new research in built environment

8/7/2019 New research in Built Environment

1/9

EDITORIAL

New research paradigmsin the built environment

Richard FellowsDepartment of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,

Loughborough, UK

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review aspects of innovation, research and developmentparadigms and paradigmatic changes which have occurred in construction over recent years.

Design/methodology/approach The approach combines reviewing literature and some theorywithin the context of the authors experiences as a participant in the construction industry and

associated research and education.

Findings The paper concludes that much has been re-cycled, often under amended titles. There isnotable scope and advisability in paradigm shifts from reductionist/determinist approaches tostochastic approaches which accommodate complexities of interdependencies plus moves from hardpositivism to softer constructivist perspectives.

Research limitations/implications The paper is limited in validity and reliability due to themethods employed. However, the conclusion does stress the essential of researchers being aware ofand articulating the limitations of their work; the need for sound theoretical foundations is stressed inregard to both topics and methods.

Practical implications Proper examinations of research, including ontologies, epistemologies,validities and reliabilities, as well as the topics under investigation, promotes good research and itsapplication and avoids recycling of popular topics in periodically amended guises.

Originality/value The paper expresses the authors original views, developed over a quiteextensive and varied career; however, it expresses views held fairly widely but seldom expressedbeyond closed doors.

Keywords Innovation, Research and development, Research methods, Epistemology,Construction industry

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIn 1982, Peter Brandon called for a paradigm shift in the research and practiceof determining building costs (Brandon, 1982) that was one of the first publicpronouncements of the drastic need for radical change in how construction processes areresearched and practiced. At that time, it seemed that the terms were not well

appreciated, nor the alleged needs, particularly clear. However, in the years sinceBrandons call, innovations have taken place and new paradigms have appeared but

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1471-4175.htm

The author is very grateful to the large number of colleagues whose views, freely given indiscussions over the years, have helped to inform what is expressed in this paper. The intent is tobe helpful, if somewhat provocative, to further the discipline area in which the author has soenjoyed working with many wonderful people for this the author gives sincere thanks. Theauthor takes full, personal responsibility for the views expressed in this paper and for any and allerrors/omissions.

New researchparadigms

5

Construction Innovation

Vol. 10 No. 1, 2010

pp. 5-13

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1471-4175

DOI 10.1108/14714171011017545


2/9

the questions remain of how far we have come how much has our knowledgedeveloped and to what extent have our methods improved to benefit humankind?

One of the most pervasive new paradigms is the so-called Japanesemanagement so-called because its origins lie in statisticians and management

theorists from the USA, notably, Shewhart (1931), Juran and Gryna (1988) and Deming(1986). The labelling of Japanese is through adoption, development and adaptationsof the theories, principles and practices to suit Japanese cultures. So, approaches tomanagement including just-in-time; quality circles and total quality management(TQM); lean; and benchmarking have become very popular within and beyondthe shores of Japan and across many industries, including those relating to the builtenvironment. Indeed, in a number of countries, initiatives by research fundinginstitutions (e.g. UKs Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) haveconcerned investigation of applicability of Japanese management and of constructionsadopting processes used in other industries especially, automotive and aerospace.

What is vital in all paradigms is to appreciate that merely adopting the principlesand practices is not the end in itself and does not guarantee success it is the human

elements which are critical and none more so than thorough cultural adaptations, andunderstanding and support by those at the top of the management structure.

There is also a philosophical essential, often expressed as an element of Japanesemanagement, continuous improvement. Only by constantly striving to carry outprocesses/services and to output products which are better than those current, can weavoid complacency and be alive to opportunities and threats.

Some innovations and new paradigmsAll too commonly, there is terminological confusion inexactitude at least. Fuzzyterminology leads to fuzzy thinking which hampers understanding and progress.Innovation is defined as:

The action of innovating; the introduction of novelties; the alteration of what is establishedby the introduction of new elements or forms; the action of introducing a new product into themarket (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2009).

