However the framework proposed by Brunton et
However, the framework proposed by Brunton et al. did not illustrate the sub-components and deliverables of AM; their work deliberately focused on only a single component of AM, which is Managing the Business. Based on Brunton et al., Emmitt (1999a, 2007) provided the first practical written guideline for applying AM in practice. Emmitt (1999a) offered another visual framework, which illustrated the central position of AM within the project lifecycle (Figure 2). This framework was conceived at a time when the components of AM were not clearly agreed upon. Moreover, the data for managerial tasks and the needs of architects used in this monoamine oxidase inhibitors framework are now considered outdated. However, Emmitt distinguished and highlighted a principal difference between AM and design management, in which the former is a more comprehensive field of knowledge and practice that encompasses the issues of design process, architectural firm, architectural education, and architecture profession as a whole (Emmitt, 1999a, b, 2007). Accordingly, design management has become an integral part of AM.
The categories identified by Brunton et al. (1964) are not stated clearly within the literature, which has been produced under the umbrella of CIB W096. Although these studies are primarily focused on the functions associated with design management activities or architectural value, only few have discussed other managerial activities (Emmitt et al., 2009) as admitted by some CIB W096 researchers (e.g., Den Otter, 2009; Prins, 2009). A similar observation can be made about the literature outside the CIB W096 domain (e.g., Green, 2001; Piven and Perkins, 2003; Littlefield, 2005), which focuses on the issues typically managed within the firm, such as strategic planning, business modelling, marketing, human resources, IT utilization and other business functions, while largely ignoring the other component of AM, namely, Managing the Projects. Therefore, the two components of AM identified by Brunton et al. no longer sufficiently encapsulate the relatively new issues that are being debated upon within the CIB W096 domain, such as education, sustainability, stakeholders, and regulations.
Method Many studies have investigated how frameworks can be established, but this issue lacks a practical guideline. Previous framework design processes are based on the Concept Mapping method of Novak and Gowin (1984). This method involves two stages: (1) identifying concepts and (2) determining the relationships between them. Based on this theorization, Jabareen (2009) suggested a more pragmatic process for building conceptual frameworks using the methodology of grounded theory rather than describing the data and the targeted phenomenon. This methodology focuses on understanding rather than prediction, and involves eight sequenced phases, including mapping the selected data sources, extensively reading and categorizing the selected data, identifying and naming the concepts, deconstructing and categorizing the concepts, integrating the concepts, synthesis and re-synthesis, validating the conceptual framework, and rethinking the conceptual framework. The theoretical sources of data include the following: Qualitative met-synthesis was performed because this enabled researchers to integrate and contextualize the findings of different but related studies, with the aim of interpreting rather than aggregating these studies to create new knowledge (Noblit and Hare, 1988; Jensen and Allen, 1996; Gough and Elbourne, 2002). Through this procedure, the findings of previous studies addressing similar theoretical issues were categorized into six groups, namely, Nature and position of AM within architectural practice, Managing the business side of the profession, Managing the individual projects (business portfolio), Managing stakeholders, Managing AM education, and Independent themes.
AMFT The development of the (generic) framework involved a bottom-up approach to group tasks/activities, resulting in a framework hierarchy with six levels (Figure 3). These levels included tasks that serve as the basis of development (Level 5), the clustering of these tasks according to their combined themes (Level 4 activities), the combining theme (Level 2: AM components), several independent themes that can be applied to more than one category (and can be used as tools for deploying and enhancing the application of AM Level 3), and the intersection between these themes and the position of AM in the whole process (Level 1). The lowest levels (5 and 6) were left open and flexible to allow the addition of specific models or tasks to suit specific contexts (e.g., country, client, and project type).