Aimée L Felton 2012

75 EIGHT documents were concise, detailing only relevant facts and guidelines for the elements in question, whilst the lengthier documents tended to be blanket policies for the whole estate; including a variety of building typologies, both listed and unlisted. Analysing the documents, a correlation seemed to emerge between the length of the document and the wider audience involved, where information was so broad, it is difficult to envisage the direct use being exclusively for the day-to-day maintenance team. The documents produced by all three case study organisations regarding their property portfolios and maintenance management strategies vary drastically. The language used to describe the various techniques, approaches and attitudes towards the ownership and management of the historic buildings is embedded within particular lexical variations and organisational terms. All of the documents acknowledge the well established conservation principles and definitions as ascertained by English Heritage and other heritage focused bodies and professionals, yet all utilise these definitions differently to achieve their own personal agendas. In order to create a level platform for analysis amongst the various documents and clarify the corporate jargon, a basic diagramming analysis has been used. The primary agendas of historical building maintenance, as well as phraseological collocations, connotations and synonyms have been used in order to cover all semantics. As well as the priority of themes throughout all their documents, an analytical study of lexical frequency has been generated to initially help compare strategies. Eight•Two Revealing priorities Chapter Eight - Maintenance in practice Aimee Felton