So, innovation is development and implementation of invention, rather than inventionper se; usually, occurring in an evolutionary manner with occasional stepwise changesand progressively over time.

A paradigm is A conceptual or methodological model underlying the theories andpractices of a science or discipline at a particular time; (hence) a generally acceptedworld view (OED, 2009). The OEDincludes a synopsis of the notion of a paradigm inscience, derived from Kuhn (1970):

Normal science means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements

[. . .

] that some particular scientific community acknowledges [. . .

] as supplying thefoundation for its further practice [. . .] I [. . .] refer to [these achievements] as paradigms.

So that, in a nutshell, paradigms are universally recognized scientific achievementsthat for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners.

Clearly, paradigms need to change and often do so through the dialectic triad ofthesis, antithesis and synthesis (Rosen, 1982). That is because human knowledge is ina constant state of flux as it develops and so, paradigms are always shifting to somedegree the danger seems to be regarding them as prescribed and fixed for anything

CI10,1

6


3/9

more than a short period. Thus, over the last 30 years or so, many innovations anda number of new paradigms appear to have impacted on construction. Whether thoseare, in fact, new paradigms or merely changes within existing paradigms or newsub-paradigms is questionable.

As undergraduates, my colleagues and I were introduced to many topics which werebecoming important and could revolutionise the industry, including CAD, automatedproduction of bills of quantities, life cycle costing, management contracting and newforms of contract. Following graduation, working for some years in the industry and,then, entering academia provided exposure to further emergent issues, includingproductivity, teamwork and buildability. Indeed, a pattern has become quite apparent that, despite changes and developments, many topics cycle round in popularity what practitioners identify as important, what research agencies prefer to fund, andwhat academics (therefore) want to investigate.

Whether such topics constitute even sub-paradigms is open to debate. Certainly, theyhave impacted on the way practitioners and researchers consider construction activities,problems and products but how fundamental the changes are, and so, whether realparadigm shifts have occurred is addressed below.

In many ways, such developments represent increments of innovation and newparadigms. Bishop (1975) addressed productivity and noted a number of considerationsfor achieving high levels of productivity. Griffith (1983), amongst several researchers,integrated ideas of productivity with design of buildings to propose principles ofbuildability, intended to foster performance of construction processes through theirconsideration during design with a view to securing more speedy, less expensive and moreprofitable projects and with quality benefits i.e. to enhance construction productivity.Griffith and Sidwell (1995) developed the concepts further into constructability but didnot incorporate the issues regarding disposal of a project at the end of its life and so,omitted an important element of life cycle analysis and sustainability.

The theme of quality was the major constituent of the work of Deming (1986) which,along with the publications of other quality gurus, generated an array of principles(e.g. Demings 14 points) and practices (quality assurance (QA), quality circles, etc.) formanaging quality. Those involved developments beyond inspection-based qualitycontrol which was deemed inefficient as it was only a screening and sorting approach treating the symptoms rather than the cause(s) to direct industrial processes towardsboth achieving and constantly striving to improve quality through managing thetotality of aspects; hence, TQM. Quality has long been a concern for constructionprojects and so, it is hardly amazing that many of the quality approaches, such asISO 9000, were adopted with relish (especially by public sector clients). Unfortunately,QA systems assured compliance (with specification) rather than quality (improvement)per se, as was sometimes assumed, so that the problem of garbage in, garbage out

remained, even accentuated. TQM is necessary to really address quality provision butthat is a philosophy, rather than a system, and requires commitment, notably by seniormanagement, for it to operate well and to succeed.

That scenario concerning quality demonstrates a possible trap in innovations/paradigm shifts that hard systems are often obvious and clear in aim, contentand procedures and can work very well to do exactly what it says on the tin butremain limited to just that. The soft systems are essential as fundamentals,complemented/supplemented by associated hard systems, to reap full benefits.


