The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.

htm

F 28,7/8

A conceptual framework for hybrid building projects

Kemi Adeyeye
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK, and

358
Received June 2009 Accepted January 2010

Dino Bouchlaghem and Christine Pasquire

Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to focus on hybrid projects as a type of building adaptation work. It seeks to discuss the hybrid building design process in subsets of information and resulting decisions by highlighting the relationship between them. It also aims to present a conceptual framework which was developed by rening, or customising the RIBA Plan of Work. Design/methodology/approach Field theory formed the theoretical basis for the approach to mapping the hybrid project process. The conceptual framework itself evolved from a comprehensive literature review, case studies and a practice survey. In total, 11 design and construction professionals evaluated the framework and their comments and feedback are also discussed. Findings The discussion presents an approach which can be used to manage the delivery of hybrid projects, although it was found that the proposed framework can be applied to a wider spectrum of construction projects. Research limitations/implications The evaluation of the framework was limited by the number of participants involved and the limited client representation. Originality/value The paper makes an original contribution by further exploring an increasingly relevant area of construction activity; building adaptations. Although the research focused specically on the design-specic stages of hybrid project delivery, ndings contribute towards process improvement by emphasising the need for early information acquisition, early and precise denition of design intent, and collaborative design decision making. These three factors contribute highly to client/user satisfaction (value) and effective project delivery. Keywords Buildings, Construction industry, Project planning, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper

Facilities Vol. 28 No. 7/8, 2010 pp. 358-370 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-2772 DOI 10.1108/02632771011042464

Introduction Adaptation projects constitute a large percentage of work carried out by the construction industry in the UK. The range of building intervention classed under building adaptation include; Refurbishment: upgrading the aesthetic and functional performance of a building (Douglas, 2006), Rehabilitation: modernisation with some extension work which may comprise major structural alteration to the existing building; mostly housing (Douglas, 2006), Maintenance: work undertaken in order to keep, restore or improve every part of a building, its services and surrounds, to a currently accepted standard, and to sustain the utility and value of the building (Seeley, 1987), Retrot or renovation: a process undertaken if the building is in a good condition but the services and technology within it are outdated (Langston et al., 2007), as well as

adaptive reuse which occurs when a building is converted to accommodate new functions, e.g. an industrial building converted into apartments. Hybrid projects is a phrase, used for the benet of this research, to dene a type of adaptation project where new elements or buildings are combined with existing buildings to completely modify it in order to provide better functionality and meet increased spatial requirements. It is the adaptation of an existing building through a combination of refurbishment, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. A hybrid project process can therefore be dened as the organised structure with which a hybrid building is delivered. This process will include procurement, design and construction activities. This research focused predominantly on the design stages of this process. In contrast with new building; design, planning and construction within existing built contexts necessitates a more complex interaction with the existing building substance, ancillary infrastructure and their respective spatial requirements. Adapting an existing building could therefore present a number of difculties, e.g. spatial constraints, code compliance and disruptions to building use. The key challenge is to achieve value at the end of the works, and not to lose value. Addy (2004) observed that loss of value occurs when briefs give no exibility to the design team, inappropriately high quality standards, and delays in decisions perhaps due to poor information supply and unmanaged change. In addition to process issues, people factors can include: poor communication as well as conicting agendas, xed mindsets, recycling old solutions and more importantly, lack of collaborative working. The research presented in this paper started with the question of how as-built information can inuence and improve the design decisions made during a hybrid building project. In exploring answers to this question, it was necessary to explore how relationships between the various players of the industry inuence upon the design process. This was useful for assessing how to provide information sufcient for all key parties to collaboratively contribute towards, and evaluate standards, needs and resources. Frameworks such as the Generic Process Protocol (Kagioglou et al., 1998), the Refurbishment Process Model (Anumba et al., 2006), the RIBA plan of work etc. were explored. The RIBA Plan of Work organises the process of managing, and designing building projects as well as administering building contracts into a number of key work stages (RIBA, 2008). Research ndings suggested that these frameworks were not entirely suitable in their current form for hybrid projects. Methodology Both qualitative and quantitative (mixed methodology) instruments were used during the course of this research. Exploratory (quantitative) methods such as surveys allowed the further development of relevant questions, which allowed for any further inquiry in the long run (Yin, 2003). Qualitative methods such as participative observations and conceptual mapping were used to explore the subject area and assess research scope. The research commenced by exploring theoretical underpinnings surrounding the broad subject of building adaptations through literature review and translating this to further understand important characteristics of hybrid projects. This exercise created a knowledge base for the rest of the research. In order to reinforce ndings from literature, case studies of a recently completed and a live hybrid project was carried out. In addition, a questionnaire survey was conducted with a sample of one hundred RIBA registered architects. All ndings were

