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 summarySeventy-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
View the original record at the funder ↗
Researchers
Related Research
Grants with similar aims, by meaning.
Original classification
StudentshipPlain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research. Is something wrong? Let us know