7


4/9

Combining the productivity and quality movements, we arrive at lean the desireto get rid of fat. However, as butchers and chefs well know, bone and fat are vital to qualityof meat (and that, from a vegetarian!). According to Wikipedia (2009), lean construction isa new paradigm and, following Koskela (2000), comprises three complimentary ways

of conceptualising production/construction as a Transformation (T), as a Flow (F), and asValue generation (V). Various tools have been developed based around the approach(Ballard, 2000) but have become increasingly criticised (Cusumano, 1994; Green, 1999, 2002;Green and May, 2005).

Analogously, costs in use transformed into terotechnology and life cycle costing; themost recent terminology being whole life costing. Notably, many of the terms used alsoreflect either constriction or error in that costs per se are rarely the only, or even theprimary, concern more commonly, it is the revenue or value aspects which dominateor, given the profit criterion, the goal becomes maximising the (appropriable) surplus ofrevenues over costs (Cox, 1999).

Pursuit of profit also fuelled the emergence of value engineering (VE) with itsproduction-oriented implementation to maximise essential functionality while, at thesame time, minimising cost (commonly by removal of unnecessary functions). A moreholistic perspective of production processes and appreciation of the impacts of differentprocess stages prompted the extension of VE into design and to an overall managerialview, resulting in value management (Kelly et al., 2004). However, the gamut of studiesrelating to value and values have fostered extension of the scope of that paradigm andassociated techniques to include addressing what value is, how it relates to markettransactions, whose values apply, how transient are value assessments, etc. to promotethe concept of the management of value (Emmitt et al., 2005). Here, Emmitt et al. (2005)usefully focus on two pervading questions what is value and value to whom? within the transient power-oriented complexity of construction.

Universally, construction has long been acknowledged to be a people industry;

often that is interpreted as no more than involving labour intensive activities. Even thatsimplistic recognition generates awareness of the importance of good communications(Higgin and Jessop, 1963). Wider and deeper interpretations, especially in the contextof performance problems of the industry (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998) and the seminalwork of Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), have directed attention to issues of coordination(including buildability), collaboration and cooperation to strive for integration,commonality of objectives, and commitment as means of enhancing performanceand profitability by moving towards a non-zero-sum game from the traditionalcompetitive/combative zero-sum game approach (Nicolini, 2002; Dainty et al., 2005;Baiden et al., 2006).

Baiden et al. (2006) note that common procurement methods for (assemblingteams on) construction projects [. . .] have focussed on organisations individual [. . .]

capability rather than their collective ability to integrate and work together effectivelythereby not only accentuating the technical focus of participant selection but also doingnothing to combat fragmentation (Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998). While fragmentationhas positive performance aspects division of labour, specialisation its more usualfocus is on detrimental consequences communication problems, lack of coordinationand collaboration as seminally discussed by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967). Thus,if teamwork requires pursuit of common objectives, as well as integration of diversequalities of team members, etc. and partnering is more (cooperation, collaboration

CI10,1

8


5/9

and integration) than teamwork then, for partnering to operate, a paradigm shift isrequired! For researchers, partnering protagonists reporting success of the processfrom examination of demonstrator projects is hardly valid and reliable; Bishop (1975)noted the productivity enhancement found on favoured nation status projects.

The notion (paradigm?) of partnering has spawned public private partnerships,the UKs private finance initiative, framework agreements (relating back to measuredterm contracts) and even an endeavour to shift English law to introduce multi-partycontracts as in PPC2000. Does that represent a new paradigm or portray the powerof propaganda?

Research on the vital issue of construction safety has proved successful withthe outputs shifting the paradigm in many countries construction industries from aTaylorist prescriptive approach of supplying safety equipment, stipulating methodsof working and employing safety officers to comply with legislative minima to abehavioural modification approach; generally, accident and fatality rates have fallen,where the change has occurred. The behavioural modification approach emphasiseseducation and training in movement towards effecting a cultural change in theindustry; it is reinforced with related initiatives including computer modelling ofmethods of construction to aid detection and reduction/removal of (potential) hazards.An important constituent is inculcation of awareness of hazards and joint and severalresponsibilities for using safe working practices (Duff, 2000; Rowlinson, 2004; Cameronand Duff, 2007).