Framework for hybrid building projects 359

F 28,7/8

360

triangulated and it was found that the standard process protocols were either too generic or specic and do not ideally represent a hybrid building process. A theoretical or conceptual framework is dened as any empirical or quasi-empirical theory of social and/or psychological processes, at a variety of levels (e.g. grand, mid-range and explanatory) that can be applied to the understanding of phenomena (Anfara and Mertz, 2006). A number of theoretical approaches exist for social research, e.g. grounded theory and these are widely published. The theoretical framework used for this research was Bourdieus Field Theory. This theory applies to a eld as the common ground with boundaries where the action occurs by players in the eld (Mutch, 2006;, e.g. Bourdieu, 1993). It stems from the Physical Sciences and is mostly applied in Socio-Psychology realms, describing change due to action and effects. It is particularly useful for explaining resultant change as opposed to causal change. This was highly applicable to this research because solutions are sought for when change is based on a buildings adaptation processes rather than what caused the building to be adapted. Field theory is most applicable to this research for the following reasons: . Field theory does not attempt to give an explanatory account in terms of systems or causation (Martin, 2003), instead, it agrees with some readily understandable causal sequence that explains some theoretically accounted-for pattern (Lundberg, 1939, p. 375). This is also a key difference with other theories such as functional theory, etc. . The context of eld gives the opportunity to detail the context in which the action is taking place and put boundaries around the place of action (Mutch, 2006). . Multiplicity of settings is not required. The setting or eld remains constant and it uses change to dene and explain differentials between actions and effects. . It provides scope for time: functional, periodical or evolutionary. Models can show a snapshot of time or changes over time (Mutch, 2006). . In eld theory, explanation stops at the constitution of the eld. The fact that the eld at some place and time can be determined to be of a certain nature in no way implies that it must be this way indeed, eld theory, by never making explanation reach outside the eld, must forswear any legitimating arguments that there is a reason why the eld must be as it is (Martin, 2003). Although, this is considered a limitation for most, this is signicantly benecial to this research. . It disallows personal prejudices and allows distancing. Field theory has the notable advantage of forbidding us to apply our self-understanding wholesale, let alone to crown these prejudices with the title mechanism and congratulate ourselves on a truly scientic understanding (Martin, 2003). . Field theory still has a general quality of being intuitively progressive, logical and accessible. . It allows for the allocation of roles and tasks. Each agent is dened by his or her position in a eld with its own themes and problems, at least so far as the eld possesses autonomy (Bourdieu, 1969, p. 161f). Within the eld, players have positions that have both roles to be enacted and status carried with them (Mutch, 2006).

It supports decision-making activities and the impact on processes (or actions within the eld). There is no need to show complexity within the framework: processes, roles are more or less dened because models can show positions and relationships. Therefore, in this context, changes to a building can be implemented through activities (actions and decisions relative to processes).

Framework for hybrid building projects 361

Lastly, a structured interview was used to evaluate the framework. A group of 11 experts participated in the evaluation exercise. Developing the conceptual framework for hybrid projects Findings from the review of existing literature, case studies and surveys cannot be fully discussed within the constraints of this paper but key ndings are summarised as follows: . The architectural practice survey reinforced the importance of a process approach to design delivery. The ndings from the survey questionnaire helped to ne-tune important work stages, roles of design professionals and design responsibilities. Specically, the survey also helped to map design information: type, format against work stages. It also agged that qualitative (performance) information is highly important for making design decisions in hybrid projects. The factors that could affect an effective information process were also identied. . The case studies highlighted the impact of procurement systems and client-led decisions/approach on a design information management process. It also provided an insight into building surveying processes and the impact on design decision making. Importantly, it was found that contributions towards client and user satisfaction can be achieved by a collaborative and integrated approach to information sourcing, communication and interpretation within the design. This can be achieved if important parties are allowed relevant degrees of participation during the early design-specic stages of the process. A dened building process helps to dene tasks, actions, decisions and resources needed to implement the project. Having a process implies that information; actions and resources can be tracked throughout the spectrum of the project. The RIBA process was therefore a good point to commence the analysis of a hybrid building process. Using Field Theory as a theoretical approach facilitated a more systematic approach to analysing the hybrid project process more systematically and by combining information and materials with people and logistics, a clearer picture of a hybrid project process was derived (Figure 1). Theoretically, the main driver for a hybrid-building project is change implemented over time. People using information to derive a more functional nished project implement change throughout the process. The map shows the building as the context but also as a constant. The building changes but the site setting remains the same. At the core of the model is change, as a factor of people, product (the building) and process. Powering the change is information and function. Information is dynamic within and throughout the process. By comparison, to information, function is less dynamic because its dynamism is

