IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v32y2014i1-2p160-182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the adaptability of an industrialized building using dependency structure matrices

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Schmidt
  • Kasper Sanchez Vibaek
  • Simon Austin

Abstract

A relatively neglected aspect of sustainable development is the creation of an enduring built environment that can be adapted to suit changing circumstances. This presents a significant challenge: how to evaluate a building's adaptability. The premise is introduced that adaptability is enhanced through the use of analytical tools which can provide better control of the building's system architecture that enables easier, and less costly, user-driven adaptations. More specifically it investigates what a dependency structure matrix (DSM), a square (N × N) matrix-based model that visualizes the relationships between elements within a system, can reveal about the capacity for an industrialized building to accommodate change, through clustering and impact analyses. Clustering analysis attempts to assess the system architecture on generic principles of change by organizing it into discrete modules, while the impact analysis examines propagation in 30 change scenarios by tracing dependencies within the DSM. Feasibility assessments of the scenarios are compared with the knowledge of a system expert. The results indicate the DSM analysis provided insights beyond the intuition of the system expert regarding change propagation, while the system expert's knowledge of component characteristics and overall composition of the building proved beyond the capacity of the DSM. Additional conclusions are drawn from the case study regarding DSM construction and the analytical process.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Schmidt & Kasper Sanchez Vibaek & Simon Austin, 2014. "Evaluating the adaptability of an industrialized building using dependency structure matrices," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1-2), pages 160-182, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:32:y:2014:i:1-2:p:160-182
    DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2013.847274
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01446193.2013.847274
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01446193.2013.847274?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eppinger, Steven D. & Browning, Tyson R., 2012. "Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262017520, December.
    2. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, December.
    3. Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 1911. "The Principles of Scientific Management," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number taylor1911.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John M. Kamara & Oliver Heidrich & Vincenza E. Tafaro & Sebastiano Maltese & Mario C. Dejaco & Fulvio Re Cecconi, 2020. "Change Factors and the Adaptability of Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Avner Engel & Yoram Reich, 2015. "Advancing Architecture Options Theory: Six Industrial Case Studies," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 396-414, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Morgan Dwyer & Bruce Cameron & Zoe Szajnfarber, 2015. "A Framework for Studying Cost Growth on Complex Acquisition Programs," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 568-583, November.
    2. Félicia Saïah & Diego Vega & Harwin de Vries & Joakim Kembro, 2023. "Process modularity, supply chain responsiveness, and moderators: The Médecins Sans Frontières response to the Covid‐19 pandemic," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(5), pages 1490-1511, May.
    3. MacCormack, Alan & Baldwin, Carliss & Rusnak, John, 2012. "Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring” hypothesis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1309-1324.
    4. Samina Karim & Chi‐Hyon Lee & Manuela N. Hoehn‐Weiss, 2023. "Task bottlenecks and resource bottlenecks: A holistic examination of task systems through an organization design lens," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1839-1878, August.
    5. Marlo Raveendran & Phanish Puranam & Massimo Warglien, 2016. "Object Salience in the Division of Labor: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2110-2128, July.
    6. Christopher M. Schlick & Soenke Duckwitz & Sebastian Schneider, 2013. "Project dynamics and emergent complexity," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 480-515, December.
    7. Nicolay Worren & Tore Christiansen & Kim Verner Soldal, 2020. "Using an algorithmic approach for grouping roles and sub-units," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Babak Heydari & Mohsen Mosleh & Kia Dalili, 2016. "From Modular to Distributed Open Architectures: A Unified Decision Framework," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 252-266, May.
    9. Thinley Tharchen & Raghu Garud & Rebecca L. Henn, 2020. "Design as an interactive boundary object," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-34, December.
    10. Manuel E. Sosa & Jürgen Mihm & Tyson R. Browning, 2013. "Linking Cyclicality and Product Quality," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 473-491, July.
    11. A. Georges L. Romme, 2003. "Making a Difference: Organization as Design," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(5), pages 558-573, October.
    12. Alina Mirela Teacu (Parincu), 2019. "Neuromanagement – the Impact of Neuroscience on the Organizational Performance," Risk in Contemporary Economy, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, pages 487-493.
    13. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    14. Filippo Carlo Wezel & Gino Cattani & Johannes M. Pennings, 2006. "Competitive Implications of Interfirm Mobility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(6), pages 691-709, December.
    15. Michel Anteby & Curtis K. Chan, 2018. "A Self-Fulfilling Cycle of Coercive Surveillance: Workers’ Invisibility Practices and Managerial Justification," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 247-263, April.
    16. Uwe Beyer & Oliver Ullrich, 2022. "Organizational Complexity as a Contributing Factor to Underperformance," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-15, March.
    17. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    18. David Vallat, 2015. "Une alternative au dualisme État-Marché : l’économie collaborative, questions pratiques et épistémologiques," Working Papers halshs-01249308, HAL.
    19. Jeremy Atack & Robert A. Margo & Paul Rhode, 2020. "‘Mechanization Takes Command’: Inanimate Power and Labor Productivity in Late Nineteenth Century American Manufacturing," NBER Working Papers 27436, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Ehrenhard, Michel & Kijl, Bjorn & Nieuwenhuis, Lambert, 2014. "Market adoption barriers of multi-stakeholder technology: Smart homes for the aging population," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 306-315.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:32:y:2014:i:1-2:p:160-182. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.