Recently, quite properly, no consideration of construction and built environmentparadigms could be complete without attention to the vital and pervasive issueof sustainability. Arguably, sustainability is the most important issue globally butseems to be poorly understood and, like partnering in construction, rife withpropaganda. Attention to sustainability in the built environment was kick started,from a cost/economics perspective, by the oil crises of the 1970s, accentuating life cycle

cost problems and requirements for much greater energy efficiency in buildings(BREEAM, 2009; LEED, 2009). Through publicity of global warming, other pollutionproblems and issues of resource depletion, United Nations (notably, the report of theWorld Commission on Environment and Development (1987) The Brundtland Report)activities and international industry initiatives (e.g. ISO14000), attention has becomemore generalised and specific. However, major terminological (definitional) problemsremain which have spawned various types of sustainability including environmental,economic (growth?), social, cities, development, construction, etc. (DETR, 1999, 2001).Fundamentally, there is confusion between (real/scientific) sustainability and(pragmatic/achievements of) greening (Cole, 1999). That terminological substitutionfosters ignorance and engenders complacency (Fellows, 2006) and so, probably, is themost dangerous error in paradigm appreciation (and activities) that we, as living

creatures (with intelligent influence/impact) face.

DiscussionDosi (1982) noted that a paradigm is [. . .] an outlook which defines the relevantproblems, a model and a pattern of inquiry. Like a theory, a paradigm represents aset of statements of assumptions and facts which represent the underlying ontological(philosophy of reality independently objective, realism/constructed by people,nominalism) and epistemological (philosophy of knowledge; positivist/antipositivist)


9


6/9

position adopted. Hence, a paradigm, as the lens through which things are seen,involves selection of the paradigm and its constituents to yield a chosen trajectoryin which knowledge develops; therefore, paradigms are dynamic, perhaps by adding orremoving auxilliary statements (as for theories). Nelson and Winter (1977) suggest that

the natural trajectories are towards mechanisation and economies of scale which maybe generalised to enhancement of (forecast) profitability.

Winter et al. (2006) argue that the [. . .] dominant strand of project management is therational, universal, deterministic model [. . .] the hard systems model, emphasising theplanning and control dimensions [. . .]. They identify a [. . .] second strand [. . .]focussed on organisational structure as a means of achieving integration and taskaccomplishment and a recent [. . .] third group [. . .] recognising the importance of thefront-end, and of managing exogenous factors, as well as the more traditional executionfocussed endogenous ones. From the networks principal finding of the necessityfor [. . .] new thinking in the areas of project complexity, social process, value creation,project conceptualisation and practitioner development, they advocate three directionsof [. . .] theory about practice [. . .] theory for practice [. . .] and theory in practice.However, it seems questionable whether the intent is to denote three categories of theory,which could be reductionist and, hence, divisive, or to expound three contexts forapplications of theoretical bases to constitute integration and coherence.

That main finding reflects thinking in many other disciplines concerning the validityof the Newtonian approach of reductionism (complexity relates to synergy/holism) anddraws attention to the broad stakeholder approach to projects and business activitiesthrough emphasising the importance of soft aspects. Thus, impacts of behaviour andculture are becoming recognised as fundamental as in asking what and whose valuesapply to project realisations and how the applicable values translate into performancegoals and targets and how achievement endeavours may be managed. That raises ananalogy with a debate in mainstream economics such that instead of examining what a

firm is through examination of the boundary and a firms main constituents (Teece et al.,1994; Holmstrom and Roberts, 1998), we may ask what is a project? This debate is justone manifestation of the recognition of complexity as projects, organisations, actors andcontexts are understood to be interdependent.

