Active Arts, Culture & Design Public Health & Healthcare

Reconciling the Semiotics of Value in Construction as a New Axiological Foundation for Safe Project Management in the Post-Grenfell Era

In plain English

AI plain-English summary

Seventy-two people died in the Grenfell Tower fire because a relentless culture of cost-cutting had replaced genuine value with cheap materials and compromised design. This research argues that the construction industry still does not have a shared, honest definition of what “value” actually means—and that this confusion makes another disaster possible. The problem is not a lack of regulations but a clash of professional languages. Urban planners, contractors, value engineers, and procurers each use the word “value” to mean something different: community benefit, profit, functional performance, or arbitrary metrics. These conflicting definitions create blind spots where safety can be quietly traded away. The researchers aim to build a unifying framework by studying how different construction professionals communicate about value—what they prioritise, what they leave out, and where their languages diverge. If successful, this would give project managers a practical tool to reconcile competing priorities before they lead to dangerous trade-offs. The immediate impact would be on how large infrastructure and housing projects are managed, not on a technology or product. This is fundamental social science applied to engineering practice: it seeks to change how decisions are made, not what materials are used.

View original technical description
The Grenfell Tower tragedy was a stark reminder of the consequences of a distorted understanding of value in the construction industry. While value engineering was falsely blamed, the root cause lay in a relentless culture of cost-cutting that compromised design integrity and ultimately led to the loss of 72 lives. In response, the UK government introduced new regulations aimed at ensuring accountability throughout the building process. However, deep-seated cultural and practical issues within the industry persist, raising concerns that another such disaster could occur. The concept of value is often misunderstood and misused within the built environment, leading to conflicts and misalignments between various stakeholders. Urban planners, for example, may prioritize placemaking and community impact, while contractors focus on revenue generation. Value engineers, on the other hand, may emphasize functional performance, while value managers consider stakeholder perceptions. Procurers, meanwhile, often reduce value to a set of arbitrary performance metrics. This study aims to develop a unifying framework for understanding and applying value in the construction industry. By examining the semiotic practices of different disciplines, the research will identify common ground and reconcile conflicting perspectives. The goal is to reorient the concept of value beyond mere cost reduction, emphasizing the importance of people, places, and profit. Through this research, we can work towards a future where buildings are designed and constructed with integrity, safety, and sustainability as core values.

View the original record at the funder ↗

Researchers

Catherine Harmer (Student)

Related Research

Grants with similar aims, by meaning.

Valuing the Historic Environment: a critical review of existing approaches to social value
Questioning the Perceived Failure and Lost Heritage Value of James Stirling's Southgate Estate: A Post-Structuralist Post-Mortem
Against Value in the Arts
The Epistemology of Construction Product Certification
Mapping Faith and Place: Exploring cultural values in the buildings of South Asian Faiths in Leicester

Original classification

Studentship

Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.