F 28,7/8

362

Figure 1. Simplistic conceptual map

bound by variables that are determined at the beginning (from the brief) of the process, e.g. cost and almost xed by design. The three main groups of people inuencing and participating are the client group, the user group and building professionals. Their tasks and roles will vary according to process per time. Change can be divided into subsets of entities i.e. building layers (Brand, 1994; Duffy, 1993) which are not mutually exclusive. This is because the hybrid building can only be described by changes within its entities but not changes of all entities. That is, it ceases to be hybrid if nothing changes or if everything changes. Ideally, a detailed framework will also include roles, cost, tasks, players, time frames as well as responses and feedback loops. Although in this instance, Time (t) the time allocated to the works, is considered insignicant compared to the buildings life cycle Time (T). The initial stages of a hybrid project usually comprises the building itself, its inherent information and key parties: the client, users and/or the design team. The challenge at this stage is to unlock the buildings potential by utilising available resources. Information and communication technologies could potentially play a key role at this stage. As work progresses and with the interaction of more people, materials, information to achieve the end product, the hybrid building process and activities becomes more complex. Lack of quality information could lead to wrong

decisions being made and things going contrary to plan so design information was also mapped within the process. The evolving map was then separated into sub-levels of information, parties, sub-processes, decisions and actions (Figure 2). The result, the conceptual framework represents important milestones in the hybrid project process dened from literature, case studies and the questionnaire survey. It integrates the various elements of a hybrid project with milestones redened based on the RIBA Plan of Work, 2007 (Table I). There are eight milestones in the framework. The outline appraisal and development plan where a high-level appraisal is conducted by the client team to assess the potential of an existing building and determine the resources (including historical data) available for its transformation. The core team procurement stage is mostly designed for the early selection and contractual arrangement with important professionals. This stage is important for collaborative decisions to take place. Conceptual designs and preparations for planning permission and other legal requirements commence at this stage too. The third milestone is the building performance evaluation stage. At this stage, historical documents are brought up to date by integrating previous data with current data abstracted from the existing building itself. Historical data and as-built information are superimposed and layered to determine conicts and resolve them collaboratively prior to commencement of work on site. Importantly, the buildability and adaptability of the building is also determined and the designs are revised to reect the conicts and constraints identied from as-built information. In addition, the brief is revised to reect information from the appraisal and performance evaluation milestones. With all possible information acquired and communicated, the brief can be sealed at this stage. The next milestone design activity does not represent the stage where design commences, but it is at this stage that design options are investigated, choices and decisions made collaboratively and the nal design and specications produced. Although the design is nalised at this stage, design decisions may still be required during the construction stages depending on how the framework was implemented. However, the expectation is that design changes will be minimal as all design uncertainties have been resolved prior to construction. Milestone 6 and 7 planning/logistics and the construction stages were not evaluated as they were outside the scope of the research. After construction, all building information for design and construction monitoring, building operation and maintenance can then be consolidated in the last milestone. The design subset of the hybrid building process According to Sheil (2005), architectural design does not end as the tools of fabrication are put into action. On the contrary, making is a discipline that can instigate rather than merely solves ideas in other words a design process. Design itself is however, a continual process of selecting and organising elements, trying to establish which are the most important and how they might all play a part in the creation of the new product and inevitably ideas change as possibilities are added or discounted, as proposals are conceived and considered (Tunstall, 2007). Tunstall (2007, pp. 25-6) also stated that a typical design development process will involve the following actions: analysis, synthesis, appraisal and feedback, adding that these actions are cyclical and not linear.