Winter et al. (2006) discuss the traditional and dominant being ontology incomparison and conjunction with the becoming ontology. Those are important andcomplimentary perspectives with the former emphasising statics and determinismand the latter, dynamics and stochasticism. The discussion of complexities, bothwithin projects and of project contexts, begins to emphasise an important array oflines of research and, coupled with the emergent complexity theory, points tomore reality-oriented methods. Further, the expression of [. . .] projects, as artefacts ofthe power relationships between different groups with competing interests

acknowledges the findings of Cherns and Bryant (1984), and work in mainstreamsociology on the incidence and use of power (Clegg, 1989).

Over many years, researchers have been required to adopt, articulate and justify,their ontological and epistemological position and, thus, the paradigm adopted suchthat the research (methods), results and findings can be examined in context. Withinconstruction and built environment research, the dominant paradigm has manifestlybeen positivistic and quantitative, following Newtonian reductionism. Latterly, thequalitative, constructivist paradigm gained ascendancy, employing interpretivism,

CI10,1

10


7/9

grounded theory, ethnomethodology, etc. The emerging paradigm, arising out oftriangulation debates, is of multi-methodology to yield a holistic paradigm involvingintegration of previously individual paradigms, and their adopted methods ofinvestigation, into a more complex, and, arguably, realistic view.

ConclusionsScepticism is not only healthy but also may be regarded as an essential quality of anyresearcher only when statements and approaches are adequately justified shouldthey be adopted. Results must be subject to as much scrutiny from as many anglesas possible such that their limitations and, hence, validities and reliabilities are clear.Similar concerns apply to theories such that, following Blockley (1980), only theorieswith high-information content can achieve high levels of corroboration; that also relatesto the usefulness of theories which should not be general and vague (lacking ininformation content and so, readily validated and reliable).

Paradigms concern ontology and epistemology and so, relate directly to methodology

and, thence, proceed to data collection and analyses. Here, it is essential to understandthe terms clearly and to express the position adopted. All should be justified fromtheoretical and (or) pragmatic considerations self-awareness to inform the researchand others.

So, what are the new paradigms? Much of the exposition, above, concerns re-cyclingtopics in amended guises emporers new clothes rather than new (research)paradigms. There has been a shift from positivistic, hard research into interpretivistic,soft research (popularly a move from quantitative approaches to qualitativeapproaches but, in reality, much more than that). Most recently, the likelycontribution of multi-methodology is gaining recognition the integration of Lawrenceand Lorsch (1967) applied to research the methodological pluralism discussed by Dainty(2008).

For the (hopefully, impending) future, new paradigms should concern migration tostochastic perspectives and approaches from determinism; holism and the acceptanceof complexity and its accommodation in investigations (of integrated processes andproducts); and, consequently, the rigorous use of methodological pluralism.

Food for thought, and progress, I hope me included!

References

Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2006), The extent of team integration withinconstruction projects,International Journal of Project Management,Vol.24No.1,pp.13-23.

Ballard, G. (2000), The last planner system of production control, PhD thesis (unpublished),University of Birmingham, Birmingham.

Bishop, D. (1975), Productivity in the construction industry, in Turin, D. (Ed.), Aspects of theEconomics of Construction, George Godwin, London, pp. 58-96.

Blockley, D.J. (1980), The Nature of Structural Design and Safety, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.

Brandon, P.S. (1982), Building cost research need for a paradigm shift?, in Brandon, P.S. (Ed.),Building Cost Techniques: New Directions, E&FN Spon, London, pp. 5-13.

BREEAM (2009), available at: www.breeam.org/ (accessed 22 July 2009).

Cameron, I. and Duff, A.R. (2007), A critical review of safety initiatives using goal setting andfeedback, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 495-508.


11


8/9

Cherns, A. and Bryant, D.T. (1984), Studying the clients role in construction management,

Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 2, pp. 177-84.

Clegg, S.R. (1989), Frameworks of Power, Sage, London.

Cole, R.J. (1999), Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions, BuildingResearch and Information, Vol. 27 Nos 4/5, pp. 230-46.

Cox, A. (1999), Power, value and supply chain management, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4No. 4, pp. 167-75.

Cusumano, M.A. (1994), The limits of Lean, Sloan Management Review, Vol.35 No. 4,pp. 27-32.

