Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 18 results ...

Aboagye-Nimo, E, Wood, H and Collison, J (2019) Complexity of women’s modern-day challenges in construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2550–65.

Ahmed, V, Aziz, Z, Tezel, A and Riaz, Z (2018) Challenges and drivers for data mining in the AEC sector. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(11), 1436–53.

Baniassadi, F, Alvanchi, A and Mostafavi, A (2018) A simulation-based framework for concurrent safety and productivity improvement in construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(11), 1501–15.

Hampton, P, Chinyio, E A and Riva, S (2019) Framing stress and associated behaviours at work. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2566–80.

Jin, Z, Gambatese, J, Liu, D and Dharmapalan, V (2019) Using 4D BIM to assess construction risks during the design phase. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2637–54.

Lindgren, J, Emmitt, S and Widén, K (2018) Construction projects as mechanisms for knowledge integration. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(11), 1516–33.

M.D., D and Mahesh, G (2019) Developing a knowledge-based safety culture instrument for construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2597–613.

Manu, P, Poghosyan, A, Mahamadu, A, Mahdjoubi, L, Gibb, A, Behm, M and Akinade, O O (2019) Design for occupational safety and health: key attributes for organisational capability. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2614–36.

Mok, K Y, Shen, G Q and Yang, R (2018) Stakeholder complexity in large scale green building projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(11), 1454–74.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Stakeholder; Case study; Social network analysis; Green building project;
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0969-9988
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-09-2016-0205
  • Abstract:
    In response to the world’s rising awareness on sustainability, industry players and policymakers are devoting great efforts to bolster green building developments. Every green building project (GBP) involves numerous stakeholders and potentially incompatible concerns. Despite the associated environmental, economic and social benefits, GBP developments have often confronted managerial barriers which are actually emerged from stakeholders – the actual key determinants of a project. Holistically analyzing the complexity of stakeholders in GBPs is, therefore, crucial to improving GBP management and achieving greater sustainability for all involved. The purpose of this paper is to analyze stakeholder complexity in large GBPs using a holistic framework which integrates both empirical and rationalistic analytical perspectives. Design/methodology/approach The complexity of stakeholders in GBPs can be considered from three aspects – identifying stakeholders, assessing stakeholder interactions and analyzing stakeholder concerns. The proposed stakeholder analysis framework uses both empirical methods (e.g. interviews and surveys) and rationalistic methods (e.g. chain referral sampling and social network analysis) to analyze GBP stakeholder complexity. Case study of a lab-enabled commercial GBP in Hong Kong was undertaken to illustrate the framework. Findings The framework enables a holistic, objective and effective stakeholder analysis; leading GBP leaders toward a complete understanding of project stakeholder complexity. The case study findings bring managerial insights to GBP leaders on the general SNA-related stakeholder dynamics and the important stakeholder concerns, of large Hong Kong GBPs. The findings diagnose general connectivity structures of GBP stakeholders, identify influential and peripheral actors in GBP information exchange, and suggest clues to improve their dynamics. In addition, ten key stakeholder concerns were identified, including comprehensive governmental standards and procedures, clear sustainability goals at the outset, effective stakeholder engagement, adequate design flexibility, and a “can-do” attitude of contractors and consultants – which are all vital for successful GBP development. The underlying reasons of these concerns and recommendations to addressing them were also discussed. Originality/value Many existing GBP stakeholder studies appear to use a single analytical perspective to assess project stakeholder complexity, but this may not gain a full understanding. The holistic stakeholder analysis framework used herein combines empiricism and rationalism. It helps to bring GBP leaders and implementers toward a more informed project decision making, a more thorough understanding of stakeholder complexity, as well as a more effective engagement of stakeholders.

Mzyece, D, Ndekugri, I E and Ankrah, N A (2019) Building information modelling (BIM) and the CDM regulations interoperability framework. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2682–704.

Nnaji, C, Gambatese, J, Karakhan, A and Eseonu, C (2019) Influential safety technology adoption predictors in construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2655–81.

Oswald, D, Sherratt, F and Smith, S (2019) Managing production pressures through dangerous informality: a case study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2581–96.

Rahman, A, Bridge, A J, Rowlinson, S, Hubbard, B and Xia, B (2018) Multinational contracting and the eclectic paradigm of internationalization. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(11), 1418–35.

Regis, M F, Alberte, E P V, Lima, D d S and Freitas, R L S (2019) Women in construction: shortcomings, difficulties, and good practices. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2535–49.

Rodrigues Santos de Melo, R and Bastos Costa, D (2019) Integrating resilience engineering and UAS technology into construction safety planning and control. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2705–22.

Sherratt, F and Ivory, C (2019) Managing “a little bit unsafe”: complexity, construction safety and situational self-organising. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(11), 2519–34.

Wang, T, Ford, D N, Chong, H and Zhang, W (2018) Causes of delays in the construction phase of Chinese building projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(11), 1534–51.

Yu, A T W, Javed, A A, Lam, T I, Shen, G Q and Sun, M (2018) Integrating value management into sustainable construction projects in Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(11), 1475–500.