Framework for hybrid building projects 363

F 28,7/8

364

Figure 2. Proposed process framework hybrid projects

It has been shown that more than 80 per cent of commonly associated problems in the construction industry are process related (Kagioglou et al., 1998), therefore an investigation into the hybrid building process, as for any other building project, is a worthwhile exercise. In addition, design process for hybrid buildings is fundamentally different from that of new-build work. Hybrid buildings, as with most adaptation work, deal more with synthesis rather than analysis (Gregg and Crosbie, 2001). In new-build work, the designer starts with a clean sheet and progressively builds up his design ab initio while in existing built context, the task is more akin to detective work, with the designers endeavouring to gather information by assessing the existing building and to develop the design work to be comparable with it (CIRIA, 1997). Findings from research unanimously indicate that planning and control are substituted by chaos and improvising in design, causing: poor communication, lack of adequate documentation, decient or missing input information, unbalanced resource allocation, lack of coordination between disciplines, and erratic decision making (Freire and Alarcon, 2000). The complex, inter-disciplinary and fragmented nature of the design and construction process is often used as an excuse. After all, a chaotic design process is not the one where superior functional properties are systematically provided for the client and where constructible design solutions and clear, error-free documents, for their part, ensure a smooth construction phase. Clearly, in order to improve construction in general, the design process has to be better controlled (Koskela, 1997). Information, decision, people and activity subsets of the hybrid building process The nature of hybrid projects is likely to necessitate effective information, decisions and activity protocols which can be used to organise people and material processes. Information for design consists of general and project-specic information. General information is information that is not generated for a particular project but which is most often the product of a research institution, a codes body or a commercial rm. While, project-specic information is information that is generated for a particular project, which ows between the participants, receiving additions and undergoing transformations as the project progresses (Davidson, 2004). Project-specic information is further divided into process and product information (Bouchlaghem et al., 2004). The research on which this paper is based focused on the latter. Product information comprises information about the product the building. As Albert Einstein said, Knowledge is experience, everything else is just information. Experience acquired through the practice of design is seen as readily
RIBA Plan of Work 2007 Stages A/B/C C/G A/D/H B/D E/F/G/H J K L Appraisal, strategic brief, concept design Outline proposals, tender documents Appraisal, detailed proposals, tender action Design brief, design development Technical design, production information, tender documents/action Mobilisation Construction, practical completion Post-practical completion Hybrid Project Process framework Milestones 1 Outline appraisal and development plan 2 Development core team procurement 3 Building performance evaluation (survey) 4 Brieng development 5 Design activity (procurement of sub-contractors) 6 Planning and logistics 7 Construction 8 Evaluation and operations

Framework for hybrid building projects 365

Table I. Comparing the RIBA Plan of Work 2007 and the Hybrid Project Process framework

F 28,7/8

366

available, quicker to use, and more palatable compared to information in a written form (Mackinder and Marvin, 1982). However, Gigerenzer (1996) pointed out that people are interested in good judgement, and good judgement requires an analysis of content, in addition to laws, principles, and axioms. Accurately presented information aids good judgement and this could translate to informed design decisions made at the early stages of the process. Design decisions require a combination of both knowledge and information to varying degrees. Galbraith said that a basic proposition is that the greater the uncertainty of the task, the greater the amount of information that has to be processed between decision makers during the execution of the task. However, if the task is well understood prior to performing it (because of the amount of information available) much of the activity can be pre-planned. But if it is not understood, then during the actual task execution, more knowledge is acquired which then leads to (decision) changes in resource allocations, schedules and priorities (Galbraith, 1974). For design, different types of information are required for decision making depending on the requirements of the project. The type of information and extent of detail would clearly be related to the project and the parties involved but would generally include the management of time, cost, quality, health and safety, environmental impact, and the exchange of information and communications (i.e. administrative, technical, nancial or legal information, and the systems and procedures that they use) (Bouchlaghem et al., 2004). Broadly, during the project execution, the interests of three distinct client groups are represented the owners, the users and society. These three groups of interest each value different things at different times in the life of the building (Bertelsen and Emmitt, 2005) and the information requirements at different stages of projects will defer. Emmitt and Gorse (2003) linked everything together in describing a collaborative approach to design, where different people with varying knowledge and expertise will work together. When working in a group, making an informed decision is about utilising the relevant specialist information that is relevant to the problem, some members will possess more knowledge on issues than others. What is important is that the most relevant information is accessed (Emmitt and Gorse, 2003). Evaluation The aim of evaluating the framework was to explore the accuracy and extent by which it describes and facilitates an improvement of the hybrid building process. Eleven design and construction professionals; 2 architects, 2 engineers, 1 building surveyor, 1 development manager/employer agent, 2 collaboration managers and 1 design consultant reviewed the framework and provided perceived feedback on its coverage, efciency and functionality. Each evaluator had a working knowledge of hybrid projects with the exception of one engineer who was working on his rst hybrid project. The evaluation session commenced with a discussion of the research objectives and an introduction to the framework. The participant is then allowed time to evaluate the framework and ask questions. After which they were required to answer pre-set questions by rating variables based on the Likert scale (1 low and 5 high). Each session lasted at least 45 mins. Time and logistical constraints limited the use of workshops or stakeholder forums.

