analysis (SNA) and semi-structured interviews. The results show that decentralised PP&C offers several benefits—such as improved transparency, conflict resolution, commitment, and lower stress—while allowing a proactive building of resilience, trust, ownership and autonomy for crews. In its current applied form, however, the approach does not fully reach the worker level. Regardless of the approach that is used, production crews perceive PP&C as decentralised, while managers perceive PP&C as having centralised structures. This gap between perceptions forms barriers for effective PP&C that must be properly addressed. Eight improvement suggestions are constructed to improve PP&C, that generally emphasise more deliberate decentralisation but that also indicate the necessity of partial central planning and control.
Li, B and Yao, R (2012) Building energy efficiency for sustainable development in China: challenges and opportunities. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 417-31.
Schweber, L and Leiringer, R (2012) Beyond the technical: a snapshot of energy and buildings research. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 481-92.
Skea, J (2012) Research and evidence needs for decarbonisation in the built environment: a UK case study. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 432-45.
Summerfield, A J and Lowe, R (2012) Challenges and future directions for energy and buildings research. Building Research & Information, 40(04), 391-400.
Vahabi, A, Nasirzadeh, F and Mills, A (2022) Influence of briefing clarity on construction projects: a fuzzy hybrid simulation approach. Construction Management and Economics, 40(04), 278–95.
van der Meer, J, Hartmann, A, van der Horst, A and Dewulf, G (2022) Raising risk awareness in multi-criteria design decisions for integrated design and construction tenders. Construction Management and Economics, 40(04), 296–312.