Dainty, A.R.J. (2008), Methodological pluralism in construction management research,in Knight, A. and Ruddock, L. (Eds), Advanced Research Methods in the BuiltEnvironment, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 2-13.

Dainty, A.R.J., Bryman, A., Price, A.D.F., Greasley, K., Soetanto, R. and King, N. (2005),Project affinity: the role of emotional attachments in construction projects, ConstructionManagement and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 241-4.

Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis: Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

DETR (1999), A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development in the UK,The Stationery Office, London.

DETR (2001), Building a Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for More Sustainable Construction,The Stationery Office, London.

Dosi, G. (1982), Technological paradigms and technological trajectories, Research Policy, Vol. 11No. 3, pp. 147-62.

Duff, A.R. (2000), Behaviour measurement for continuous improvement in construction safety

and quality, in Coble, R.J., Haupt, T.C. and Hinze, J. (Eds), Management of ConstructionSafety and Health, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, Report from the Construction Task Force, Department

of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, HMSO, London.

Emmitt, S., Sander, D. and Christoffersen, A.K. (2005), The value universe: defining a value

based approach to lean construction, Proceedings, International Group on LeanConstruction, IGLC-13, Sydney, July, pp. 57-64.

Fellows, R.F. (2006), Sustainability: a matter of energy?, Property Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,pp. 116-31.

Green, S.D. (1999), The missing arguments of lean construction, Construction Management andEconomics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 133-7.

Green, S.D. (2002), The human resource management implications of lean construction: criticalperspectives and conceptual chasms, Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 3 No. 1,pp. 147-65.

Green, S.D. and May, S.C. (2005), Lean construction: arenas of enactment, models of diffusionand the meaning of leanness, Building Research and Information, Vol. 33 No. 6,pp. 498-511.

Griffith, A. (1983), Buildability: The Effect of Design and Management on Construction, Scienceand Engineering Research Council, London.

Griffith, A. and Sidwell, A.C. (1995), Constructability in Building and Engineering Projects,Macmillan Press, Basingstoke.

Higgin, G. and Jessop, N.K. (1963), Communications in the Building Industry, Tavistock, London.

CI10,1

12


9/9

Holmstrom, B. and Roberts, J. (1998), The boundaries of the firm revisited, Journal of EconomicPerspectives, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 73-94.

Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. (1988), Jurans Quality Control Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Kelly, J., Male, S. and Graham, D. (2004), Value Management of Construction Projects, BlackwellScience, Oxford.

Koskela, L. (2000), An Exploration towards a Production Theory and Its Applicationto Construction, VVT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.

Latham, M. Sir (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO, London.

Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), Organization and Environment: ManagingDifferentiation and Integration, Division of Research, Graduate School of BusinessAdministration, Harvard University, Boston, MA.

LEED (2009), available at: www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID19 (accessed

22 July 2009).Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1977), Dynamic competition and technical progress, in Belassa, B.

and Nelson, R. (Eds), Economic Progress, Private Values and Public Policies: Essays inHonour of William Fellner, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

Nicolini, D. (2002), In search of project chemistry, Construction Management and Economics,Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 167-77.

OED (2009), Oxford English Dictionary, available at: http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry(accessed 24 June 2009).

Rosen, M. (1982), Hegels Dialectic and Its Criticism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rowlinson, S.M. (Ed.) (2004), Construction Safety Management Systems, E&FN Spon, London.

Shewhart, W.A. (1931), Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product, D. Van NostrandCompany, New York, NY.

Teece, D.J., Rumelt, R., Dosi, G. and Winter, S. (1994), Understanding corporate coherence: theoryand evidence, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-30.

Wikipedia (2009), available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_Construction (accessed26 June 2009).

Winter, W., Smith, C., Morris, P. and Cicmil, S. (2006), Directions for future research in projectmanagement: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 638-49.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future,(The Brundtland Report), Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Corresponding author

Richard Fellows can be contacted at: [email protected]


13

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

new research in built environment

Documents