The evaluation was, however, limited by the number of participants involved and the limited client representation. Feedback from clients and other stakeholders would have been highly benecial for the research. Discussion of ndings Participants highlighted that for the framework to work, a contract/agreement must be made early in the process to promote condence and commitment by the core development team who may be required to provide professional services and advice prior to tendering. The assurance of a job commission or payment will ensure the participation of the core development team, especially contractors. As per framework efciency, one participant said, I think it will act as an effective ltering of non-participation and incompleteness. Another said, the framework highlights the importance of obtaining information early this is important for reducing defects at a later stage. In terms of functionality, participants feedback could be summarised in the comment that, the framework will be most effective if engaged by the client to facilitate with brief development prior to design team appointment. Another commented that, I think that most designers follow a chaotic development path, inuenced by all forms of variability. And to have a systematic path that guides the thinking and decision-making process will be extremely useful. One participant wondered if it were possible to map cost/cost implications as well as risks across the process. It was also suggested that the granularity of information (i.e. type of information and corresponding level of detail) be displayed within the framework for each milestone. With the exception of architects, all the participants generally considered the framework an improvement to the RIBA process. Participating architects however, stated that the framework currently requires tailoring to standard terminology. However, they would not object if the client wishes to adopt it in its current form. Pointing out that the framework will be more effective if client-led, as opposed to based on the architects recommendation. Architects considered that the information-intensive nature of the framework was onerous and would not wish to take on the responsibility without remuneration. In general, evaluators said it was good to see extrapolation of table to programmes, critical paths and priority within each category. However, the successful implementation of the framework for hybrid projects will require the re-orientation of the mindset of project stakeholders. Evaluators of the framework suggested that despite being developed for hybrid buildings, the framework would apply for most building projects. One reason is because it recommends early procurement of the core development team. The efciency of the framework depends on this as it has direct impact on establishing buildability criteria, rening the brief as well as reducing design risk and change as the process progresses. The key functionality of the framework was considered to provide process improvement, collaborative planning and decisions especially for design. The framework covers all milestones for any design and construction project and it highlights key information, decisions and actions that needs to be made en-route. The framework is particularly relevant for hybrid projects and it has been evaluated to be

Framework for hybrid building projects 367

F 28,7/8

368

progressively relevant and applicable for the efcient delivery of these classes of projects and indeed any other building project. Lastly, decision making is never an exact science, among others, it can be objective, subjective, rational or irrational (McElroy, 2008). Depending on the nature of the project, the procurement method, client type, client involvement etc., the level of information available/acquired, decisions and actions taken in each project might differ. Any framework however detailed cannot be all-encompassing; it acts a guide, a supporting structure on which thoughts, activities and products are delivered. The hybrid project process framework provides the basic structure and its application will vary depending on the complexities of each project. Summary This paper presented a conceptual process framework for the delivery of hybrid projects. Findings from evaluating the framework showed that it realises its objective and provides a high-level guide for facilitating informed, yet collaborative, design decision making. The framework is explicit in dening processes, parties, information, decisions and actions required at each stage of a hybrid project. It also promotes concurrency in design, planning and construction activity, which could be reiterated depending on the peculiarity of each individual project. There are subjective issues, which are not highly visible within the framework. Factors such as cost, time/delivery, legal and contractual issues were mentioned but not emphasised within the framework, since the research focus was information, design/design decisions. Nonetheless, these issues have been raised by evaluators to be of equal importance and will be worth investigating in future research projects.
References Addy, N. (2004), Planning the path to best value, Workshop Report E4135, Construction Productivity Network, CIRIA, London. Anfara, V.A. and Mertz, N.T. (2006), Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London. Anumba, C., Egbu, C. and Kashyap, M. (2006), Avoiding Structural Collapses in Refurbishment: A Decision Support System, Research Report 463, Loughborough University for the Health and Safety Executive, Loughborough. Bertelsen, S. and Emmitt, S. (2005), The client as a complex system, Proceedings of the 13th International Group for Lean Construction Conference, Sydney, Australia, July 2005. Bouchlaghem, D., Kimmance, A.G. and Anumba, C.J. (2004), Integrating product and process information in the construction sector, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 3, pp. 218-33. Bourdieu, P. (1969), Intellectual eld and creative project, Social Science Information, Vol. 8, pp. 89-119. Bourdieu, P. (1993), Sociology in Question, Sage, London. Brand, S. (1994), How Buildings Learn, Viking, New York, NY. CIRIA (1997), New Paint Systems for the Protection of Construction Steelwork, Report 174, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London. Davidson, C. (2004), Agenda 21: Information and documentation a research agenda, IF Research Group, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, October.

