Industrialised, Integrated, Intelligent sustainable Construction - I3con

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK 2 Inclusion of both existing data and analysis of new data of a particular set of circumstances forms the basic philosophy of this chapter around interpretivism (Bryman and Bell 2007). The literature was evaluated for its relevance to the research question and the key objectives (Saunders et al. 2003). The topics the research was based around include: 220 • The history of the construction industry, exploring the continual critique from government bodies and environmentalists of poor performance. • The definitions of FM as a profession along with the roles it encompasses and its relation to construction. • Sustainable development in the UK and the implications for construction. • SFM and its contribution to sustainable development in the construction industry. The advantages of such research are directly linked to the unobtrusive nature of the information along with the possibility of providing comparative and contextual data. The explorative research philosophy requires the search of literature and the talks with experts surrounding the subject (Bryman et al. 2007). Questionnaire one (called BIFM annual survey) was conducted in May 2008 and was distributed widely to the members of the BIFM. The aim of the questionnaire was to collect data regarding the existing level of sustainable knowledge within the FM industry. The survey attempts to find the level of responsibility that FM have within their organisations and the changes required to achieve Best Practice sustainability. While the questionnaire was distributed widely, 168 responses were received. A second questionnaire was prepared within the parameters of questionnaire one. Comparisons can be made between both sets of data as the design of this questionnaire followed the same parameters as the first survey questions. These were adapted to meet the aim of the research in finding potential barriers restricting the inclusion of FM within the design of new buildings. A representative sample method was primarily chosen for the respondents to have similar characteristics to the population as a whole (Oppenheim 1992). Cluster sampling techniques divided the population into a number of professional units to acquire knowledge from different professions. The system of drawing a sample was crucial as its accuracy is more important than its size (Oppenheim 1992). The questionnaire was piloted prior to electronic distribution to industry professionals. An internet based survey was used for efficiency on the basis of time and costs of posting to respondents. Non-response is inevitable for such surveys and re-administration of the questionnaire to additional organisations was required along with direct contact to prompt questionnaire completion. This increased the level of response. A total of 180 questionnaires were sent to potential respondents (60 in each cluster category). Non-response levels prompted the re-sampling of a further 60 organisations (20 in each cluster category). Reminder e-mails to organisations within the original sample increased the overall response. Responses were selectively analysed in comparison charts and tables to highlight differences in knowledge and opinion regarding sustainable FM. Both questionnaires incorporate the opinions of FM, construction managers (CM), quantity surveyors and architects. Although open and closed questions were used, most respondents used the predetermined answers when giving feedback. Questionnaires provide low cost data collection and processing with the ability to reach respondents who are widely dispersed. The sample used organisations throughout the UK for a full analysis of all situations. However, the problem of low response rates was encountered with a lack of opportunity to probe for further detail from the respondents. To make a full enquiry of the views of each profession and cement the conclusions from the survey, interviews were also used as a method within the research design. Limitations The control of information was successfully implemented by restricting questionnaires and interviews to a certain group of professionals and academics specialising in areas of work previously mentioned. The sourcing for the first questionnaire was limited to members only within the FM field. As this
HANDBOOK 2 SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION questionnaire did not contain a question regarding the respondents’ profession, it can only be assumed that all respondents were FM. There are risks of bias from the respondents as they are already aware of the BIFM with their continual drive to Best Practice with regard to FM, and were self-selecting. These members could have a higher level of understanding of sustainability issues which may skew the investigation. The second questionnaire used a different sampling approach and spilt the constituents of professionals involved within the construction process into three main categories; Architects, Construction Managers and Quantity Surveyors. This was essential for the direct comparison of opinions and highlights a potential knowledge chasm regarding sustainability. However, these respondents only represent a small number of construction professionals in the process and may not give a holistic view. Time and costs limitations restricted the questioning of a larger number of clusters in the sample. Results In questionnaire one (BIFM Questionnaire) the total number of respondents was 168 FM, a large proportion are members of the BIFM (92% have BIFM membership of some form). The 17% associate level of membership requires no level of qualification or experience in FM, whereas other forms, such as Fellow Members requires experience. The level of membership raises the question of whether the results are skewed in favour of those already aware of the BIFM. The majority of respondents are members of end-user organisations with full in-house facilities management (63%). For questionnaire two (Construction Questionnaire) there were only 21 respondents, over half were practicing as Quantity Surveyors. Questionnaire two included an FM category as a precautionary measure and, therefore, this category will be discarded throughout the analysis. The ‘other’ category included professionals from Construction Environmental Management and Civil Engineering Contracting. Sustainability Policy and its Aspects Figure 1 shows the varying levels of sustainability policy between the professional organisations. Of the 168 respondents to the BIFM survey, 73% of respondents have a sustainability policy implemented within their organisation (Figure 1) which highlights the growing importance of sustainability issues in the FM profession. A lower proportion of construction organisations (67%) have a sustainability policy. However, the poor performance of the construction industry which has been highlighted in the literature review does not match this level of sustainability policy. Therefore, the analysis of the comprehensiveness of these policies will show what organisations define as sustainable. There are many definitions of sustainability, but little information on how to apply it in practice. Figure 2 highlights the differences in the aspects covered by an organisation’s sustainability policy between the two questionnaires. The respondents to the BIFM questionnaire range mostly between Government, Financial and Business services, and Health and Educational organisations. The top three aspects of Waste Management and Recycling, Energy Management and Health and Safety remain proportionally the same for a large proportion of the organisations in both surveys. The importance of these can be linked to the high legislative drivers for these aspects within the UK. Governments at both national and international level are using regulation to reduce carbon emissions and manage demand with much of the burden needing to be picked up by FM (Leifer 2003). 221
Page 1:
Industrialised, Integrated, Intelli
Page 4 and 5:
SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK 2
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183: SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK 2
Page 260: SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK 2
show all

Industrialised, Integrated, Intelligent sustainable Construction - I3con

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?