The construction industry’s role in reconstruction activities following disasters such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami, is well documented. In particular, post-disaster reconstruction has been the subject of a significant body of research, with particular emphasis on developing countries that are less able to deal with the causes and impacts of disasters. There is, however, growing recognition that the construction industry has a much broader role to anticipate, assess, prevent, prepare, respond and recover from disruptive challenges. Advocates suggest construction professionals have a key role to play because they are involved in the construction of the infrastructure, and therefore should also be involved when an event destroys that infrastructure. They also suggest that the construction professions are in the best position to frame the discussion of the costbenefit trade-offs that occur in the risk management process; for example, the need for risk avoidance against the cost of implementing safety strategies.
This exploratory paper considers the need for a more expansive view of the life cycle of infrastructure projects: one that extends beyond the traditional cycle of feasibility analysis, planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and divestiture. This revised life cycle considers the construction professional’s ability to anticipate and respond to events, such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami, which damage or destroy an infrastructure project and reflects the construction industry’s ongoing responsibility toward an infrastructure’s users