Douglas, J. (2006), Building Adaptation, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Duffy, F. (1993), Measuring building performance, Facilities, Vol. 8, May, pp. 17-20. Emmitt, S. and Gorse, C. (2003), Construction Communication, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Freire, J. and Alarcon, L.F. (2000), Achieving a lean design process, Proceedings of the 8th International Group for Lean Construction Conference, Lean Construction Institute. Galbraith, J.R. (1974), Organization design an information processing view, Interfaces, Vol. 4 No. 3. Gigerenzer, G. (1996), Rationality: why social context matters, in Baltes, P. and Staudinger, U.M. (Eds), Interactive Minds: Life-span Perspectives on the Social Foundation of Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 319-46. Gregg, T.R. and Crosbie, J. (2001), Refurbishment of buildings for residential use, Building Engineer, Vol. 76 No. 4. Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G., Cooper, R. and Hinks, J. (1998), The process protocol: process and IT modelling for the UK construction industry, in Amor, R. (Ed.), Process and Process Modelling in the Building Industry, BRE, Watford. Koskela, L. (1997), Lean production in construction, in Alarcon, L. (Ed.), Lean Construction, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Langston, C., Wong, F.K.W., Hui, E.C.M. and Shen, L-Y. (2007), Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong, Building and Environment, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 1709-18. Lundberg, G.A. (1939), Foundations of Sociology, Macmillan, New York, NY. McElroy, T. (2008), Rational decision making, dual processes and framing: current thoughts and perspectives, in Adam, F. and Humphreys, P. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Decision Making and Decision Support Technologies, illustrated ed., Information Science Reference, London. Mackinder, M. and Marvin, H. (1982), Design decision making in architectural practice, Research Paper 19, Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, University of York, York. Martin, J.L. (2003), What is eld theory?, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 109, pp. 1-49. Mutch, C.A. (2006), Adapting Bourdieus eld theory to explain decision-making processes in education policy, in Anfara, V.A. and Mertz, N.T. (Eds), Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London. RIBA (2008), Plan of Work: Multi-disciplinary Services, RIBA Enterprises, London. Seeley, I.H. (1987), Building Maintenance, 2nd ed., Macmillan Education, London. Sheil, B. (2005), Design through making: an introduction, Architectural Design, Vol. 75 No. 4. Tunstall, G. (2007), Managing the Building Design Process, 2nd ed., Elsevier Science & Technology, available at: www.myilibrary.com/Browse/open.asp?ID64237&locii (accessed 9 April 2009). Yin, R. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Framework for hybrid building projects 369

Further reading BSI (2007), Collaborative production of architectural, engineering and construction information, Code of practice, BS 1192:2007, British Standards Institution, January 2008. Bullen, P. (2007), Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings, Facilities, Vol. 25 Nos 1/2, pp. 20-31.

F 28,7/8

370

Halfawy, M. and Froese, T. (2005), Building integrated architecture/engineering/construction systems using smart objects, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 172-81. Johnstone, I.M. (2001), Periodic refurbishment and reductions in national costs to sustain dwelling services, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 97-108. Koutamanis, A., Halin, G. and Kvan, T. (2007), Information standardization from a design perspectives, CAADRIA 2007, CAADRIA, Nanjing. Lavy, S. and Shohet, I.M. (2007), On the effect of service life conditions on the maintenance costs of healthcare facilities, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 1087-98. Lee, H-K., Lee, Y-S. and Kim, J-J. (2008), A cost-based interior design decision support system for large-scale housing projects, ITcon, Vol. 13, pp. 20-38. Malin, N. (2007), Building information modelling and green design, Environmental Building News, May 1. Pitt, M., Goyal, S. and Sapri, M. (2006), Innovation in facilities maintenance management, Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 27 No. 20, pp. 153-64. Powell, K. (1999), Architecture Reborn: The Conversion and Reconstruction of Old Buildings, Laurence King, London. Tavistock Institute (1966), Interdependence and Uncertainty, Tavistock Institute, London. Corresponding author Kemi Adeyeye can be contacted at: o.adeyeye@brighton.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints