You are on page 1of 376

Icon.

Net Pty Ltd 2006


Office: Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation
9th Floor, Level 9, QUT Gardens Point
2 George Street, Brisbane, Qld, 4000 Australia
Telephone: +61 7 3864 1393
Email: enquiries@construction-innovation.info
Web: www.construction-innovation.info
The rights of the Authors to be identified as the Authors of this Work has been asserted in
accordance with the Copyright Act 1968.
All rights reserved. This book is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the
conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of it may be in any form or by any
means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without the prior permission of the
publisher.
The authors, the Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, Icon.Net Pty Ltd,
and their respective boards, stakeholders, officers, employees and agents make no
representation or warranty concerning the accuracy or completeness of the information in
this work. To the extent permissible by law, the aforementioned persons exclude all implied
conditions or warranties and disclaim all liability for any loss or damage or other
consequences howsoever arising from the use of the information in this book.
First published 2006 by Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, for
Icon.Net Pty Ltd.
For further information on our publications, please visit our website:
www.construction-innovation.info
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data
Clients driving construction innovation: mapping the terrain.
Bibliography.
ISBN 1-7410712-8-3
1. Construction industry - Technological innovations. 2. Construction industry - Technological innovations Australia. 3. Civil engineering - Technological innovations. 4. Civil engineering - Technological innovations Australia. I. Brown, Kerry. II. Hampson, Keith D. (Keith Douglas). III. Brandon, Peter S. IV. Cooperative Research
Centre for Construction Innovation (Australia).
338.769

ii

Contents
CONTRIBUTORS

vii

FOREWORD

xvii

CIB TASK FORCE 58: CLIENTS AND CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION

xviii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PART 1
Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

xix

CLIENTS DRIVING CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION

Moving Ideas into Practice


Kerry Brown and Keith Hampson

Should Clients Drive Innovation? Mind, Method and Motivation


Peter Brandon

Adopting Innovation: Building Information Models in the Finnish


Real Estate and Construction Cluster
Arto Kiviniemi
PART 2

15

MEETING CLIENTS NEEDS

Chapter 4

Industrialising Residential Construction for Small to Medium Size


US Home Builders
Thomas Mills, Ron Wakefield, Michael OBrien
25

Chapter 5

Ensuring Value for Money: A Value Management Approach to


Manage Multiple Stakeholders in the Briefing Process
Geoffrey Shen

32

The Clients Role in Driving an Appropriate Project Culture


Leading to Innovative Performance Outcomes: In Contexts of
Australia and China
Jian Zuo, David Ness and George Zillante

43

Chapter 6

PART 3
Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

PROCUREMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Rebalancing Risk and Rewards


Jim Doyle

55

Client Capabilities and Capital Works Procurement Policies:


A Comparative Analysis of Australian Jurisdictions
Craig Furneaux, Kerry Brown, Don Allan, Neil Abel, Sheena
McConville, Stephen McFallan, Kerry London and John Burgess

62

Cost of Tendering: Adding Cost without Value?


John Dalrymple, Lionel Boxer and Warren Staples

72

iii

Chapter 10 Clients Building Product Eco-Profiling Needs


Delwyn Jones, Phillipa Watson, Peter Scuderi and Pene Mitchell

80

Chapter 11 Difficulties in Defining Product Sustainability


Shane West

90

Chapter 12 Developing a Methodology for Effecting Sustained Building


Design Innovation in the Construction Procurement Process
Martina Murphy, George Heaney and Srinath Perera

99

PART 4

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES IMPROVING


EFFICIENCIES

Chapter 13 Automating Code Checking For Building Designs: DesignCheck


Lan Ding, Robin Drogemuller, Mike Rosenman, David Marchant and
John Gero
113
Chapter 14 Early-Design Stage Parametric Building Development
John Crawford, Robin Drogemuller and Gerardo Trinidad

127

Chapter 15 Comparing Distance Collaborative Designing Using Digital Ink


Sketching and 3D Models in Virtual Environments
Mary Lou Maher, Zafer Bilda, Figen Gul, Yinghsiu Huang and David
Marchant

133

Chapter 16 Towards a Loosely Wired Design Optimisation Tool


Wei Peng and John Gero

143

Chapter 17 Ontology-Based Demand Support Systems for Urban


Development
Hans Schevers, Dajon Veldman, Fanny Boulaire and
Robin Drogemuller

149

Chapter 18 Wayfinding Swarm Creatures Finding Paths Indoors


Ji Soo Yoon and Mary Lou Maher

156

PART 5

PERFORMANCE BASED BUILDING

Chapter 19 Performance-Based Building R&D Roadmap Towards Europes


Vision 2030 for Construction
Greg Foliente

163

Chapter 20 Performance-Based Procurement Practices


Selwyn Tucker

175

iv

Chapter 21 Performance Based Building Design Process PeBBu Domain


Agenda and Future Development Needs
Lam Pham, Peter Boxhall and Dik Spekkink

182

Chapter 22 Project Diagnostics: A Cure for Poorly Performing


Construction Projects
Daniyal Mian and Adrian Morey

191

PART 6

CONSTRUCTION HEALTH AND SAFETY

Chapter 23 Safety Culture, Safety Attitudes and Market Force Influences on


Construction Site Safety
Herbert Biggs, Vaughn Sheahan, Donald Dingsdag and Dean Cipolla 201
Chapter 24 Changing Safety Behaviour in the Construction Industry,
Using Enforcement and Education as the Stick and the Carrot to
Improve Safety Culture
Donald Dingsdag, Herbert Biggs and Vaughn Sheahan
214
Chapter 25 Managing Employees Work-Life Balance: The Impact of
Management on Individual Well-Being and Productivity
Lisa Bradley, Caroline Bailey, Helen Lingard and Kerry Brown

220

Chapter 26 Supporting the Design OHS Process:


A Knowledge-Based System for Risk Management
Helen Lingard, Andrew Stranieri and Nick Blismas

225

Chapter 27 Developing a Code of Practice for Construction OHS:


A Research Agenda
Janet Pillay, Michael Charles, Rachel Ryan and Tim Fleming

235

PART 7

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Chapter 28 Facilities Management in Italy: Between Traditional and


Innovative Approaches
Lorenzo Bellicini and Alessia Salaris

247

Chapter 29 Facilities Management Service Quality Indicators: Benefiting


Supplier and Customer
Hermen Jan van Ree and Peter McLennan

251

Chapter 30 Facilities Management as the Catalyst to Accelerate the


Evolutionary Changes in Workplace Architecture
Agustin Chevez, Guillermo Aranda-Mena and Peter Edwards

260

PART 8

INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 31 Government Policy and Promoting Collaboration in the Australian


Construction Industry
Neal Ryan, Michael Charles and Keith Hampson
267

Chapter 32 Public Policies and Innovation in the Construction Industry


Kristian Widn

275

Chapter 33 Measuring the Technical Competence of Repeat Public Sector


Construction Clients
Karen Manley and Stephen McFallan

281

Chapter 34 Understanding the Innovation-Adoption Process of


Construction Clients
Andreas Hartmann, Geert Dewulf and Isabelle Reymen

288

Chapter 35 Barriers to Construction Automation and Robotics


Implementation in Australia and Japan
Rohana Mahbub and Matthew Humphreys

295

Chapter 36 Improving Technology Transfer in the Construction Industry


David Thorpe and Neal Ryan

303

Chapter 37 Economic, Social and Cultural Impediments and Drivers for the
Adoption of e-Business Innovations within the Industrial Structure of
the Construction Sector
Kerry London and Nathaniel Bavinton
313
PART 9

SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE FUTURE

Chapter 38 Leaving Todays Future of Building Behind


Martin Fischer

338

Chapter 39 Fibre Composite Innovations in Australias Construction


Industry
Gerard van Erp, Craig Cattell and Da Huang

341

PART 10

MOVING IDEAS INTO PRACTICE

Chapter 40 Key Lessons and Conclusions


Keith Hampson, Kerry Brown and Peter Brandon

350

INDEX

354

vi

Contributors
Neil Abel
Neil Abel is the Principal Policy and Systems Officer for Corporate Risk Management, in the Strategic Procurement
Division at Brisbane City Council. He is the Project Manager for eTendering implementation in Council. Neil is also
a member of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, Australian Institute of Project Management and
Australian Business Economists. His research interests include electronic commerce systems, the application of
strategic procurement approaches to the construction and engineering industry and procurement economics.

Don Allan
Don Allan is the Director of the Building Policy Unit of the Queensland Department of Public Works. In this
capacity he is responsible for building policy and advice, government and industry relationships and industry
supplier base development. Don is also a member of the CRC Governing Board and is Deputy Program Director,
Program A: Business and Industry Development.

Guillermo Aranda-Mena
Dr Guillermo Aranda-Mena is a Research Fellow and Lecturer in the School of Property, Construction and Project
Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Guillermos research interests include workplace
architecture, organisational psychology, Internet project collaboration, multimedia training technologies,
interoperability in building modelling and e-business adoption in AEC/FM.

Caroline Bailey
Caroline Bailey is an Adjunct Professor in the School of Management, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia. Caroline has trained and worked as organisational psychologist in Britain and Australia, in both
academic and practitioner roles. She specialises in employee selection, performance management and development.

Nathaniel Bavinton
Nathaniel Bavinton is a researcher in the School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle,
Australia. Nathaniels research focuses on the adoption of reflexive capabilities, internationalisation of Australian
construction design firms, sustainable e-business environments of construction supply chains and the role of
investment, exchange and accumulation of non-economic capital in international project performance.

Lorenzo Bellicini
Lorenzo Bellicini is a Professor of Urban Economics and Architecture in the Faculty of Architecture, Romes Third
University. Professor Bellicini is also a Technical Manager and member of the Board of Directors of Cresme, the
leading research institute in Italy for the construction sector. He is Cresme's representative for the Euroconstruct
network (19 research institutes specialising in economic analyses of the construction sector in Europe) and provides
consultancy services to the Municipality of Rome's Special Town Planning Scheme Service Directorate, Studies
Department of the Chamber of Deputies, Ministries and Regions and Municipalities. Professor Bellicini is also an
external member of the Istat (Italian National Statistical Institute) working group on the construction sector. His
research interests focus on innovation in the Italian construction sector.

Herbert Biggs
Dr Herbert Biggs is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Herbert is also a senior research consultant to CARRS-Q and has an extensive
background in organisational psychology and rehabilitation counselling. His research interests include
organisational change, occupational stress, rehabilitation counselling, therapeutic models in the counselling process,
competency attainment in driving tasks, fatigue and vigilance in industrial settings and occupational health and
safety in the construction sector.

Zafer Bilda
Zafer Bilda is a doctorate student at the University of Sydney, Australia. Zafer is the recipient of an International
Postgraduate Research Award and a Fullbright scholarship. His research focuses on the role of sketching and mental
imagery in individual design process and design thinking in traditional/digital collaborative environments.

vii

Nick Blismas
Dr Nick Blismas is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Property, Construction and Project Management, at RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia. Nicks research interests include the multi-project nature and programme
typologies of the construction industry, off-site production in construction, the application of RAPID prototyping
and manufacturing technologies in the construction sector, occupational health and safety, knowledge management
and lean construction.

Fanny Boulaire
Fanny Boulaire is a Computer Programmer for the Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology division of the
CSIRO. Fannys research has focused on ontology based demand support systems and their role in urban
development.

Lionel Boxer
Dr Lionel Boxer is a Management Consultant for Intergon and sessional Lecturer and research fellow in the Centre
for Management Quality Research, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Lionels research interests include
consulting in productivity improvement, sustainability, quality management and leadership, conference and training
planning and coaching of managers in new roles.

Peter Boxhall
Peter Boxhall is the Coordinator of the Australian Performance Based Building Network (Aus-PeBBu), within the
Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology division of the CSIRO.

Lisa Bradley
Associate Professor Lisa Bradley is based in the School of Management, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia. Lisas research focuses on employee selection, gender in the workplace, performance appraisal,
research methodology, workplace communication and work life balance.

Peter Brandon
Professor Peter Brandon is the Director of the Thinking Laboratory at the University of Salford, UK. He is also the
Director of Strategic Programmes in the School of Construction and Property Management, and University Orator.
Professor Brandon has played a significant role in UK Construction Research Policy and chairs the Ross Priory
Group which includes all the major research organisations in the UK. He founded 'Construct IT', the UK National
Centre for Construction IT (which won the Queen's Anniversary Prize for Higher Education). Professor Brandons
research interests range from construction economics and management, information and knowledge-based systems
for construction and sustainable development

Kerry Brown
Professor Kerry Brown is the Director of Research in the Faculty of Business, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane Australia. Professor Browns research is concentrated in areas of change management,
networks, work-life balance, gender and careers in the public sector, public management and policy, governmentcommunity relations and public sector employment relations. She is a member of the editorial board of the
International Journal of Small Business and Globalisation and the Queensland Editor of Public Administration
Today.

John Burgess
John Burgess is the Director of the Employment Studies Centre at Newcastle Business School, University of
Newcastle, Australia. John is also an Associate Professor in the School of Business and Management, University of
Newcastle. His research interests include non-standard employment, gender and work, labour market policy and
workplace bargaining.

Craig Cattell
Craig Cattell is an Engineer for the Centre Fibre Composites Design and Development at the University of Southern
Queensland, Australia. Craig experience in the construction industry encompasses areas of structural analysis, Finite
Element analysis of fibre composite structures and materials and process development.

viii

Michael Charles
Dr Michael Charles is a Lecturer in the School of Management, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane
Australia. Michael is involved in Program A of the CRC CI: Business and Industry Development. His research
interests include public policy, contracted services, risk and crisis management, organisational change, construction
supply chains and history.

Agustin Chevez
Agustin Chevez is a doctoral student at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia and an Architect by trade. His
research focuses on technological change and the built environment.

Dean Cipolla
Dean Cipolla is the Group Safety Manager at John Holland Group, Melbourne, Australia. Deans research interests
pertain to areas of occupational health and safety, construction site safety culture and the role of management in
construction safety.

John Crawford
John Crawford is the Director of Allor Consulting. He has been employed as a Principal Scientist with the Integrated
Design and Construction team at CSIRO Highett. John has also been heavily involved in several research projects
for the AEC design professions concerning On-Line Remote Construction Management (ORCM), High-bandwidth
Collaborative Design, Wayfinding in the Built Environment and Parametric Modelling.

John Dalrymple
Professor John Dalrymple is the Director of the Centre for Management Quality Research, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia. His research concentrates of quality measurement, public and private sector comparisons,
SMEs and international competitiveness.

Geert Dewulf
Geert Dewulf is a Professor of Planning and Development and Head of Department of Construction Management
and Engineering, University of Twente, Netherlands. Geert is the President of the Scientific Committee of
PSIBouw, the Dutch Rethinking Construction Consortium and a program leader of the Netherlands Research School
Integral Design of Structures. He is a member of various scientific advisory committees at Imperial College,
Greenwich University, Sintef Norway, TSM Business School, and Helsinki University of Technology. Professor
Dewulfs research interests include interactive planning processes and participatory design management, public
private partnerships and corporate real estate management.

Lan Ding
Dr Lan Ding is a Research Scientist for the CSIRO and a Project Leader for the CRC-CI. Her research expertise are
in the areas of automated code compliance checking, object-oriented database and rule base, building information
modelling and IFC, virtual environment, multi-agent system application, evolutionary systems and artificial
intelligence in design and facilities management. In 2005, Lan was acknowledged as one of 16 Fresh Innovators.

Donald Dingsdag
Dr Don Dingsdag is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Natural Sciences. Don has extensive experience in
occupational health and safety, industrial relations and human resource management. He has conceptualised,
developed and delivered over 80 OHS adult education and training modules across four universities in areas of OHS
law, occupational health practice, safety management, risk assessment/management, auditing, and safety systems.
Don works closely with the NSW Supreme and District Courts to conduct investigations, research and develop
expert witness reports for common law workplace injury and public injury claims and conduct factual investigations
for plaintiff and defendant matters. Dons research focuses on operational management roles in the manufacturing
and retailing sectors, OHS policy development, risk management and behavioural competencies and training
strategies in the coalmining, energy, construction and public transport industries.

Jim Doyle
Jim Doyle is a partner at Doyles Construction Lawyers. Jim specialises in advising and representing major players in
the engineering, construction and development industries. He is particularly interested in project structuring,
documentation and contract management. Jim is also a qualified and experienced engineer, economist and lawyer.

ix

Robin Drogemuller
Robin Drogemuller is the Team Leader for the Integrated Design and Construction Systems team in the CSIRO
Division of Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology. He is also the Director of the Information and
Communications Technology Platform for the CRC CI. Robin is a visiting professor at the University of Salford
(UK). Robins research interests include ontology based demand support systems, urban development, automated
code checking, CAD and design systems.

Peter Edwards
Peter Edwards is an Associate Professor in the School of Property, Design and Project Management, RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia. He is also the Program Director for Construction Management. Peters research
focuses on sustainable construction and client risk management perceptions and attitudes for decision making in
construction projects.

Martin Fischer
Martin Fischer is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering within the Construction
Engineering and Management Program and Director of the Centre for Integrated Facility Engineering, University of
Stanford, USA. He is also a visiting Professor to the School of Construction and Property Management, University
of Salford, UK. Martin has been a leader in the application of building information modelling for design and
construction of facilities and has pioneered the application and further development of 4D modelling for
constructability improvement and construction planning and management.

Tim Fleming
Tim Fleming is the Health, Safety, Quality and Environmental Manager in the telecommunications and power
divisions of John Holland. Tim has over 15 years experience in the mining, construction and emergency service
fields. He is the leader of a project focussed on the implementation of one of the first Safety Case projects for
catastrophic risk management within the mining industry. Tim is also the project leader for the CRC CI Safer
Construction project and is a member of the John Holland National Fall Prevention Work Group. His research
interests include safety in design, fall prevention and safety leadership.

Greg Foliente
Dr Greg Foliente is a Principal Research Scientist and joint science leader of the Urban Systems Integration
Capability at CSIRO Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology in Melbourne, Australia. Greg is the coordinator
of CIB Working Commission W60 (Performance Concept in Building and Construction) and Program Director of
the Australian Performance Based Building (Aus-PeBBu) Network (2003-2006) - linking Australian research and
industry with a parallel program in Europe. His research interests include construction innovation, sustainable
buildings and cities, infrastructure and asset management, risk and reliability analysis, service life prediction and
scenario modelling. Greg has also been the recipient of numerous prestigious international research and fellowship
awards including the 1997 George Marra Award of Excellence (SWST, USA) and the 2003 James Croes Medal
(American Society of Civil Engineers).

Craig Furneaux
Craig Furneaux is a Research Fellow in the School of Management, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia. Craig has extensive experience in building organisational capabilities, training, curriculum
design and development, and management consulting. More recently he has engaged in a number of research
projects that analyse public policy, particularly the impact of public policy on organisations and industries. Craig is
also interested in research in economic sociology, organisational learning and networks.

John Gero
John Gero is Professor of Design Science, Co-Director of the Key Centre for Design Computing and Cognition and
Associate Dean of Research at the University of Sydney, Australia. His research is concerned with situated design
agents, computational models of creative design, visual reasoning, evolutionary systems in design and cognitive
models of design. Professor Gero has also been the recipient of many excellence awards including the Harkness
Fellowship, two Fulbright Fellowships, two SRC Fellowships and various named chairs.

Figen Gul
Figen Gul is a doctoral student and Lecturer at the University of Sydney, Australia. Her research interests include
the use of virtual-world technology in the construction industry, human design behaviour and collaborative design.
Figen is also a practicing architect who has designed many residential buildings in Sydney and overseas.
x

Keith Hampson
Dr Keith Hampson is the CEO of the CRC for Construction Innovation with responsibilities for crafting a blend of
commercial and public good outcomes on behalf of industry, government and research centres across Australia. Dr
Hampson retains expertise in the areas of innovation, strategic technology management, construction information
technology, construction project procurement strategies and advanced construction techniques.

Andreas Hartmann
Andreas Hartmann is an Associate Professor in the School of Construction Management and Engineering,
University of Twente, Netherlands. In 2004, Andreas was awarded the Construction Management Award by the
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. His research interests include construction innovation patterns and processes,
influences on construction innovation behaviour, intra and inter organisational solutions fostering innovations in
construction, evolution of cooperation in construction, influences of social networks on cooperative behavior in
construction, learning and cooperation, integrated solutions and sustainability, influences of integrated solutions on
building performance and organisational effectiveness and conditions of delivering integrated solutions.

George Heaney
George Heaney is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Built Environment at the University of Ulster. His research
expertise are in areas of construction management, facilities management and continuing professional development
in the built environment.

Da Huang
Da Huang is a Composite Structures Engineer in the Pro Vice-Chancellors Office (Research) for Fibre Composites
Design and Development at the University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Das research focuses on innovation
in fibre composites and its application to construction.

Yinghsiu Huang
Yinghsiu Huang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Digital Design, MingDao University, Taiwan.
Yinghsius research is focused on architecture, particularly virtual environments and collaborative processes.

Matthew Humphreys
Dr Matthew Humphreys is a Lecturer in the School of Urban Development, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia. His research concentrates on fibre composites, advanced civil engineering and construction
materials, construction materials, structures, finite element analysis and sustainability

Delwyn Jones
Delwyn Jones is the Principal Scientific Officer for Built Environment Research, Queensland Department of Public
Works and Research Leader for the CRC CI. In 1997 and 1998, Delwyn won the prestigious Banksia Environment
Award and in 2000 was awarded the Australian Facilities Managers Association Research Award. Her research
centres on supply chain eco-profiling.

Arto Kiviniemi
Professor Arto Kiviniemi is a chief research scientist of ICT for the Build Environment at the VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland. Professor Kiviniemi leads the Building Informatics research team and is a member of a
Strategic Technology Steering Group for Technologies in Community at VTT.

Helen Lingard
Associate Professor Helen Lingard is based in the School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia. Helen has been employed as an Area Occupational Health and Safety Adviser for
Costain Building and Civil Engineering (Hong Kong), during which time she worked on major infrastructure
projects, including the Hong Kong international airport and the Tsing Ma Bridge. Helen also has extensive research
and consulting experience in the fields of occupational health and safety and human resource management,
specialising in the construction sector.

Kerry London
Kerry London is an Associate Professor and Postgraduate Director in the School of Architecture and Built
Environment at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Kerry is also the Director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary
Built Environment Research within the same university. She was recently awarded the Chartered Institute of

xi

Building (CIOB) award for research excellence for her research into supply chain economics. Kerrys research
expertise also extend to design management, supply chain management and e-business.

Rohana Mahbub
Rohana Mahbub is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering, Queensland University
of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Rohana has lectured at Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia and has been an
active participant in the Canadian Government Scholarship and Fellowship Programme. Her research interests
include Construction Robotics, Building Automation and Assembly, Innovative Construction Methods and
Education in Construction.

Mary Lou Maher


Mary Lou Maher is a Professor of Design Computing in the Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition at the
University of Sydney, Australia. Professor Maher is co-director of the Key Centre of Design Computing and
Cognition and the Program Coordinator for the Bachelor of Design Computing. She is part of the Information
Visualisation Group and the IMAGEN program at the National ICT Australia. Her research interests span a broad
area of design computing, specifically virtual environments and representation of design knowledge.

Karen Manley
Dr Karen Manley leads the BRITE Project for the CRC for Construction Innovation. Karen is also a Senior
Research Fellow in the School of Urban Development, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Her research interests centre on innovation in knowledge economies. Karen is an economist with over 10 years
experience as an academic and private consultant, specialising in the analysis of innovation and industry growth.

David Marchant
David Marchant is the Global IT Manager for Woods Bagot. He is also Adjunct Associate Professor of Design
Computing in the Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney and a Board member of the International Alliance
for Interoperability (IAI) Australasian Chapter. David is a member of the Australian Standards IT6/1 Committee, on
data transfer standards, as well as a member of a number of ISO technical committees on digital information
standards in building and construction. David is a practicing architect with more than 10 years experience in writing
software for the field.

Sheena McConville
Sheena McConville is the Acting Principal Policy Officer for the Building Policy Unit, Queensland Department of
Public Works. Sheenas research interests are concentrated in the area of public policy.

Stephen McFallan
Stephen McFallan is a statistical and modelling researcher with the CSIRO Division of Manufacturing and
Infrastructure Technology. His research interests include the sustainable built environment (TBL), the measurement
of asset performance and construction innovation. Stephen has significant interest in the development of cost, time,
quality and environmental impact measures for use through out the lifecycle of built assets.

Peter McLennan
Peter McLennan is a Senior Research Fellow and Lecturer in Facilities Management at the Bartlett School of
Graduate Studies, University College London, UK. He is an external examiner to the MBA Construction and Real
Estate course at the College of Estates Management in Reading and an independent consultant on facility planning
and post occupancy evaluation.

Daniyal Mian
Daniyal Mian is a Senior Project Manager at Arup. He has a bachelor degree in electrical engineering and a masters
degree in engineering management. Daniyal has extensive experience in design, estimation and project management
of electrical services for construction projects. He has worked in different capacities as a Senior Estimator and
Project Manager in Australia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Pakistan.

Thomas Mills
Thomas Mills is an Associate Professor of Building Construction at Virginia Tech University, USA. Thomas is a
registered architect who has worked with industry, the state of Virginia, and the federal government in the area of
process mapping and efforts to re-engineer current operational processes. He teaches construction-related courses in

xii

information technology, construction economics and cost management, principles and practices of construction,
production process and planning, and a course in advanced construction techniques. He is also a member of the
Leadership Committee for the Center for Innovation in Construction Safety and Health at Virginia Tech University.

Penelope Mitchell
Dr Penelope Mitchell is a consultant with the CSIRO in the area of sustainability. Penelopes research interests
focus on sustainable architecture and life cycle assessments.

Adrian Morey
Adrian Morey is a Project Manager at Arup. Within this role, he leads the development and implementation of
project risk and value management services across Australia. In the course of Adrians 18 years of project
experience, he has been managerially and technically responsible for the successful delivery of major projects and
programs in Australia, the UK, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Bangladesh, Bahrain and Spain.

Martina Murphy
Martina Murphy is a Chartered Architect specialising in commercial new build work and the subsequent adoption of
new technologies and concepts. Martina has worked in the UK, Europe and the Far East. She is the Education
Covenor for the Council of the Royal Society of Ulster Architects and is a representative council member for the
Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland. Martina is also a Lecturer in Design Technology at the School of
Architecture, University of Ulster, UK.

David Ness
Dr David Ness is an Adjunct Research Fellow at the School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South
Australia. David is also a Project Manager with the Infrastructure Division of the South Australian Department for
Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. David was the recipient of the 1996 National Asset Management Award.

Michael OBrien
Michael OBrien is a Professor of Building Construction at Virginia Tech University, USA. Professor OBriens
research interests are concentrated in the development of software that instructs builders, architects and other
construction parties about the process of building safer structures.

Wei Peng
Wei Peng is a PhD researcher in the Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney. Weis
research focuses on building computational models that enable design tools to learn by their use. His research
interests include situated learning agents, computer-aided design tools, design optimisation, ICT and construction
processes, design decision support systems, machine learning, data mining and business intelligent systems. Wei is
the recipient of a CRC CI PhD scholarship and was awarded a prize for Best Scholars Paper at the 2006 CRC CI
Conference: Moving Ideas into Practice.

Srinath Perera
Dr Srinath Perera is a Lecturer in the School of Built Environment, University of Ulster, UK. Srinath is also the
Honourary Secretary for the Institute of Quantity Surveyors Sri Lanka. His research interests include technology,
sustainability, innovation and construction procurement.

Lam Pham
Lam Pham is currently an Honorary Research Fellow at CSIRO Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology and a
Fellow of the Institution of Engineers. He retired from the position of Chief Research Scientist at CSIRO at the end
of 2005 and is now working as a Consultant and sessional Lecturer in Sustainable Construction at Swinburne
University of Technology. His current activities include the development of linkages with Asia, international
harmonisation of codes and standards, performance-based criteria for building construction and ecologically
sustainable construction. He has been working in performance-based design and regulation for the last 10 years.

Janet Pillay
Janet Pillay is a Senior Research Officer on a CRC CI project titled Safer Construction. The project focuses on
improving health and safety performance in the Australian construction industry through the introduction of a
voluntary code of practice for occupational health and safety. Janet also teaches in the School of Management,

xiii

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Her research interests include public sector contracting
out, networks and workplace health and safety.

Isabelle Reymen
Isabelle Reymen is an Assistant Professor in Design Management in the Faculty of Engineering Technology,
Department of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Twente. Isabelles research interests
include design structures and processes, innovation adoption processes, communication, and teams in construction
and uncertainty management.

Michael Rosenman
Dr Michael Rosenman is Senior Lecturer in the Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition within the
University of Sydney, Australia. His research interests include knowledge-based design, product and conceptual
modelling, evolutionary systems in design, design creativity and collaborative design.

Neal Ryan
Professor Neal Ryan is the Head of the School of Management at the Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia. He is also Director of Program A (Business and Industry Development) of the CRC CI.
Professor Ryan has published extensively and has presented numerous papers in the areas of public policy,
organisational change, knowledge management, procurement and outsourcing, in addition to science and technology
policy.

Rachel Ryan
Rachel Ryan is a Journalist and Researcher who has worked in a range of print, radio and web outlets. Her most
recent work has been on a CRC CI project titled Safer Construction. The project focuses on improving health and
safety in the Australian construction industry through the introduction of a voluntary code of practice for
occupational health and safety. Rachels research interests also include public policy and social and environmental
issues.

Alessia Salaris
Alessia Salaris is based in the Technical Secretariat department at the CRESME Research Centre, Italy. Alessias
work is currently focused on the governance of local territories.

Hans Schevers
Hans Schevers is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow in the Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology division of
the CSIRO. His research interests include urban development, integrated software systems, web ontology language,
design systems and 3D modelling.

Peter Scuderi
Peter Scuderi is the Development Manager for the CRC CI. Peter is a Board Director for the International Alliance
for Interoperability and was awarded the 2005 Project Management Achievement Award.

Vaughn Sheahan
Vaughn Sheahan is a Research Assistant on a CRC CI project titled Construction Site Safety Culture. The project
focuses on developing a competency framework that provides a consistent basis for industry to begin to improve the
capability of key head contractor staff to drive safety improvements and a positive safety culture. Vaughns research
interests also focus broadly in the area of psychology.

Geoffrey Shen
Professor Geoffrey Shen is an active researcher in value management and related fields. He is a member of the
Institute of Value Management in the UK and a founding council member of the Hong Kong Institute of Value
Management (HKIVM). He has been serving the HKIVM as the Secretary, Councillor, Editor, and Member of the
Executive Committee since its formation in 1995. As a certified Value Management Facilitator (List A) recognised
by the Hong Kong Government, he has professionally facilitated a large number of value management and
partnering workshops for a variety of large client organisations in both the public and private sectors in Hong Kong.
Professor Shen is also the Vice-President of the China Association of Value Engineering and Vice-President of the
Value Engineering Institute of China Association for Tertiary Education.

xiv

Dik Spekkink
Dik Spekkink is the Managing Director of Spekkink Consultancy and Research, Woudrichem, the Netherlands. He
is an architect by trade. Diks research interests include quality management in building design and engineering,
building process innovation, ICT policy in the building and infrastructure sectors (improvement of co-operation and
communication in the building process) and occupational safety and health coordination in design and construction.

Warren Staples
Warren Staples is a Researcher within the Centre for Management Quality Research, RMIT University, Australia.
His research is concentrated in the area of service quality and corporate responsibility in call centres.

Andrew Stranieri
Dr Andrew Stranieri is the Managing Director of JustSys Pty Ltd. Andrew is interested in developing web-based
support systems that model decision-making reasoning. He has over ten years experience in knowledge modelling
and management research.

David Thorpe
Dr David Thorpe is a Senior Lecturer in Engineering and Technology Management at the University of Southern
Queensland. His research interests include innovation and technology management, life cycle infrastructure
development and management, project and contract management and delivery processes and engineering education.
David has also held various positions in Brisbane City Council and the Queensland Department of Main Roads.

Gerardo Trinidad
Dr Gerardo Trinidad is a Research Scientist in the Building, Construction and Engineering Department of the
CSIRO where he specialises in GIS and Databases. Gerardo is also a member of the CIB Taskforce for GIS
Applications.

Selwyn Tucker
Dr Selwyn Tucker is a Research Consultant and Leader in the area of Asset Performance and Sustainability in the
Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology division of the CSIRO. He has extensive experience in research
leadership and development on a wide range of topics such as greenhouse efficient housing design, analysis of
embodied energy in construction and recycling of building material, energy and operation costs budget levels for
non-residential building, and development of performance indicators for building assets (including a national
housing stock condition indicator implemented in the Queensland Department of Housing). Selwyns current work
includes a whole-of-life analysis of infrastructure, sustainable construction, automatic eco-efficiency assessment
tool and construction process performance.

Gerard van Erp


Gerard van Erp is a Professor in fibre composites at the University of Southern Queensland. He is the Executive
Director of Fibre Composites Design and Development (FCDD), a Centre of Excellence in Engineered Fibre
Composites at the same university. Professor van Erp is the Research Chair of Fibre Composites for the Composites
Institute of Australia. He has been recognised as the 2002 IEAUST Queensland Professional Engineer of the Year
and has been awarded the National ATSE Clunies Ross Award for his outstanding contribution to science and its
application for the economic, social and environmental benefit to Australia.

Herman Jan van Ree


Hermen Jan van Ree is a Senior Research Fellow at the Workplace Innovation Centre at University College London.
Dr van Ree is currently developing a model to assess and benchmark service delivery amongst real estate
organisations in addition to generating FM service quality indicators as a means to lower costs of service delivery
whilst simultaneously improving customer satisfaction. Hermen Jan has also worked as a Project Manager and
Researcher at the Center for People and Buildings in the Netherlands and, as a Postgraduate Researcher at the
Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics in the United States.

Dajon Veldman
Dajon Veldman is the Associate Director of International Urban Design, UrbisJHD, Australia. Dajons research is
concentrated in the field of urban development and design.

xv

Ron Wakefield
Professor Ron Wakefield is the Head of School in Property, Construction and Property Management at RMIT
Univerisity, Melbourne, Australia. Professor Wakefield is also the Director of Program C of the CRC CI: Delivery
and Management of Built Assets. His research interests include modelling of systems, simulation of engineering
systems and simulator development, use of operations, research techniques, automation, optimisation of construction
systems, productivity improvement, project management and visualisation.

Phillipa Watson
Phillipa Watson is a PhD candidate at the University of Tasmania. Phillipas research examines sustainable housing
for equity and energy efficient outcomes. She has previously been employed as a Designer, an Environmental
Design Consultant and most recently as an Environmental Scientist for CSIRO and the CRC CI, working on their
environmental impact assessment tool LCADesign.

Shane West
Associate Professor Shane West is the Head of School of the Applied Technology Institute, Unitec, Auckland, New
Zealand. He has a research background in indoor environment, ventilation and daylighting with several patents and
new innovative product developments in these fields. Shane has contributed to the debate of making economic
sustainability a key component of sustainable building assessment schemes. He is also a member of various design
advisory groups, both nationally and internationally.

Kristian Widn
Kristian Widn is currently working at the Division of Construction Management at Lund University. He is a
Doctoral Student who is in the final stages of his thesis entitled "New Forms of Cooperation that Encourage
Innovation." Kristians research interests focus on issues concerning innovation in construction.

Ji Soo Yoon
Ji Soo is a CRC CI doctoral candidate at the School of Architecture, Design Science and Planning, University of
Sydney. His research is aimed at developing virtual guides to assist users to wayfind in dynamic virtual worlds.

George Zillante
George Zillante is an Associate Professor in the School of Natural and Built Environments, Division of Information
Technology, Engineering and the Environment, University of South Australia. Georges research focus is in the area
of architecture, planning and building. He also chairs the State Government Building Advisory Committee and the
City of Campbelltown Development Assessment Panel. George is also a member of the Development Policy
Advisory Committee for South Australia and is the Managing Director of a small consultancy.

Jian Zuo
Jian Zuo is a PhD candidate in the School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia. Jians
research focuses on project culture, innovation and construction clients.

xvi

Foreword
This book has been sponsored by the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Construction Innovation.
Construction Innovation is a national research, development and implementation centre focused on the
needs of the property, design, construction and facilities management sectors. It develops and promotes best practice
project delivery, products, resources and services that can guide project teams towards the best procurement
approach for a specific project. Through research and development, the Australian property and construction
industry gains a better understanding of these principles and is better informed in tailoring its delivery of projects to
greater alignment of value for all the stakeholders.
The objectives of the CRC are to:
Enhance the contribution of long-term scientific and technological research and innovation to Australia's
sustainable economic and social development
Enhance the collaboration between researchers, industry and government, and to improve efficiency in the use
of intellectual and research resources
Create and commercially exploit tools, technologies and management systems to deliver innovative and
sustainable constructed assets to further the financial, environmental and social benefit to the construction
industry and the community.
The mission of the CRC is to:
Deliver tools, technologies and management systems that will improve the long-term effectiveness,
competitiveness and dynamics of a viable construction industry in the Australian and international contexts.
This will be achieved through greater innovation in business processes, strengthened human relations and
ethical practices, and more effective interactions between industry and its clients
Drive healthy and sustainable constructed assets and optimise the environmental impact of built facilities
through sound conceptual basis for economic, social and environmental accounting of the built environment,
virtual building technology to examine performance prior to documentation, construction and use and assessing
human health and productivity benefits of smart indoor environments
Deliver project value for stakeholders for the whole-of-life, from business need, design and construction,
through to ownership, asset management and reuse through improved communication and use of knowledge,
increased productivity and value, effective delivery and management of whole-of-life assets.
The strength of Construction Innovation lies in bringing together industry, government and research partners
committed to leading Australias property, design, construction and facilities management industry in collaboration
and innovation. Across Australia, our CRC has secured the input of almost 400 individuals who are delivering real
benefits for our partners, the industry and our community. Together we are facing the challenge of implementing
applied research outcomes to improve business.
We trust Clients Driving Construction Innovation: Moving ideas into practice will provide you with
powerful evidence-based research to develop and extend your own ideas for sustaining innovation in the building
and construction industry. We commend this book to you.

Mr John McCarthy
Chair
CRC for Construction Innovation

Dr Keith Hampson
CEO
CRC for Construction Innovation

xvii

CIB Task Group 58:


Clients and Construction Innovation
The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) provides for
international exchange and cooperation in research and innovation in building and construction. The scope of CIB
covers the technical, economic, environmental and organisational aspects of the built environment during all stages
of its life cycle (www.cibworld.nl).
Task Group 58 takes as its critical focus and starting point, innovation driven from a clients perspective.
This standpoint explores innovation through a range of client-oriented approaches including interrogating
construction knowledge, networking and innovation competencies, devising innovation strategies that are highly
cognisant of the role and orientation of clients and improving take-up, communication and diffusion of existing
client innovations.
The objective is to identify opportunities and barriers to client-driven innovation and to capture ways in
which client engagement, interactions and actions affect innovation systems and processes. The learnings from the
research and collaboration of members within this group will extend insights into theoretical models of innovation
and inform and improve practice outcomes in relation to the construction innovation process.
This Task Group provides opportunities to meet through special sessions at international conferences and
through supporting a forum for the on-going collaborative enterprise of the Task Group. This edited book examining
the role of clients in construction innovation is one of a series of deliverables to assist researchers and industry in
this important process.
The coordinators of CIB TG58 are Dr Keith Hampson, CRC for Construction Innovation, Australia and
Professor Peter Brandon, University of Salford, UK. The working groups international activities are also supported
by Professor Kerry Brown, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.

xviii

Acknowledgements
The publication of this edited volume has been made possible by the efforts of researchers and staff of the
Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, CIB Task Group 58 and the School of Management,
Queensland University of Technology.
The School of Management situated within the Faculty of Business, Queensland University of Technology
has generously supported the preparation and publication of this book through the provision of research assistance
and associated administration and management tasks.
The editors would like to especially thank Janet Pillay for her invaluable assistance in organising the
submission of chapters, book layout, liaising with authors and for approaching her work with such good cheer and
professionalism.
Special thanks also to Colleen Foelz and Carole Green, Communications Officer and Business Manager
respectively of the CRC for Construction Innovation for their efforts in moving this publication forward in a timely
fashion. Peter Scuderi, Development Manager, Louise Adams, Special Projects Officer and Karen Guest,
Conference Support Officer of Construction Innovation also deserve special thanks for their efforts throughout 2006
in coordinating the second international conference for the CRC CI, which formed the basis for this publication.
We are also grateful to the chapter contributors whose research forms the basis of this book.
We trust that this book contributes to both theory and practice in understanding and promoting the
important role that clients play in construction innovation.
Kerry Brown, Keith Hampson and Peter Brandon

xix

xx

Part1
ClientsDrivingConstructionInnovation

CHAPTER1

MovingIdeasintoPractice
KerryBrown
KeithHampson
INTRODUCTION
Todaysinternationalbusinessenvironmentisbecomingmorecompetitiveeachday.Thepropertyandconstruction
industry is no exception. The construction industry is a multifaceted industrial sector as its operation is
characterisedbyhighlyfragmentedprojectactivitiesandawiderangeoflargeandsmallenterpriseswithvarying
levelsoforganisationalandtechnologicalsophistication.Intothiscomplexprojectorientedenvironmentismixeda
set of increasingly demanding clients (Barlow 2000). While clients comprise a key relationship in construction
deliveryteams,theirroleintheprocessofinnovation,particularlyintheprojectenvironmentthatincludesdiverse
areassuchasproperty,designconstructionandfacilitiesmanagement,isnotwellunderstood.
Itistimelythen,toexaminethepathofinnovationandtechnologicaladvancefromtheformationofthenew
idea to actual ontheground construction practice andto understand therole of the client inthis process. Clients
Driving Construction Innovation: Moving ideas into practice provides a forum for worldleading industry
practitionersandresearcherscreatingtheedgeinthishighlycompetitiveenvironmenttosharetheresultsoftheir
researchandinnovation.
MovingIdeasintoPracticebringstogetherresearchonclients,designers,constructorsandfacilitymanagers
to focus on delivering cuttingedge research in constructed facilities. It showcases technologies and practices
developed by internationallyrenowned practitioners and researchers, and it presents advanced applications of
appliedresearchforimprovingindustrypractice.

MOVINGIDEASINTOPRACTICE
MovingIdeasintoPracticecanvassesthewaysinwhichideasareformulatedasaprecursortothedevelopmentof
constructionrelated technologies and industry practices and has a clear focus on advancingthe uptake of applied
researchtoimproveconstructionindustrypracticeandperformance.Inordertoimproveindustryperformanceitis
imperative to focus on moving ideas into practice thus highlighting key elements of implementing applied
researchandtargetedtraining.Theresearchstudiespresentedinthiseditedvolumeweredrawnfrominternational
and national experts working in the areas of construction technology, management and innovation. Each chapter
includedinthisvolumewassubjectedtodoubleblindpeerreviewofthechapterproposalattheabstractstageand
doubleblind peer review of the completed chapter by experts in the various fields within construction including
engineering,buildingtechnology,policyandmanagement.
Whiletheconstructionsectorisawellestablishedandsignificanteconomicsector,ithasnotfaredwellin
innovative capacity or output (Seaden and Manseau 2001). In examining the reasons for the poor performance
relating to construction invention, Nam and Tatum (1995) identify construction as suffering from low levels of
technologyadoption,apaucityofinnovationandapoorinnovationculture.Inthisway,researchidentifyingbarriers
andenablerstotheshiftfromideastopracticeestablisharichsourceofinformationandprovideasoundknowledge
basefromwhichtoproceedwithdevelopinginnovativepractice.Bytakingasitsfocustheideasintheconstruction
arenamakingtheirwayintothepracticeofconstructionfirmsandotherindustrystakeholders,thisbookconfronts
theseproblemsfromanewperspective.

STRUCTUREOFTHEBOOK
Themes identified and examined in detail in this book cover selected areas deemed key contributing factors to
ensuringclientsinvolvedintheinnovationprocessallowamovefromideasgenerationtoimplementingthoseideas
into practice. Aspects such as: the ways to meet theneeds andrequirementsand, consequently, theaspirations of
clientsinordertocreateinnovativepracticetheroleofclientsintheconstructioncontinuumfromprocurementand
supply to project completion adoption and use of information and communication technology (ICT) and the
ongoingmanagementofthefacility,areallimportantconsiderations.However,thebroaderregulatory,policyand
construction industry context in areas such ashealthand safety, and sustainabilityand industry development, are
alsoofconsiderationinthisresearch.
The book is structured according to nine key themes in investigating the role of construction clients in
bringingideastofruition.Itisdividedintotenpartsthatmoveacrosssignificantissuesintheareasofforgingnew
insightsintoconstructioninnovationthroughclientsandtheirroleindevelopinginitiativesandimplementingthese

newapproachesintotheconstructionindustry.Eachpartisintroducedbyakeynotechapterthatsetsthescenefor
thatpartandfocusesonthelargeconcernsinthespecificthemesidentified.

Part1:Clientsdrivingconstructioninnovation
Part 1 examines the key role of the client in driving innovation in the construction industry. Chapter 2, Peter
Brandonskeynotechapter,challengesthenotionthattheclientsfinancialstrengthisthemostimportantaspectfor
fosteringandinitiatinginnovationintheconstructionindustry.Thechapterunpacksthecomplextransactionsthat
mayoccurininnovatingfirmsandteams.Itcautionsthatrelyingonasinglelargeclienttofacilitateresearchand
developmentonascalethatisrequiredforindustrywideinnovationistoonarrowaconceptualisationoftheroleof
clientsdrivinginnovation.Thereneedstobegreateracknowledgementoftheneedforadiversityofplayersandthe
collaborationofstakeholdersincludinggovernment,buildingusers,andclustersofcontractorsandfirmswithinthe
constructionindustry.

Part2:Meetingclientneeds
Thesecondpartofthebooksuggestswaysofmeetingclientrequirementsand,atthesametime,drivinginnovation.
The keynote chapter by Mills, Wakefield and OBrien (Chapter 4) draws on lessons from aninnovative building
constructionprogramintheUStodemonstratethatresearchlessonsfromhousingcanbetranslatedintoatoolfor
developing innovative processes for better building techniques. The research extracts innovative practices and
processesfromindustryexperts,advisorsandbuildersinlargeandsmallfirmsandthentheresearchersanalysethe
results in order to determine innovative elements and flow these back as useable information to government and
buildingfirmstoguidefuturepractice.

Part3:Procurementandriskmanagement
Part 3 focuses on the procurement process from both a policy and methods viewpoint. It investigates ways of
ensuringbetterprocessesforprocuringgoodsandservices,andsetsofdifferentprocurementpolicyanddecision
making frameworks. The key chapter by Jim Doyle (Chapter 7) provides an overview of the features of the
Australian construction industry and examines how design and construct contracts may be tailored to achieve
betteroutcomesforallparties.

Part4:Informationandcommunicationtechnologiesimprovingefficiencies
Thefourthpartofthebookconcentratesonthewaysinwhichinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICTs)
can create greater efficiencies within the construction sector. The chapter contributed by Ding, Drogemuller,
Rosenman,MarchantandGero(Chapter13)providesinsightsintotheway thatICTcanassistwiththecomplicated
taskofcheckingthatconstructionprojectsmeettheplethoraoflegislativerequirementsintheconstructionindustry.

Part5:Performancebasedbuilding
Aspects of performancebased building (PBB) are examined in Part 5. The focus of PBB is on the outcomes of
building performance achieved through elements of processes, products and services. In Chapter 19, the keynote
chapterbyGregFoliente,PBBisexaminedthroughtheeffortstocreateaglobalstandardofbuildingperformance.
FolientebringstogetherresearchandpolicywithparticularemphasisontheevidencefromtheEuropeanUnionto
developaResearchandDevelopment roadmapandvisionforperformancebuilding.

Part6:Constructionhealthandsafety
Healthandsafety issuesintheconstructionindustryremainmajorconcernsforregulators,policymakersandthose
workingwithinconstructionorganisations.Chapter23,byBiggs,Sheahan,DingsdagandCipollaexamineswaysto
develop a safety culture.The authors focus on understandinghow to create a construction site in which safety is
paramount through safety culture competency planning. They suggest that safety competency is made up of
leadershipbehaviours,safetyattitudesandbeliefs,interpersonalcommunication skills,andsafetyknowledge,and
furtherthattheseelementsincombinationformthebasisforsafetyculture.

Part7:Facilitiesmanagement
TheissuesaddressedinPart7,facilitiesmanagement (FM),rangefromidentifyingemergingFMframeworkstoFM
qualitymeasurementtotheimpactofFMonarchitecture.ThekeynotechapterbyBelliciniandSalerisexploresthe
evolution of FM in Italy and allows a comparative perspective of FM both over time and internationally. This
chapter (Chapter 28) outlines the shift to integrated FM and details how this approach is facilitated by precise
evaluation criteria and highly specified outsourcing contracts together with a strengthening of human resource
competencies.

Part8:Industrydevelopment
Thecontextinwhichtheconstructionoperatesisalsoanimportantfactorintheabilityofthesectortoinnovate,and
thisaspectisexaminedinPart8.Thepublicsectormaybeincludedasaconstructionclientasitisuniquelyplaced
toinfluenceotheractorsand,assuch,enactslawsandimplementspoliciesthataffecttheoperationandperformance
of the sector. In Chapter 31, keynote authors Ryan, Charles and Hampson explore the issues confronting
governmentasaclientwithintheconstructionindustryandtestwhethertheindustrydevelopmentobjectivescanbe
achievedthroughpublicpolicyeffortstopromotecollaborationintheconstructionindustry.Industrydevelopment
has animportantinfluencingrole on the shape and progress of the construction sector in the areas of technology
transferandfacilitatingtheadoptionofnewprocessessuchasebusinessandrobotics.

Part9:Sustainableconstructionforthefuture
Expansion of the construction industry will significantly add to the global ecological burden through carbon
emission, landfill waste and energy consumption. Inaddition,the life expectancy of existing buildingsand/orthe
costlymaintenanceandrestorationoficonicbuildingsrequireadifferentapproachtoconstruction.InPart9Martin
Fisher explores the future of building in his keynote chapter (Chapter 38) and suggests that integrated processes
togetherwithsophisticatedcomputermodellingandvisualisationwillestablishgreaterefficiencyandsustainability
inbuildingtheconstructedlandscape.
Thebookconcludeswithasummaryandanalysisofthekeylessonsfromeachofthethemesandofferssome
concludingcommentsonthechallengesforthefuture.

CONCLUSION
The research presented in this edited volume both explores the role of clients in various aspects of existing
innovation intheconstructionandpropertysectoranddiscussesimplicationsforfuturepractice.Itthuspavesthe
wayforthepossibility ofdevelopingacomprehensiveknowledgebaseandextendingtheproductivecapacityofthis
sector.Thekeythemesofferacomprehensivesetofevidencebasedconsiderationsformovingfromthegeneration
ofideastopracticalapplicationintheconstructionsector.

REFERENCES
Barlow,J.2000.Innovationandlearningincomplexoffshoreconstructionprojects.ResearchPolicy, 29:973989.
Nam,C.H.andC.B.Tatum.1997.Leadersandchampionsforconstructioninnovation. ConstructionManagement
andEconomics, 15:259270.
Seaden,G.andA.Manseau.2001.Publicpolicy andconstructioninnovation. BuildingResearch&Information,
29(3):182196.

CHAPTER2

ShouldClientsDriveInnovation?
Mind,MethodandMotivation
PeterBrandon
INTRODUCTION
Inrecentyearstherehasbeenagrowingchorusfromallquarterswhichsuggeststhattheclientisthepersonwho
candriveinnovationwithintheconstructionindustry.Ithasbeensaidsooftenthatithasbecomeakindofmantra
andisbarelychallengedasaconcept.Thethinkingbehindsuchanassertionisthatclientshavethefinancialmuscle
tomakethingshappenandtheycaninstructtheirprofessionalcolleaguestoactinacertainway.Forsuchaviewto
take hold there must be more than a grain of truth in the argument but closer inspection reveals a much more
complexissuethanjustthefinancialpowertoenableinnovationtohappen.
A number of questions need to be asked alongside the assertion. For example: Why isnt it to the
participantsadvantagetoseekinnovationintheirownfieldandincreasetheircompetitiveness?Atfacevalueitis,
but then why should it need a third party, the client, to make it happen? Another question that can be asked is:
Does the client have sufficient expertise to be able to know where innovation is required, what the innovation
should be and how it can be implemented? This raises the question of who the client is when we make such a
statement.Dowemeantheperson,orCEOoftheorganisation,ordoweextendourviewoftheclienttothewhole
oftheinternalorganisation?Orfurtherstilldoweincludetheprofessionaladviserswhoactasagentsforaproject
or series of projects? The ability to innovate requires a certain level of knowledge which may not reside in an
individualorsinglefirmbutmayrequireanaggregatedbaseofknowledgeforinnovationtohappen.
Thismight be exemplified by the following diagram which shows the potential for innovation by a client.
Thevariableschosenaretwocriticalones,namelythedegreeofcomplexityoftheprojectandtheknowledgeand
experienceoftheclientdealingwiththatkindofproject.
Figure2.1:PotentialforMajorInnovationbytheClient

Figure2.1suggeststhatlowexperienceorknowledgeresultsinalowlevelofpotentialinnovationwhetheritislow
or high complexity. It also suggests that the scope for innovation is low even when the complexity is low and
experienceishighbecausetheneedforinnovationmayhavebeenreduced.Thisisopentoquestionwhenamajor
technologyappearsand,forexample,changesthewholeprocess.Itisinthehighcomplexityandhighexperience
quarterthatthepotentialisincreasedmainlybecausetheneedisoftenincreasedandtheknowledgeisavailableto
knowwhatneedstobedone.Theseviewswouldprobably holdtrueifclientsandtheirprofessionalagentsactingon
theirbehalfarealsoincluded.Thereseemstobeanecessitytoinnovate,whichisattherootofthepotentialtodrive

new methods and approaches. It does raise the question of why the professionals do not encourage innovation
unless called upon to do so by the client. Partly this must be due to the climate of litigation in the construction
industrywhichdrivesprofessionalstoseekrefugeinwhatiswellknown.Partlyitisbecauseofthepressurewhich
professionalsareundertodotheirworkandtheopportunityforreflectionisoftenlost.
Anotherissueisthedegreeoffragmentationoftheindustryresultinginalossofcorporateresponsibilityfor
improvement.Oftenthemajorpotentialforinnovationarisesfromachangebyallthepartiesinvolvedanditisnot
inthepowerorintheinterestofoneindividualorfirmtochangetheprocesstoachieveamajorbreakthrough.This
ispotentiallywhereclientscanhaveanimpactiftheyhavetheknowledgetobeabletoaddresstheproblem.The
problem lies in the changes to the structure of the industry developed to cope with increasing complexity of
construction projects. Three centuries ago the designer/engineer was responsible for creation and building of the
product. As the work became more sophisticated and financialprocedures more complex therehas beenahigher
degree of fragmentation of the process with specialists taking independentroles withinthe design/manufacturing
process. Theresulthas been an explosion of managementto cope with the complexity of the interfaces between
them (Brandon 2005) but in addition it appears to have created more difficulty in getting the project team of
consultantstoundertakecorporateinnovation.Attheheartofthisproblemisthelackofsharedknowledgecreated
bytheinterfaces.

MIND
Onedictionarydefinitionof mind is:Consciousnessconsideredasresidinginthehumanbrain,manifested
especiallyinthought,perception,feeling,will,memory,orimagination(TheUniversalDictionary1987).
Itcanbearguedthatforanyactivitythatinvolvesinnovationthemindmustbeatthecentreoftheprocess.
The manifestations above are all critical to any creative or innovative process. All are engaged in translating an
existingsituationintoanewandimprovedone.Theconceptsofthought,perception,feelingandmemoryprovidea
context within which the change can take place. They provide the roots of understanding and knowledge either
individually or collectively which means that we do not have to start from first principles every time we try
somethingnew.Ontheotherhandthewilldrivesustodosomethingwhichisnewandprovidesthemotivationfor
change, and imagination allows us to think beyond what exists to something which might be. The mind is the
powerfultoolbywhichweprogress.
Forinnovation tothrivetheremustbeknowledge whichisbackedup byintelligentthought,perceptionof
whatisneeded,afeelingdrawnfromexperienceorinstinctandamemorywhichprovidesdiscernmentofwhatis
usefulandwhatisnot.Knowledgeisattherootandthefollowingdiscussionaddressestheknowledgeaspectsand
itsmanagementforinnovation.

Theknowledgeissue
Knowledge based innovation is the super star of entrepreneurship. It gets the publicity. It gets the money. It is
whatpeoplenormallymeanwhentheytalkofinnovation(Drucker1985, 75).
The traditional management activity is supported by a wealth of knowledge and when there are many
specialismsengagedthenitisamajorpartofthemanagementprocesstoensurethatthetransferofknowledgeand
itsmaintenancewithintheprojectisundertakeninaneffectiveandefficientmanner.Knowledgeisattheheartof
theintegration andunderstandingofthemanagementprocess.Oneoftheproblemsinthetraditionalconstruction
industry has been the gradual entropy in the integrity and completeness of knowledge through the development
processleadingtoclashesbetweendesignproposals,litigationamongparticipantsandlackofaninformationlegacy
forfutureanalysisresultinginabreakdownofunderstandingofintentandarecordofwhathappened.Thisinturn
createsanenvironmentinwhichthedesiretogooutsidethecurrentnormsofbehaviour(evenifthebenefitscanbe
seen)isnotencouraged.
Forexample,athinandsimplifiedslicethroughthetenderingandcostcontrolprocessrevealsanumberof
interfaces:

Figure2.2:KnowledgeTransferandEnhancementThroughtheDesign/ManufactureProcess

Interprets
Clients
Requirements

Interprets
designand
expands

AsforQS
Interprets,
modifiesand
builds

Interprets
design,BQ
&marketand
expands

TheClient

Architect

QS

Contractor

Supplier/
Subcont.

Requirements

Design

Estimate

Bid

Tender

K K

K K

K K

Site
worker

Labour
Plant
Kmaterial
K
etc

Figure2.2showsjustafewofthehundredsofinterfacesthatoccurinsuchaprocess.Ateachstagethepersonor
functionwhichisnextinlineinterpretswhathasgonebeforeandthen,becauseoftheirparticularknowledgeand
skill,willenhancetheinformationavailableanduseitfortheirownpurposesofcommunicatingtothepersonnext
inline.Ateachabstractionfromonepersontothenextthereisselectivityinwhatiscarriedforwardandtherefore
there is a breakdown in the knowledge transfer. There is also an aspect of adaptation in the knowledge as
information is added or changed to aid the next step in the process. Some knowledge is lost, some is gained. In
ordertounderstandthescopeofwhatisbeingcommunicated,regulationshavebeendevelopedsuchastheStandard
MethodofMeasurementorStandardBuildingContract,tomakeclear,uptoapoint,whathasbeendone.Itisalsoa
process engaging several mediaincluding visual, textualand physical modelling each of whichhas strengthsand
weaknesses.Atthestart,theknowledgeaboutobjectivesandstrategicaimsisstrong,whereasattheenditisthe
knowledgeaboutdetailedconstructionormanufacturewhichisdominantandtheoriginalintentandobjectivesare
lostinthedetail.
Forclientstodriveinnovationthiscreatesaproblem.Clientsabilitytoinnovatedoesnotextendacrossthe
wholeoftheprocessonlyforthosetheyappointdirectlyandthereforeonwhichtheycanimposeaninnovative
view. At the same time the initial knowledge degrades through the process in terms of concept and upgrades in
termsofdetaileddesign.Wherecaninnovationbeexpectedfromtheclientinsuchaprocess?Ifknowledgeisakey
featurethenitislikelytobeinthestrategicthinkingandprocessandnotinthedesigndetailingormaterials.The
incentiveforinnovationatthedetailedlevelstillrestswiththefirmundertakingthemanufactureorassemblyand
thisiswhatgivesthemapotentialcompetitiveedge.
Formanyyearstheprocesshasbeenhonedtosuitthelimitationsofhumanbrainsandlimbs.Because we
cannotassimilatemassesofdetailedinformationweusesimplifiedmodelsbecausewecannotcomputequicklywe
userulesofthumbandlimitthenumberofitemswemeasurebecausewefindtheinformationcomplexwesimplify
andallowforthisinourcontractdocuments.Thisprocessofsimplificationandlimitedtransferofknowledgeisat
the root of the growth in management as a discipline. Someone has to organise, control and check that there is
complianceandcommunication,andthatthereisassessmentoftheconsequences.Toaidthemanagementfunction
process,modelshavebeencreated(ProcessProtocol1995)whicharewellestablishedandsometimesstandardised
fortheindustry.However,itisalsoattherootofthelackofinnovation.Theprocessesarefragmentedbutalsothe
models we use are accepted by tradition, however weak they may be, and a degree of fossilisation is created as
everyone knows where they stand. Dont rock the boat! The client has to address this inertia if a climate of
innovationistobeencouraged.

Knowledgeattherootoftheinnovation
Theabovediscussionhasindicatedthatitisknowledge(oftengainedthroughexperience)whichallowstheclientto
be proactive in driving innovation. Part of this gaining of knowledge will relate to the way in which the clients
capture,analyseandimplementfutureknowledgeandthisleadstoissuesofknowledgemanagement.
Asyoumightexpectwithasubjectwhichisstillinitsinfancy,theunderstandingofknowledgemanagement
haschangedoverthepasttwentyyears.Snowden(2002)identifiesthreeagesofknowledgemanagement.These
hesuggestsare:
Firstage(priorto1995):Informationfordecisionsupportwherethefocusisontheappropriatestructuringand
flow of information to decisionmakers and the computerisation of major business applications leading to a
technologyenabledrevolutiondominatedbytheperceived efficiencies ofprocess engineering.However,this
agestutteredtoanendwhenorganisationsrecognisedthattheymighthaveachievedefficienciesatthecost
ofeffectiveness.Forexample,theyhadlaidoffpeople withexperienceandnaturaltalentsofwhichtheyhad
beenunawareandtheseattributeswerelosttotheorganisation.
Secondage(after1995):ThepopularisationoftheSECImodel(Nonaka&Takeuchi1995),withitsfocuson
the movement of knowledge between tacit and explicit knowledge states through the four processes of
socialisation, externalisation, combination and internalisation. Previously Polanyi (1974) had seen tacit and
explicitknowledgeasdifferentbutinseparableaspectsofknowledge,thedefactouseoftheSECImodelwas
dualistic,ratherthandialectical.TheworkofNonakaandTakeuchiwasseekingtocontrastaclaimedJapanese
ideaof oneness witharational,analyticalandCartesianwesterntraditionwithinthecontextofinnovation in
manufacturing processes where tacit knowledge is rendered explicit to the degree necessary to enable that
processtotakeplace.Itdidnotfollowthatalltheknowledgeinthedesignersheadsshouldorcouldhave been
madeexplicit.
Third age (emerging): It appears that some of the basic concepts underpinning knowledge management are
being challenged to a point where we grow beyond managing knowledge as a thing to also managing
knowledgeasaflow.Thisisbasedonthreeheuristicsnamely:Knowledgecanonlybevolunteered itcannot
be conscripted we can always know more than we can tell and we will always tell more than we can write
downandweonlyknowwhatweneedtoknowwhenweneedtoknowit.Itisrecognitionofthelimitationsof
thesecondstagebutnottheabandonmentofitspractice. (Totakeanexampleofacontract,ittriestoconveyan
appropriate level of knowledge to satisfy the agreement between the parties. However, it is also clear from
litigation that the knowledge contained in the contract documents is not complete and can sometimes be
challengedinthecourts.Wecanneverdemandorcapturealltheknowledgeinthemindsoftheparticipantsso
weallowpracticeandrulesandregulationstodetermineourunderstandingof whatwasintended.Itisnever
complete.)
Increasingly,academicsandothersareseeingtheimportanceofcontexttotheprocessofknowledgemanagement
andthisraisestheissueofculture(Snowden2002).Byrecognisingthesituationinwhichknowledgeisusedand
disseminatedandhowthatimpactsonboththeknowledge deliveredandtheprocesschosen,amorefundamental
understandingofwhatisinvolvedinknowledgemanagementanditscomplexitybeginsto beaddressed.
Infact,asalreadystated,itisthecomplexityoftheproblemwhichunderliesmostoftheproblemsfoundin
theconstructionindustry.Abespokeartefact,builtonauniquesiteinauniquelocationwithavirtualdesignand
constructionteamwhichisgeographicallyseparated,andwithmajorinterfacesbetweenspecialisedknowledge,is
boundtocreatedifficulties.Formanyyearsitisremarkablethatthishasbeenabletobemanagedlargelythrough
theknowledgeinthemindsofthepersonnelinvolvedandintheirrepresentationsintermsofphysicalmodels,2D
dimensional drawings, and text. However, the knowledge that human beings bring to problems can be severely
underestimated.Simpleexamplesincludeourabilitytocallonourlifeexperiencetointerpretapoliticalcartoonor
an obtuse advertisement. We look at a page and we determine that it is conveying a message. We call upon our
knowledgeofcommunicationtointerprettheknowledgeeitherbytextorvisualrepresentationandweanalyseitto
make sense. We may have to call on our knowledge of history or current affairs to establish what the particular
context and meaning of the message is likely to be. We then connect with our sense of justice or the human
conditionandwemaythenactivateourmusclesandsmileorlaugh.Thissuggestsithasrealmeaningforus.Itisa
vastarrayofknowledgewhichwetakeforgranteduntilsomemalfunctionofthebrainoccurs.

Theclientsknowledge
Inthecontextofthischapterweareconcernedabouttheknowledgeaclientortheclientorganisationcanbringto
theproblemofcreatingnewstructuresorrefurbishmentofexistingstructures.Wehavealreadydiscussedthelikely
degradationofknowledgeoftheclientastheinformationbeinghandledbecomesmoredetailed.Thissuggeststhat
theinnovationopportunityforclientsismorelikelytobeatthestrategicandconceptuallevel.Theyarenotlikelyto
beseekinginnovationinthedesignandfixingoftheironmongery!However,theymaybeinterestedinthegeneral
performance of the ironmongery and the way it is procured withinthe context of the procedures adopted for the
wholeproject.

Whatisitpossibletoexpectaclienttoknowandbeabletoengageoratleastprovidetheclimateforinnovation?
Twoexamplesmightallowustoexplorethisissue.ThefirstarisesfromtheexperienceofJohnEganwhenChief
Executive of BritishAirportsAuthority,andthesecondis fromtheexperienceofFrankGehryandPartnerswho
workedwiththeirclientstocreateanenvironmentofinnovationwhichallowedthetype ofbuildingrequestedby
theclienttobebuilt.
TheBAAexampleisquiteinterestingasitwasinitiallydrivenbySirJohnEganwhocamefromaproduct
manufacturingplant,JaguarCars,toadevelopmentauthority(BAAthelargestAirportCompanyintheworld)
andfoundthattheprocessreengineeringthathadbeenundertakeninthecarandothermanufacturingsectorsover
thepasttwentyyearshadcompletelybypassedtheconstructionindustry.Theindustrywasstilloperatinginaway
thatadeveloperofacenturyagomightrecognise.Thesupplychainswereunnecessarilylong,theindustrywasrife
withlitigationandtheinformationtechnologyrevolutionhadmadelittleimpact.Withahighlycompetentteamof
informed and knowledgeable individuals he addressed the improvement in process which had made such an
advancementelsewhere.Theopportunity arosewiththeconstructionofTerminal5atHeathrowAirport,London,a
3.75bn construction program with many buildings which could provide the basis for some experimentation in
innovation. It included the restructuring of airport delivery into seven major teams, rationalisation of the supply
chainfrommanyhundredstoaround270inthefirstinstance,withtheintentionofdrivingitdownstillfurther,and
theuseof3Dvisualisationandinformationmodelstoimprovetheflowandqualityofinformationandtoimprove
businesstobusinessprocesses.Thelatterwasintroducedbecauseearlyexperienceofofficebuildinghadidentified
majorextracostsrelatingto:
lackofspatialcoordination
poorappreciationofmanufacturingandconstructiontolerances
poormanagementofdata,drawingsanddocuments
poormanagementofinformationflow.
Tointroducethe3Dmodelling,severalstageswereintroducedincludingestablishingdatastandards,preparationof
the 3D model integrity, and managing the distribution of information.The benefits from the 3D modelling were
claimed to be in the order of 10% of the contract sum by avoiding costly reworking and delays. However, the
benefitswereinexcessofthisandincludedthebenefitsofvisualisationinmanagementandconstructionaswellas
generalcommunication,automaticgenerationofquantitiesofmaterials,legacyinformationonthebuildingasbuilt,
and planning, constructionrelated and specialist contractor coordination through linkage of the model to
constructionmanagementsoftware.SimilaradvantageshavebeendemonstratedinotherbuildingssuchastheSwire
BuildingonWestlandsRoad,HongKong.
In terms of industry a large number of leading firms are now using such technologies to enable them to
undertakeprojectswhichwouldbealmostimpossiblewithoutthem.Perhapstheleaderinthefield,largelybecause
ofthenatureandcomplexityofthedesignandmaterialsused,wasthefirmoftheleadingarchitectFrankGehryin
theUnitedStates.Gehrywantedtocombinehisskillsassculptor/designerwiththenewmaterialsthatwerecoming
on the market, and his partner Jim Glymph decided that the only way to achieve this was to harness the tools
availableinotherindustriessuchastheaircraftandautomobileindustries.Workingwithasoftwarepackagecalled
CATIA originally developed for the Frenchaircraftindustry by Dassault Systemes, they createdanadvanced 3D
modeloftheirintendedconstructionwhichwasusedforavarietyofpurposesincludingunderstandingthedesign,
manufacturingdirectfromthemodel,costforecasting,management,settingoutandmaintenanceofthedesignas
built.Italsoincludedacousticandotherevaluationsinduecourse.
ThefirstattemptbyGehryAssociatesatthisapproachwasfortheBarcelonaOlympicsin1992whereGerry
was invited to create a sculpture of a fish. He had nine months to complete the project and he agreed to do it
providingplanningandotherconstraintswereeased,noexternalmanagementwasengaged,itwouldbebuiltround
the 3D computer model and paper drawings were not required. These requests were agreed and the large steel
structure was completed on time and cost. The management and control were placed back in the hands of the
designerthroughthetechnology.
Gehrys senior partner responsible for the management and procurement issues in the firm, Jim Glymph
(Friedman2002),saysoftheprocessadoptedwiththefishsculpture:
inconstruction,youknow,theresbeenatraditionbuiltupaboutpaperandapaperprocess,an
approvalprocessthatisverycomplicated.Wedidntsacrificeanyqualitycontrolprocedures,we
clearly did not sacrifice any management. We just eliminated management where it was not
necessary,whichwasmostplaces.Thefishsculpturewasafairlyeasy,steelstructure,metalskin,
itsnotliketheotherbuildingswearedoingnowbutthebigroadblockisstillmanagement.
Thesuccessofthisventuresome13yearsagoencouragedthefirmtotakeasimilarapproachtootherprojectsofa
morecomplexnature.SubsequentlytheExperienceMusicProjectinSeattle,TheGuggenheimMuseuminBilbao,
TheWaltDisneyConcertHallinLA,andtheStataCentreatMIT,Bostonhavebeendeveloped(amongothers),
demonstratingthebenefitofthisapproach.

Thesetwoexamplesshowinnovation beingdrivenbyclientdemand.Inonecasetheclientsdeveloperhascome
fromanotherindustry,seenanopportunityforcrossfertilisationofknowledgeandhasimplementedtheinnovation
togreatcostadvantage.Thesecondrelatestoademandfromaclientforanewkindofstructuretobe builtvery
quickly and which requires innovation in technology and process to achieve the required result. Necessity is the
motherofinventionbutalsoinnovation!
Inbothcasesthewillistheretodosomethingdifferentandnewwhichisperceivedasanadvantage,notonly
totheclient,buttoawiderangeoforganisationswhichengageononeormoreoftheclientsprojects.Infact,in
bothcasestheinnovationwasnotaoneoffbutsomethingwhichprovidedafoundationforfurtherinnovationand
continualdevelopment.InthecaseoftheBAA,theinnovativethinkingwastakentoamuchhigherstrategiclevel
relatingtotheindustry.SirJohnEganbecametheChairoftheRethinkingConstructiongroupsupportedbythe
government(Egan1998)andbegantointroducetheideashehaddevelopedinhisorganisationtotheindustryasa
whole. There is some evidence that the targets and thinking introduced in this national report have begun the
processofestablishingaclimateofselfimprovementintheindustrywhichhadnotbeensoevidentinthepast.It
marshalledthetechnicalpress,theprofessionalinstitutions,theindustryrepresentativesandgovernmentatvarious
levelsintoacombinedvisionforfuturedevelopment.Insettingtargetsitattemptedtoprovidegoalsfortheindustry
although these were sometimes difficult to relate to everyday working on a site. The key lessons to these
innovationsareasfollows:
keyindividuals(innovationchampions)leadtheinnovationdrive
verycompetentteamsbackandsupporttheleader
avisionofwhattheindustrycouldbeisclearlyinthemindoftheinitiators
necessitycanbeabigdriverwhennewdesignisrequired(manyofthefreeformarchitectscouldnotsimply
createtheirbuildingswithoutadvanced3Dmodellingtechniques)
ideasandexperiencefromoneindustrycanbebroughtacrosstoanothertoaidinnovation
knowledge gainedin innovation ina single organisation can be transferred to other organisations for mutual
benefit
knowledge which is generic can be used to provide guidance and policy at the national level and begin to
changeindustryculture towardsselfimprovement.
Itisnotdifficulttoseehowthesemattersrelatetothedefinitionofmind.Intermsoftheknowledgethatwecan
expectaclienttohaveinordertoinnovatethenitisclearthatitmustariseoutofexperience.InthecaseofBAAit
borrowedexperiencefromadifferentindustryandbroughtittoconstructionbutatthesametimeitincorporatedthe
knowledgeofaskilledteamtomakechangesatthestrategiclevel.Thereisstillconsiderableinnovationwithinthe
handsofthesupplychain.InthecaseoftheGehryapproachtheknowledgeoftheclientisrelativelylowbutthe
willanddrivetochangeandproduceanovelbuildingistheparttheclientplays.Theactualinnovationisdelegated
tothedesignteamwhohavetheexperiencetounderstandwhatisnecessarytoproducetheproductrequiredand
whohavetheunderstanding toknowwhentraditionalapproachesandregulationsneedtobechallenged.

METHOD
Method can be defined as: A means or manner of procedure especially a regular or systematic way of
accomplishing anything The procedures and techniques characteristic of a particular discipline or field of
knowledge.(TheUniversalDictionary1987)

Approachestoinnovation
Intheabovediscussionregardingmindandknowledge,itisclearthataprocessisatwork.Itisunlikelythatthat
processisformalisedinanygreatwayalthoughvarioustechniquesforencouragingnewthinkingcanbeemployed.
The literature on the subject suggests that a degree of experimentation is required but this may be taken in an
informalmanner.GannsuggeststhisinThinkPlayDo:Innovation,Technology&Organization(Dodgsonetal.
2005).ShragetalksofSeriousPlay(Schrage2000),andChesboroughcallsforOpenInnovation(Chesborough
2003) as a way of allowing ideas to flow in and out from the company to enlarge the pool of ideas from which
innovationmightcome.Mostauthorssummarisebysuggestingthereisaperiodofreflectionfollowedbyaperiod
ofexperimentationandthenthereisadecisiontoimplementanddrivetheinnovationthrough.Thesourceofthe
ideasisnotalwaysmadeclear.
Thedifficultyisinestablishingwhataretheprocessesthatthemindgoesthroughtoachievetheinnovation.
It can be prompted by any number of stimulations, often unrelated directly to the problem at hand. Often anew
approach comes from a new juxtaposition of ideas or knowledge which provides something which had not
previouslybeenthoughtof.Increasinglythisseemstobemultidisciplinary.Wherepreviouslyindividualsworked
aloneandrefinedtheirowntechniquestheyarenowrequiredtoworkinandcontributetoteamsinwhichitisthe
totalpicturewhichisbeingaddressedandaholisticviewisrequiredtosolvetheproblem.Thistakesthemoutof

10

the reductionist approach to another plane and they have to think out of the box which they have carefully
nurturedforyears.
There are dangers in trying to formalise these processes as the formalisation process can itself become a
barriertoinnovation.Bytheirnatureformalprocessesprovidestandardapproachesanditisthenonstandardwhich
may provide thenew thinking.There is anargument which suggests that it isthe creation of an environment for
innovationthatisrequiredandnotatechniquewhichwillpromptinnovationafterall,innovationoccursallthe
timewithoutformalprocesses.
NickValeryisquotedinaneditorial(Collins2004)inhissummingupofthe2ndAnnualInnovationSummit
fortheEconomistinSanFrancisco2004assuggestingthat changecancomeinmanyforms:
fromtheunexpected
fromanincongruitybetweenwhatissupposedtohappenandwhatdoes
fromarefusaltoaccepttheinadequacyofaproductandprocess
fromasuddenchangeinthestructureofthemarket.
It is the third and fourth of these in which clients or stakeholders are largely engaged in promoting change and
innovation.
Valeryalsoechoestheviewsofmanywriterswhenhedescribesoneapproachtoaninnovationstrategytobe
to:
scantheenvironment
selectideaswhichgivethebestchanceofgivingacompanyacompetitiveedge
resourcethoseideas
implementtheresult
reviewthestrategytoseeifitneedstobealteredthisheconsiderstobethemostimportant.
Hegoesontosay:Therealtestofaninnovationstrategyissustainedgrowthfromcontinualinnovation(Valery
2004, 1). However, behind this comment is an implied view of a stable environment in which all the necessary
knowledgeispresentwithinthefirmandinwhicheveryonetalkstoeachother.Onewayinwhichknowledgeis
beingshared,andencouraginginnovation atthemicrolevel,isthecurrenttrendforoutsourcing.Manyindustries
aresheddinginternalstaffanddevelopingnetworksofspecialistfirmswhoundertakethesameworkforthembutin
a more competitive environment. This action does allow for a greater degree of sharing as the specialist firm is
likely to work for several other organisations and will bring to the innovation process what seems to be good
practicefromseveralorganisations.Thedangerofcourseisthatwhenthatinnovationneedstobeintegratedwith
theothersystemsintheoriginalorganisationitmaynotbecompatible,orworsestill,theexpertisenolongerresides
intheoriginalfirminsufficientdepth,andthenewknowledgecannotbeassimilatedandimplemented.Inthisway
the structureofthemarket canworkagainstinnovation.
Drucker (1985) argues the case that where the conventional wisdom on innovation (and entrepreneurship)
goes wrong is in its assumption that the processes are natural, creative or spontaneous and that if they are not
presentinacompanythensomethingmustbestiflingthem.Inawiderangingdiscussionhearguesthatcompanies
require policiesandpractices infourmajorareas:
Firstly, the organisation must be made receptive to innovation and willing to see change as an opportunity
ratherthanathreat.Inotherwords,createtheinnovationclimate.
Secondly, systematic measurement or at least appraisal of a companys performance as an innovator is
mandatoryaswellasbuiltinlearningtoimproveperformance.
Thirdly,bothentrepreneurialandinnovationmanagementrequiresspecificpracticespertainingtoorganisation
structure,tostaffingandmanaging,andtocompensation,incentivesandrewards.
Fourthly, he suggests there are some donts things not to do. These include: Dont ever put the
innovation/entrepreneurial into the existing management component! Dont go outside your own field to
innovate, and dont try to make your own business entrepreneurial by buying in, that is, by acquiring small
entrepreneurialcompanies.
Theabovelistisnotanargumentfortryingtoforceinnovationintoastandardprocedureortodowngradecreativity
butmoreaboutmakingsuretheenvironmentforinnovationistheretomotivateorallowemployeestoinnovate.

MOTIVATION
Onedictionarydefinitionofthewordtomotivateis:Tostimulatetoactionprovidewithanincentive(Universal
Dictionary1988).
Inthe context of clients drivinginnovation the question of motivationis the key to getting the innovation
implemented.Itisonethingtobecreativeandhaveaninnovationinmindbutuntilitisenactedthentheinnovation
has no impact. It could be argued that this is the biggest role that the client can play. If clients provides the

11

incentives and use their power to encourage innovation thenit islikely thatmore innovation will take place in a
shorterspaceoftime.
Inthecasestudiesmentionedearlier,actionfollowedbecausetherewasstrongmotivationtofollowthrough.
Developingasophisticatedcomputersystemwhichcantransformthebusinessanddesignprocessesisnotgoingto
beimplementedunlessthereisarealneed,anunderstandingfromallconcernedthatthisisofrealbenefitandthat
theexpertiseisavailabletoimplement.

Theenvironmentforinnovation
The environment for innovation is absolutely key to organisational innovation and needs to be geared to the
organisations and individuals involved. Increasingly organisational management seems to be moving to flat
management structures where individuals feel empowered to make decisions and develop their own interests. If
individualsfeelthattheyhavethepowertoimplementanideaandthattheycancommandtheresourcestoachieve
it,thenitisarguedthatthisismorelikelytoencourageanindividualtomakethepersonaleffortrequiredtoseeit
through.Thereareotherconsiderationsofcoursesuchastherewardstructureofthecompanyandtheindividual
muststillfeelsupportedandencouragedtoachieveinnovation.
It would probably be true to say that the environment for innovation in construction compared with other
industrieshasnotbeenstrong.Pharmaceuticalsdemandhighresearchbudgetstoprovidethedrugswhichwillhave
thevolumesalestoaddressthedemandsofshareholders.Ifthedrugisnotforthcomingthenthefirmfindsitself
with the potential of a massive loss in market share and profitability. In the information technologyindustry all
firms are competing in a fastmoving field to provide the power and applications which will keep their product
aheadoftherestofthecompetition.OftentheseITfirmsarelessformallyorganisedandthecommitmentoftheir
staff to new innovation is central to their work. However, Microsoft were quoted by the Economist (2002) as
spending $250mon their Microsoft Research Unit butthatthisrepresented only 5% of their total expenditure on
research.Thissuggeststhatwithintheorganisationmuchoftheresearchandinnovationeffortisbeingdonewithin
normalmanagementbudgetsaspartoftheneedtostayahead.

Financinginnovation
Thenormalbudgetsforconstructioncompaniesdonothavethisflexibilitytoencompassresearchandinnovation
investments.IntheUK,evenwhenacompanyhasaresearchsection,ithasbeenevidentthatwhenaconstruction
companywantstoreducecosts,oftenthroughanewCEOwhowantstopleaseshareholdersintheshorttermitis
theresearchunitwhichisthefirsttobechallenged.Staffintheseunitsoftenfeelvulnerableandthisdoesnotaid
theinnovationenvironment.Onereasonforthisisthattheindustrystilloperatesinasimilarwaytoacenturyago
andtheprocessofconstructionhasbeenrefinedtothepointwhereinnovationismarginal.Itisinthebottomright
hand box of Figure 1. For major innovation to take place then,it may be necessary for innovation to occur in a
numberoforganisations.Anexampleofthiswouldbetheuseof3Dcollaborativemodelswhereallthedesignteam
andthecontractorandhissupplychainareabletoworkthroughonecomputermodel.Thereareexamplesoffirms
pioneeringthis work, including BAA and Gehry Associates but the effect is localised and the full benefit for the
industrycannotbefelt.Insomecaseswherethe3Ddesignmodelcanbetransportedtothemanufacturingprocess
inafullyautomatedwayforfullyautomatedmanufacturingthereareinsufficientfirmswhoarewillingandableto
maketheinvestmentinthetechnologyandconsequentlythecompetition,andthereforetherealbenefitisseverely
limited.Untilasizeableproportionofthefirmshavethetechnologyandhaveinvestedintheeducationneededto
implement such systems then the initiators of the innovation can be penalised by the restricted market and
sometimesmonopolysituation.
Another problem for the innovation environment is that often the rewards are not made explicit for the
individualswhodoinnovateandforthemtherewardforriskandcommitmentnecessarytoseeitthroughisjustnot
there.Infactbudgetlinesforeachsectionwithinafirmmaybesotightthatinvestmentininnovationisconsidered
tobeacostwiththebenefitoftenappearingelsewherewithintheorganisation.
MiozzoandDewick(2004)undertookastudy ofmajorcontractorsacrossEuropeandtheyarguethatcontractors
playanimportantroleininnovationbecausethey:
playanintegratingroleintheprojectandamediatorroleintheinterfacebetweentheinstitutionsthatdevelop
many of the new products and processes, and those that adopt these innovations unless the contract can
intercept innovationsdevelopedelsewheresuchasnewmaterialsorprocessandhastheskilltolearnorapply
itinfutureprojects,aswellasincorporateitintothesystemasawhole,changeislikelytobeslow
are not only mediators in the project coalition but they are an important source of innovation to improve
constructiontechnologyandintegratedifferentsystemstheygoontosaythatinsomecountries,namelythe
UK, corporate governance structures and lowestcost tenders may act as a constraint to innovation, and
contractorsinthesecircumstancesmayhaveinsufficientautonomytoalterdesignspecificationsandintroduce
productandprocessinnovation.

12

have become more important in facilitating the use of sustainable products and implementing sustainable
processes as they look beyond the costs and accept the liability and risk associated with building with
sustainabletechnologies.

Thesepointsarewellmadeanditisofcourseimportantthatcontractorsfacetheneedtoinnovateasmuchasany
other party, but they also have to address the problems of trying to integrate and innovate across disciplinary
boundaries.Forthemtheproblemisalleviatediftheclientcanbespecificaboutwhatistobeexpected,decidethe
systemstobeadoptedandcanshareortaketheresponsibilityforthemajorrisk.

Responsibilityandfinancingforinnovation
Eastwell(2005)arguesthatitislackofability ofcompaniestodevelopintellectualpropertythatisofdirectand
uniquebenefittothecompanypayingfortheresearchthatistheproblem.Hegoesontoarguethatinprojectbased
constructionthereisverylittleprotectableintellectualpropertythatanyonecompanycandeveloptheproperty
rapidlydiffusesintotheculture oftheprojectteamwhichwillthendisperseintonewproductswithnewpartners.
The questionis then: who should pay for the collective R&D that would lead to innovation? Some would
arguethatitshouldbetheclients.Thismightbetrueinsomeareasbutitisunlikelyinthemajorityofcasesasthe
clientsexpertiseistheirownbusinessandnotintheprovisionofbuildings.Unlessitcanbeshowntohelpthem
directlywhyshouldtheyinvestforthebenefitofall?Eastwellarguesthatitistheresponsibilityofgovernmentto
undertakesuchresearchsincetheyhaveadutytomanagesocietysinfrastructure(education,healthcare,defence
andsoon)whereitisinefficienttodosootherthaninanationalcontext.Hearguesthatconstructionshouldbeseen
as anationalinfrastructure asset with central funding of technology development on theneeds articulated by the
users.
Itwouldappearthenthattheroleofclientsindirectinnovationislimitedexceptinthosecaseswhereclients
see property and construction as their major area of expertise or where their building program is so large that it
represents a major part of their investment on a continuing basis. Where all clients can play a major role in the
processisindefiningcurrentandfutureneedsothatthegovernmentandindustrycanrespond.Itisnotlikelythat
clientswillbepersuadedtopayfortheindustrys ownbusinessdevelopmentandmanywouldarguethatitisnot
theirresponsibilitythatliesfairlywiththefirmsfoundwithintheindustry.Whilstfinanceisakeymotivatorit
may be that we are looking in the wrong area for clients to sponsor innovation. If government is prepared to
shoulder some of the burden then it may be that the government as client does have a major role to require,
stimulate,andexperimentwithinnovationforthebenefitofallthosewhousebuildings,andthatismostofus.

CONCLUSIONS
Thischapterhasattemptedtooutlinetheissueswithregardtoclientsdrivinginnovation.Ithasattemptedtoshow
whereclientshavehadanimpactandthisisusuallywhereasizeableproportionofthebusinessisassociatedwith
propertyandconstructionorwheretheclientdemandssomethingnewandcreativetowhichtheindustryresponds.
If clientsaretoplayarolethenknowledgeisa criticalfactorandmostclientscannotgainthatknowledge when
they build infrequently. Methods to encourage and manage innovation are beneficial where there are consistent
teamsworkingwithinasingleorganisationalstructureandtheprocessescanbereplicated.However,thesearemore
difficulttoreplicatewithvirtualteamswheretheintellectualpropertycannotbeprotectedandnoonefirmbenefits.
Themajorroleforallclientsmightbetoarticulatemoreclearlytheirfuturerequirementsinorderthattheindustry
canrespond,knowingthatthereisamarketreadyandwillingtoassimilatetheinnovation.

REFERENCES
Brandon,P.2005. Design,procurement andIT:rollingbackthe frontiersofconstructionmanagement? TheAnnual
PoveyLecturefortheJointContractsTribunal,October2005.
Chesborough,H.2003. OpenInnovation. Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.
Dodgson,M.,D.GannandA.Salter.2005.Think,Play,Do:Innovation,technology&organization. NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Collins,L.2004.AmericanInnovation. R&DEfficiency,13(1):18.
Drucker,P.1985. InnovationandEntrepreneurship: Practiceandprinciples.London:Heinemann.
Eastwell,A.2005. FinancingConstructionR&DasaNationalAsset. www.bsria.co.uk/press/?press=283 (accessed
28April2006).
TheEconomist.2002.Mach1atMicrosoft.TheEconomist,362(8254):3334.
Egan,J.1998. RethinkingConstruction:Thereportoftheconstructiontaskforce (EganReport).UK:HMSO.
Friedman,M.2002.GehryTalks:Architecture andprocess.USA:UniversePress.
Miozzo,M.andP.Dewick.2004. InnovationinConstruction:AEuropeananalysis.Northampton:EdwardElgar
PublishingLtd.
Nonaka,I.andH.TakeuchiH.1995. TheKnowledgeCreatingCompany.London:OxfordUniversityPress.

13

Polanyi,M.1974. PersonalKnowledge:Towardsapostcriticalphilosophy.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.
ProcessProtocol.1995. Background. www.processprotocol.com(accessed28April2006).
Schrage, M.2000. SeriousPlay.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.
Snowden,D.2002.Complexactsofknowing:paradoxanddescriptiveselfawareness. JournalofKnowledge
Management, 6(2):100111.
TheUniversalDictionary.1987.London:ReadersDigest.

14

CHAPTER3

AdoptingInnovation:
BuildingInformationModelsinthe
FinnishRealEstateandConstruction
Cluster
ArtoKiviniemi
BACKGROUND
Inearly1990Finlandseconomysufferedfromadeeprecession,whichaffectedespeciallystronglytherealestate
andconstructioncluster(RECC).Whentheeconomystartedtorecoverinmid1990theFinnishtechnologypolicy
and industry leaders agreed about the need to develop the cluster and identified some key problem areas in the
industry.Oneofthesekeyareaswasinformationsharingandmanagementinallprocessesduringthelifecycleof
the buildings. Together withthe realisation of the importance of the RECC inthenational economy this led into
preparations for a largenational technology program to develop informationand communication technologies for
themanagementoflifecycleinformationofthebuildings.

TEKESSTECHNOLOGYPROGRAMS
Tekes, Technology Agency of Finland, is the main funding source for all applied technological research and
development in Finland and its main instruments in influencing development are proactive technology programs.
Tekesusestechnologyprogramstoallocateitsfinancing,networkingandexpertservicestoareasthatareimportant
for business and society. Programs are launched in areas of application and technology that are in line with the
policies in Tekess strategy. Technology programs consist of research projects by companies, universities and
research institutes, plus services that support companies business operations, such as shared visions, seminars,
training programs and international visits. Technology programs provide opportunities for companies to network
anddevelopbusinessexpertiseandskillsininternationaloperations.Intheprograms,theyreceiveTekesfinancing
for developing products, production, service concepts and business expertise and also the very latest information
aboutdifferent areasoftechnologyandbusiness(Tekes2005).

PROBLEMANALYSISFORTHERECCICTPROGRAM
The starting point for the planned RECC ICT program was to analyse the assumed problems together with the
industry in a study, which provided bases for the decisions about the goals, contentand volume for the program
whichwouldaddresstheidentifiedmainproblems.Theidentifiedmaindevelopmentareasforanewprogramwere
(Kiviniemietal.1997):
1. Toraisethequalityofinformationmanagementbetweenprojectparticipants.
The participants must be able to deliver the right information to the right persons at the right time. The
maingoalsareinteroperability anddatasharing.
2. Informationmanagementoverthebuildinglifecycle.
Thefirstrequirementtofulfilthisisthatallinformationproducedinthedesignandconstructionprocessis
interoperableandthatasbuiltinformationcanbedeliveredafterthedeliveryofthebuilding.
3. WideuseofITinthebuildingindustry.
The current processes inthe buildingindustry includemuch overlappingandrepeated work, because the
processes and methods are still mainly the same as they were before implementation of IT. Information
networkingcouldreducethisoverlapping,butitisnotpossiblebeforeallparticipantsuseITwidelyandthe
dataisinteroperable.
4. Reengineeringofbuildingprocess.
The building process must develop into a user and productorientated, flexible process supporting
networkingandsustainability.
ITcanbeusedasatooltochangetheprocesses.
TheprocessmustbechangedbeforethefullbenefitofITcanbeachieved.
5. Useofinformation networks.

15

Theuseofnetworksindatasharingwillenablenewandfasterprocessesandmakerevisioncontroleasier,
decreasingproblemsinfindingthelatestinformationinchangingsituations.

Thebasicstrategywastomovefromtheapplicationspecific dataanddataintegrationoncompanyleveltowards
industrywidedataintegrationandsharedmodels.

EARLYBUILDINGPRODUCTMODELLINGRESEARCHAND
CONNECTIONTOINTERNATIONALALLIANCEFOR
INTEROPERABILITY(IAI)
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland started research on product model technologies in the late 1980s in
RATAS projects (Bjrk 1994), but at that time the Finnish industry did not adopt these technologies. The main
reason was the lack of suitable, existing software applications and the Finnish market was not large enough for
successfulcommercialimplementationoftheearlyproductmodelideas.However,theearlyeffortscreatedworld
class knowledge of the product model technologies in Finland and emphasised the importance of international
collaborationandstandardsasenablersoftheadoptionofnewtechnologiesforinformationsharing.
DuringthepreparationsforthenationalRECCICTprogramin1996,anewinternationalbuildingproduct
model standardisation effort was started. Industry Alliance for Interoperability which started in USA in 1994,
demonstrated advantages of interoperable product models. In 1996 the Alliance transformed into International
Alliance for Interoperability(IAI) which had its first meeting in London in May. This organisation provided an
obvious international platform for the Finnish activities, and IAI Nordic Chapter was founded in August 1996in
HelsinkitogetherwithDenmark,NorwayandSweden.

THE VERA PROGRAMME INFORMATION NETWORKING IN THE


CONSTRUCTIONPROCESS
In May 1997 Tekes made the formal decision to start anational technology program called Vera Information
Networkingin the Construction Process (the Vera Programme). Some Vera projects, such as IAIForum Finland,
started earlier in late 1996. The duration of the program was decided at six years, 19972002, and the original
budgetwasdefinedat 28m,whichmadetheprogramoneofthelargestconstructionICT developmenteffortsinthe
worldat that time. The program visionandgoals were ambitious, affectingnot only theRECC, but the whole of
society.
InthebeginningoftheVeraProgrammesomepeopleinFinlandcriticiseditinthattheprogramvolumewas
toohigh,becauseabout50%ofthefundingmustcomefromtheprivatesector.ThecriticssaidthattheRECCisnot
willing to invest that much in ICTrelated R&D. However, soon the industry was even more active than Tekes
estimatedintheirprestudy,andTekesincreasedtheirfundingpartaccordingtodemand.Thefinalbudgetofthe
VeraProgramme wasalmost47m,67%overtheoriginalbudget(Tekes2002).Anoteworthyissueisalsothelarge
percentageofindustrialdevelopmentprojectsintheVeraProgramme70%oftheprojectsand82%ofthebudget
wasusedinthose.ThisisexceptionalinFinnishtechnologyprograms,butmatchesexactlytheVeraProgrammes
strategicgoals:tomakechangesintheindustry.
TheVeraProgrammeconsistedof161projects(VeraProjects2006).Thus,itisnotpossible orrelevantin
thiscontexttotrytocoveralldetailsoftheprogram.Itconsistedoffivemaintypesofprojects:softwareproducts,
service products, process development, basic technologies and knowhow, and surveys and reports. In most
categoriestheprojectsconsistedofbothresearchandindustrialdevelopmentprojects(VeraProjects2006).
Software products and basic technologies were crucial enablers for the first tests of the ideas. The basic
technologydevelopmentmainlyfocusedonthedevelopmentoftheIndustryFoundationClasses(IFC)specification.
Sometimes Finlands contribution in this area paid for almost half of the international IFC modelling group.
Softwaredevelopmentwasfocusedoncommercialproducts,andseveralprojectscreatedworldclassapplications,
forexample,COVEbyYIT,ModelCheckerbySolibri,IFCtoolboxbyEurostep,MagiCADbyProgman,andBS
PROandBSLCAbyOlofGranlund,tomentionjustafewofthem.AlsotwooftheexistingthreeIFCmodelserver
applicationsweredevelopedinprojects oftheVeraProgramme:IMSVRbySecom(Japan)andVTT,andModel
ServerforIFCbyEurostep(VeraProjects2006).
In the service products and process development categories, companies developed their own processes and
abilitiestousethenewtechnologies.Oneofthemaindrivingforcesintheearlyphasesofthe VeraProgramme was
YIT,thelargestconstructioncompanyinFinland.Theirexampleandresultswerecrucialtoshowthepotentialof
building information modelling (BIM) technology for the other construction companies. Later in the program
SkanskabecameactiveandintheProITprojecttheycaughtup,ifnotpassedYIT.Oneoftheimportantcompanies
in the success of theVera Programmewas Olof Granlund, an engineering office for building services, whichhas
developed unique software and processes, moving from traditional heating, ventilating, airconditioning and

16

electrical (HVACE) design to lifecycleinformationmanagement, also offeringadvanced and powerful simulation


andanalysistoolsandpartneringwithleadingtechnologydevelopersaroundtheworld.

HUT600PROJECT,SENATEPROPERTIES
However,inmyopinion,themostimportantsingleprojectinthe VeraProgramme wasthenewmainauditoriumfor
Helsinki University of Technology (HUT). The HUT campus is located in Otaniemi, city of Espoo, Finland. The
masterplanandthemainbuildingsoftheHUTcampusweredesignedbyAlvarAalto,widelyregardedasoneofthe
most prominent architects of the twentieth century. Aaltos bond with HUT was forged in 1949, when his
competitionentrywasawardedasthemasterplanfortheOtaniemicampus.Dominatedbythestrikingformofthe
twomainauditoriums,themainbuildingwascompletedin1964.In1997,theshortageofmultipurposeauditorium
spacepromptedHUTtoconductafeasibilitystudytoevaluatepossiblelocationsforanewauditorium.Thestudy
concluded with a decision to build a new multipurpose auditorium as an extension that was to be linked to the
northernendoftheexistingAaltomainbuilding.SincethenewauditoriumthelargestontheHUTcampusis
capable of accommodating 600 people, the construction project was named HUT600. The project started in
October2000withaninitialbudgetofabout5m.ConstructioncommencedinApril2001andwascompletedin
February2002(FischerandKam2002).
Because of the importance of the building, the requirements and expectations for the building design was
veryhigh.Theowner,SenateProperties,wantedtousethebestavailabledesign,analysisandevaluationmethods
and increased the challenges for the architect and engineers by making a decision to use interoperable product
modellingtechniquesintheproject.Theproject wasthefirstprojectintheworldusingIFCdatatransferinwide
scalebetweentheprojectparticipants.Inaddition,theownerdecidedtomakeapublic,internationalreportofthe
project.Thisexcellentreportrecordsallthedetailsoftheprocess,problemsandbenefits.Thus,Ipresenthereonly
themainactivitiesandsomeconclusions,exactlyastheyaredocumentedinFischerandKam(2002,5):
The HUT600 project team constructed and maintained objectoriented product models with
explicit knowledge of building components, spatial definitions, material composition, and other
parametric properties. Only with this product modelling approach could the team leverage the
object intelligence from the 3D models for data interoperability. These product modelling and
interoperabilityapproacheseliminatedtheinefficiencyandrisksofdatareentryinconventional
practice. The PM4D approach was crucial for generating reliable and quick cost estimates,
construction schedules, comfort designs, energy analyses, environmental reports, and lifecycle
cost studies. Furthermore, the approach allowed the project team to use visualisation tools to
review spatial designs in virtual walkthroughs, compare lighting schemes in photorealistic
renderings, and comprehend construction sequences in 4D animations, all leveraging the same
electronicdesigninformation..

MajorBenefits
During the early schematic phase, objectoriented modelling software and IFCs allowed the
projectteamto shortenthetimefordesigniteration,developareliablebudget foreffective cost
control,andeliminatetheneedtoreentergeometricdata,thermalvalues,andmaterialproperties
asdifferentdisciplinescontributedtothedesignprogress.Additionally,visualisationtoolssuchas
thephotorealisticrenderingsoftware,VirtualRealityExperimentalVirtualEnvironment(VR
EVE),fosteredearlycommunicationamongtheendusers,ownersandtheprojectteam,whothen
captured valuable inputs and effectively translated the clients intent into longterm values.
Building on the resulting efficiency and timesavings, the project team was able to conduct a
variety of indepth lifecycle studies and alternative comparisons on thermal performance,
operation costs, energy consumption, and environmental impacts. Compared to a conventional
approach, these relatively seamless data exchange and technology tools substantially expedited
design and improved the quality of interdisciplinary collaboration. The PM4D approach
empowered the building owners to better align the longterm facility values with their strategic
plans.
(Fischer&Kam2002,5)

MajorbarrierstoextendingPM4Dbenefits
Asdesired,mostPM4Dbenefitsoccurredduringtheearlydesignphase.EventhoughthePM4D
approach improved upon conventional practices in terms of design quality, project risks, and
lifecycle values, we encountered technological, cultural, and business barriers to extending the
benefits of PM4D approach. Project participants in the HUT600 project could have enjoyed
further benefits if product modelling tools supported revisionhandling, twoway exchanges,
simplermappingofdataformatsfromexportingtoimportingapplications,andifIFCcompliant

17

software tools were extensible and robust. Culturally, 4D technology could have introduced
additionalanalyticalbenefitsbeyonditscurrentutilisationifithadbeenconductedearlierduring
thepreconstructionphase.Theonlineprojectextranet(alsocalledprojectdatabankinthisreport),
if developed optimally, would have made information exchanges more efficient during the
construction documentationphase. Atthe same time, building owners and designers could have
exploitedbusinessopportunitiesforthearchitectsroleindevelopingandcoordinatingasharable
productmodel.
(Fischer&Kam2002,6)

Conclusionsandrecommendations
Based onexperiencesfromtheHUT600project,we[Fischer&Kam]concludethatthePM4D
approachhelpsexpediteconventionaldesignpracticesandpromotelifecycleapproaches.Project
examplesdemonstratethatownerscouldchooseamongcomprehensive lifecycle alternatives,end
users could provide input to the facility design in a timely manner, and project team members
could differentiate themselves from their competitors with higher efficiency, quality, and more
effectiveapplicationoftheirexpertise.Mostparticipantsinthisprojectweresurprisedbythelarge
numberofdesign,engineering,andanalysistasksthatcanbesupportedproductivelywithproduct
modelstoday.
ManysoftwaretoolswereabletoimportIFCbasedand/ornonIFCbasedproductmodels
for many different disciplines and diverse criteria. However, the exchange of product model
informationbasedonanopenstandardlikeIFCisnotyetasmatureandwidespreadasneededin
practice.OneshouldalsonotethattheuseofIFCbasedproductmodelsworkedquitewellinthe
schematic design phase of the project. However, in the later project phases, IFCbased product
modelswerenotaseffectiveameansasproprietaryinformationformatstoexchangedatabetween
softwaretools.Onthisproject,theIFCstandard1.5.1wasusedrecentlypublishedstandards2.0
and 2.x address some of the shortcomings of IFCbased product models found in this research.
One would also expect that some of the softwarebased limitationshave been ironed out by the
vendorsbynowTheproductmodellingandinformationstandardscommunityhaslongtouted
theadvantagesofsupportingthemanysoftwaretoolsusedonprojectswithacommoncoremodel.
However, we are still lacking a validated specification for the content of such a core model.
Therefore,oneofthespecificgoalsof theresearchwastostudywhethersuchacoremodelexists,
i.e.emergesthroughtheteamsexperienceinusingproductmodelstosharedata,andifitexists,
whattypeofinformationispartofthecoremodel.Theresearchshowsthatthebuildinggeometry,
material types, and space identifier (or ID) are part of a core model. On the other hand, the
architecthadtoexpendsignificantefforttoadjustthecoremodeltosupportthedifferentneeds
of the various disciplines. Furthermore, in additionto the 3D core model, there appears to exist
disciplinespecific models, such as the thermal model. To exploit the potential benefits of the
PM4D approach further, we recommend that researchers and software developers focus their
efforts on partial model exchanges, product model servers, better defining core versus
disciplinespecificproductmodels,anddevelopingmorereliableandextensibletools.
(Fischer&Kam2002,6)
ThemainresultoftheHUT600projectwasitsenormousimpactontheknowledgeofthepotentialandproblemsin
processesbasedoninteroperablesoftware.Theprojectwasproofofconceptinrealityandbecauseofthepublicity
of the report, both in Finland and internationally, it started a new phase in the Vera Programme. Although the
process exposed many technical problems and limitations in the IFC implementations and data exchange, it
convincedtheownerofthepotentialofthemodellingand thatitisworthcontinuingtotestthedifferentpossibilities
andoptionsinotherprojects.SinceHUT600,SenatePropertieshastestedtheuseofproductmodelsinmorethan
10projectscoveringdifferentphasesanddesigndomainsandiscurrentlyconsideringthetimeframewhentostart
demandingmodelsasapartoftheirstandardprocess.

THEUSEOFBUILDINGPRODUCTMODELSINFINLANDTODAY
ConfederationofFinnishconstructionIndustries
Whenalargeeffortends,theimmediatereactionisoftenthattheactivitiesinthatareastopatleastforamoment
before people can find a new platform on which to continue their work related to the issue. When the Vera
Programme endedinDecember2002,thiswasluckilynotthecase.TheFinnishindustryhadalready pickedupthe
balland continuedto carry it forward. Theleadingrole was taken by theConfederation of Finnish Construction

18

Industries(RT).TheresultsofseveralprojectsintheVeraProgramme,especiallyHUT600andsomeprojectsby
the large construction companies, such as YIT and Skanska, convinced RT about the benefits of modelling and
potential of interoperability. Thus they defined the development and deployment of product models and
interoperabilityasthekeyelementsoftheirnewtechnologystrategyinJanuary2002(RT)andstartedtoimplement
thestrategyimmediatelyintheProITdevelopmentproject(Figure3.1).

ProITProductmodeldatainconstructionprojects
The ProIT project developed the construction process and its procedures with a building product model concept
servingasacommonsourceofinformationforthevariouspartiesinvolvedintheprocess.Thescopeoftheproject
coveredmodellingtheproductmodelbasedprocessanditsdataexchange,compilingthedesignguidelinesneeded
inproductmodelling,andcreatingproductstructurelibraries.Theprojectwassupportedbythemembercompanies
of RT, performing piloting and testing with the help of real projects and products. The work was done in
cooperation with Tekes, designers, construction clients, consultants and other interest groups, and one result was
public,industrywideproductmodellingproceduresandguidelines.Thefollowingtextisalmostdirectly fromthe
samesource.
Figure3.1:ProITVisionoftheProductModelBasedDesignandConstructionProcess

(Source:ConfederationofFinnishConstructionIndustries2002,1)
When the ProIT project was launched in 2002, the Finnish construction industrys processes were highly
fragmented.Designinputdatawerefrequentlyinadequate,andtherewasnocommonlanguageamongthevarious
participants. It was difficult to check plans, and errors piled up at the worksite, causing unexpected costs and
schedulingproblems.Themaininvestmentdecisionsweremadepurelyonthebasisofconstructioncosts.Allthese
erodedthedevelopmentofconstructionproductivity.
Product modelling was seen as one solution to the problems and ProIT pilot projects have already shown
evidenceofsignificantimprovements.TheexperiencesfromfourProITpilotprojectsin2005havebeencollectedin
a report. The main advantages of modelling include the integration of plans and reduction of errors with clash
detection analysis, faster and more accurate quantity surveying and cost estimation, the clarity of 3D plans, and
generationofmarketingmaterialsanddrawingsdirectlyfromonesourcetheproductmodel.Newwaysofusing
modelsincludeprecastpaneldesignandindoorconditionsimulations.
OnethegoalsoftheProITprojectwastocreateacommonpracticeformodellinginFinlandandtoensure
thatproductmodelscouldbeusedfordesign,quantitysurveying,costestimating,andotherapplications.Forthese
purposes, specific product modelling guidelines were created for both architectural and structural design
(ConfederationofFinnishConstructionIndustries2006).

19

Another of the key goals of the ProIT project was to make data exchange more fluent. The data exchange
developmentwasbased ontheIFCstandard,withwhichalltheproductmodelsofthevariousdesignerscouldbe
linked together. During the project, there was an attempt to introduce information management through product
modelservers,butthiswasnotdone.However,thefeedbackfromthelatestproductmodelprojectsandnewsfrom
othercountriesindicatethattherehasrecentlybeensignificantprogressinapplyingtheIFCstandard.
The ProIT project also developed some product libraries with a standardised structure, presentation and
classification,whichenablereliableandeasyrecognitionofstructuresandcomponentsforquantitysurveyingand
cost estimating. However, there is still much work to be done on product libraries. In particular, only very few
companies have produced compliant libraries for individual products such as doors, windows and fittings. Other
important future development targets are quality of data exchange in software applications and improvements in
modellingcomplexdetailsandjointcomponents.Inaddition,productmodelserversarenotyetonthelevelwhich
couldbeusedinrealconstructionprojects.
The ProIT project was brought to its conclusion at the end of 2005, but its work continues through the
BuildingInformationFoundationsProITcommitteeaswellasinthecompanieswhichhaveadoptedmodellingas
theresultoftheProITproject.

VBEVirtualbuildingenvironments
In 2002 VTT, CIFE/Stanford University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) agreed on the
conceptofsocalledvirtualbuildingenvironments(VBE).Thebasicideaistoprovideacollaborationplatformfor
theresearch,development,implementationanddeploymentofbuildingproductmodeltechnologies.ThefirstVBE
effortinFinlandwasdoneasacollaborationprojectbetweenVTTandTampereUniversityofTechnology(TUT)in
parallelwiththeProITproject,anditcreatedaframeworkfordevelopmentofmethodstomeasurethebenefitsof
the use of interoperable models and data sharing, and identified some bottlenecks in the current processes and
technologies(Laitinenetal.2004).
InAugust2005VTTandTUTstartedthesecondphaseoftheVBEproject:VBE2togetherwith18leading
Finnishcompanies.
VBE2goals
1. Goals for the participating RECC companies are that the use of VBE methods will provide these clear
competitiveadvantages:
usefulmethodstoevaluatethepotentialbenefitsandmeasuretheachievedbenefitsoftheVBEmethods
clear understanding of the possibilities and problems of the existing and emerging VBE technologies
combinedtomakeadefinedstrategyofhowtoimplementnew technologies
advanceddecisionmakingsupportforbuildingprojectsandcompanyprocesses.
2. Goalsfortheparticipatingresearchorganisationswillshowsignificantresearchresults,andnewresearchareas
includethedevelopmentof:
methodstomeasureand benchmarkVBEbenefits
datatransferandsharingtechnologies
VBEbaseddecisionsupportmethodsandwaysofmeasuringtheirefficiency
modelbasedrealestateandfacilitymanagement processes.
3. Goalsforthe FinnishRECCaretoaffectthewholeindustryinFinlandby:
measurableevidenceoftheefficiencyoftheVBEmethods
establishingacriticalmassoforganisationsthatareabletouseVBEefficiently.
VBE2workpackages
WP1CompanyStrategiesandBenefits:
ThemainfocusofWP1isinthecompanystrategies:howtousetheVBEtechnologiestoachievecompetitive
advantage. WP1 will evaluate the stateoftheart of VBE tools and skills inthe participating companies, the
goals,andafeasiblewaytomovetowardsthosegoalswithmeasurablesteps.
WP2DataTransferTechnologies:
AcrucialpartofdevelopingVBEtechnologiesfurtheristomovefromIFCfileexchangetoshareddatausing
IFCmodelserversasstatedinthePM4D report.TheVBE2projectwilltestanddemonstratethepossibilitiesof
model server technology by developing some enduser application interfaces. One special element for the
iRoom(seenextsection)andothervisualisationpurposesisthedevelopmentofa3Dcomponent,whichcanbe
usedinclientapplicationsusingthespecifiedvisualinterfacetothedata.
WP3DecisionSupportTechnologies:
WP3focusesinusingdecisionsupporttechnologiesinRECCprocesses,andvalidatingtheirbenefits.Oneof
the main technologies will be iRoom, a multiscreen presentation technology enabling synchronisation of

20

presentationofdatafrommultiplesoftwareapplications,andthusprovidingmultiplesimultaneousviewstothe
complexprojectdata,andhelpingprojectparticipantstounderstandandcreateasharedviewoftheproblems
andsolutions.
WP4ModelbasedRE/FMBusinessProcesses
ThecurrentVBEtechnologiesarebasedontheIFCmodelspecification.Ithasnotbeenusedintherealestate
andfacilitymanagementbusinessprocessesinFinland.However,RE/FMusewouldbecrucialtocreatemarket
demand for the models from clients owning and operating the buildings. WP4 focuses on capturing these
processes and data needs for the models recognising RE/FM business cases, to demonstrate the possible
benefitsandpossibleneedsforextensionsofthecurrentIFCspecifications.
WP5InternationalActivities
InternationalcooperationhasstartedalreadyinthefirstphaseoftheVBEprojectthroughtheInternationalVBE
NetworkwithCIFEandLawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory.ThecollaborationhasexpandedwithCIFE
andCSIROintheInternationaliRoomnetwork.AdditionalcooperationhasbeenpreparedwiththeUniversity
of Salford (UK). The VBE2 project will continue, foster and expand the international VBE network, and
developinternationalmethodstobenchmark theVBEresults.
WP6VBEStrategyandCommunication
ThegoalsofWP6aretodeveloptheVBEstrategyincollaboration withtheSteeringCommitteeandallWP
leaders, to ensure sufficient and frequent communication between all project participants, and to ensure
sufficientpublicityoftheprojectresultsininternationalscientificforums.
WP7ProjectManagement
ThegoalofWP7istoensuresufficientcommunicationbetweentheSteeringCommitteeandallworkpackages,
andthattheprojectresultsfulfilthegoalssetintheprojectplan.
IngeneraltheVBE2projectsgoalistomakeamajorcontributionbytakingtheuseofVBEtechnologiestothe
nextlevelbychangingthecurrentprocessesandestablishingacriticalmassofFinnishorganisationsthatareableto
useVBEefficiently.

CONCLUSIONSHOWTOADOPTINNOVATION?
AtthebeginningoftheVeraProgramme,Tekessexpectationwasthattherealimpactswouldbevisible10years
aftertheprogram,whichshowsunusualfarsightednessandpatienceaswellasrealismitisnotusuallypossibleto
change an industry paradigm rapidly. In this perspective, the Vera Programme has surpassed expectations the
impacthasbeenmuchfasterandwiderthanmostpeopleexpected.Thecrucialquestionis,naturally,whatarethe
reasonsforthissuccess? justacoincidence?goodtiming?luck?Lookingatthesituationglobally,Idaretoclaim
thatitwasnotjustcoincidentalluck.Goodtiming,definitelythetimingconnectedtotheinternationalIAIeffortto
developinteroperablesoftwarewasoneofthekeyelementsinthesuccess.However,itwasnottheonlyreason.In
myopinion,thereareseveralkeyelementsbehindthechangewhichhashappenedandisstillhappeninginFinland.

Strengths
Longtermvision,focusedinvestmentindevelopmentandcriticalmass
Severalinternational studieshave proven that the Finnish innovation system has been among themost successful
platforms for technological development inthe world. Finlandhas changed from a country suffering from strong
recessionandunemploymentintheearly1990stoamost competitiveeconomy(LopezClaros2005),andisnow
oneoftheleadinghightechcountriesinthepastdecade.Tekescreatesthenationaltechnologystrategiestogether
withindustry,andthetechnologyprogramsenablelongterminvestmentsandacriticalmassofdevelopmentinboth
the public and private sectors. Especially in an area where development of several elements at the same time is
needed,criticalmassiscrucial.Ifonlyafewcompaniesdeveloptheirproducts,thechangeisnotonlyslow,itcan
betotallyimpossibleforthosecompaniestosurviveunlessthedemandandsupplyaredevelopedatthesametime.
Modellingandinteroperabledatasharingarenotonlytechnologicalstepstheyalsorequireprocessandbusiness
development.
Willingnesstocollaboratecombinedwithasmallmarket
Finlandisstillacountrywheretrustandcollaborationareeasilyestablished.Competitors,suchascontractors,can
agreeaboutcollaborationindevelopingatechnologyplatformwhichserveseveryone,andstillcompeteinhowto
usethatplatformintheirinternalprocesses.Agreeingaboutastandardcreatesnewmarketpossibilities.Aclassical

21

exampleistheearlyNordicMobilTelephone(NMT)system.Itcreatedanearlymarketformobilephonesin the
Nordic countries in the early 1980s and created the basis for Nokias success with global mobile phone systems.
Something similar, although on a much smaller scale, has happened in Finland with the early RATAS product
modeldevelopmentwhichcreatedthebasisforadoptionofIFCs.Thesmallmarketmakesthecollaborationeasy,
agileandfunctioningonecancollectallopinionleadersaroundonetable,agreewhattodoandtrustthateveryone
actsaccordingly.Ingeneral,thisandthewidecommitmentandwillingnessoftheFinnishRECChasbeenthemain
reasonforthesuccessfulimplementationanddeploymentofbuildinginformationmodelsinFinland.
Educationandinterestintechnology
AccordingtoPISAresearch(PISA2003)FinnswereamongtheOECDstopinmathematical,scienceandreading
literacy andin problemsolving. PISA measureshow wellyoung people have mastered important knowledge and
skills needed in future society, in the changing labour market and in quality adult life, rather than learning
attainment in terms of the school curriculum. This reflects on the society people accept and adopt the changes
relativelyeasilyandarealsointerestedintechnology,whichmeansthatresistancetochangeislowerthaninmany
othercountries.
Internationalcollaborationandcommunication
ThelessonsfromearlyRATASprojectsprovedthatFinlandistoosmalltodevelopanysoftwareproductsforlocal
marketsonly,evenlessourownstandards.Internationalcollaborationindevelopingindustrypractices,regardlessof
thedomain,isacrucialelementforsuccessfulresearchanddevelopment.
AnothercrucialelementiscommunicationduringR&Dactivities.Thetraditionalwaytocommunicatewith
thelargerindustryaudienceinFinnishtechnologyprogramshasbeentheannualseminarpresentingtheresultsof
thepastyear.BasedontheexperiencesoftheVeraProgramme,thismightnotbethebestmethodindustryisnot
necessarilyinterestedintheprogramitselfbutratherinsomespecificareaoftheprogram,suchas(inVerascase)
software development, architectural design, eCommerce, construction process or FM activities. In addition, the
contentof oneseminarisverylimitedandtimebetweenyearly seminarsistoolongforefficientcommunication.
Thus,IchangedthepracticeintheVeraProgrammeandarrangedseveralseminarsonspecificthemeseveryyear
instead of having six general seminars during the whole program, we had 28 specialised seminars, on average
almost five seminars per year, each having 100200 participants. This was obviously one of the reasons for the
programs success, according to the final Vera Programme evaluation report: Most of the people interviewed
mentionedtheseseminarsasbeinghighlybeneficialasoneoftheirprimarysourcesofinformationabouttherelated
technologies(Froese2002,17).
The importance of the success stories in a technology program cannot be overstated. Very few companies
wanttobethe guineapigs,thefirstoneswhotrysomethingnew.Mostcompaniesarecautiousandstandbackand
wait for the results. Only the published success of their competitors can generate their interest to join and start
implementingsimilarprocessesandtools.Envyandfeararepowerfuldriversinthebusinessworld.
One important part of communication is the active role of the program manager. As Finnish technology
programs consist of projects initiated by individual companies, universities and research institutes, the program
managerhastobeablenotonlytoselectsuitableprojectsforfunding,butalsotoactivateandsteerpotentialideas
into projects which can contribute towards program goals. This was another strength identified in the Vera
Programmeevaluationreport(Froese2002,16).AlaterevaluationoftheVeraProgramme,inthecontextofother
RECCtechnologyprograms,alsosupportsProfessorFroeses(2002)findings:
In the larger evaluation framework of this study, Froeses main findings concerning the Vera
technology programme are supported by data derived from the questionnaires regarding the
thirteen technology programmes in the field of real estate and construction. Almost without
exception,Verawasconsideredtobeamongthemostsuccessfultechnologyprogrammescarried
outinthecluster.
(Uusikyletal.2003,24)

Potentialproblems,weaknessesandfuturechallenges
IftheFinnishinnovationenvironmentissogreat,howcomealltechnologyprogramsarenotsuccessful?Onereason
is that it is not easy to combine all the above elements a platform for international collaboration is not always
available, the timing can be wrong, and communication is a demanding effort.If the message does not reach the
industry well enough, the critical mass will be missing and the impact of the program can be a lot weaker than
expected.
IntheadoptionofICTforRECConeofthebigproblemsisthelackofspecificeducationfornewtoolsand
processes.AlthoughtheaverageeducationlevelinFinlandishigh,theeducationofarchitectsandengineersinthe
universities is not based on current or future modelling techniques, but mainly on traditional drafting. This has
createdastrange,reversesituation,whereresearchandcompaniesinFinlandaregloballyontheleadingedge,but
educationlagsbehind.Correctingthissituationwillbeoneofourmainchallengesinthenearfuture.

22

Hereisthefinalevaluationoftheresultsofthe Vera Programme statedin2003:


However, according to the interviews carried out in the context of this study, more emphasis
should be put on the concern that as the international pioneering work undertaken in the Vera
technologyprogrammehasalreadyopened,andwillcontinuetoopen,severalglobalopportunities
andnewstrategicdirectionsinthefurtherdevelopmentwithinthecluster,thepresentabilityand
mental readiness touse the tools developed is limited, taking into consideration the fragmented
natureoftheFinnishclusteroverall.Moreover,theedgenowachievedinR&Dishardtomaintain
in the increasingly competitive global market. Thus, the requirements for efficient
commercialisationandinternationalmarketingaretough.
(Uusikyletal.2003,24)
The results of the ProIT project in 2005 and ongoing work in Finland clearly challenge the first statement about
ability and readiness in Finland. However, the second statement about the difficulty of maintaining the leading
positionandtoachieveastrongpositionontheinternationalmarketisstillabsolutelyvalidandmaybeevenmore
challengingthanthedomesticeducation.

REFERENCES
Bjrk,B.1994.TheRATASproject:developinganinfrastructure forcomputerintegratedconstruction. Journalof
ComputinginCivilEngineering,8(4):401419.
ConfederationofFinnishConstructionIndustries.2002. ProductModelDataintheConstructionProcess.Finland:
ConfederationofFinnishConstructionIndustries.
ConfederationofFinnishConstructionIndustries.2006. ProITNews,January2006.Finland:Confederationof
FinnishConstructionIndustries.
FinnishRealEstate andConstructionCluster.2002. ConstructionIndustryTechnologyStrategy.Helsinki:Finnish
RealEstateandConstructionCluster.
Fischer,M.andC.Kam.2002. PM4DFinalReport:CIFEtechnicalreportnumber143.Stanford,USA,Centerfor
Integrated FacilityEngineering.
Froese,T.2002. FinalProgrammeEvaluationReport,Vera:Informationnetworkingintheconstructionprocess:A
Tekestechnologyprogramme.Vancouver:UniversityofBritishColumbia.
Kiviniemi,A.,M.LautanalaandK.Kaitainen.1997.VERA:Informationnetworkingintheconstructionprocess.
CIBConferenceProceedings,Cairns,911July.
Laitinen,J.,K.KhknenandS.Fox.Virtualbuildingenvironments,researchanddevelopment project12003
2004,FinalReport.
LopezClaros,A.2005.Executivesummary.GlobalCompetitivenessReport20052006:Policies underpinning
risingprosperity,eds.A.LopezClaros,M.PorterandK.Schwab.,viiixxvii.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
PISA2003.ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment. http://www.jyu.fi/ktl/pisa/base.htm (accessed9May
2006).
Tekes.2002. Vera:ProgrammeDescription. http://cic.vtt.fi/vera/english.htm (accessed24May2006).
Tekes.2005. WhatareTechnologyProgrammes? http://www.tekes.fi/english/programmes/what/what.html
(accessed8May2006).
Uusikyl,P.,V.Valovirta,R.Karinen,E.AbelandT.Froese.2003.Towardsacompetitivecluster:anevaluationof
realestateandconstructionclustertechnologyprogrammes.Finland:Tekes.
VeraProjects.2006. http://cic.vtt.fi/vera/Projects/projects.htm (accessed8May 2006).

23

Part2
MeetingClientsNeeds

24

CHAPTER4

IndustrialisingResidentialConstruction
forSmalltoMediumSizeUSHome
Builders
ThomasMills
RonWakefield
MichaelOBrien
USRESIDENTIALCONSTRUCTION
TheUSDepartmentofHousingandDevelopment(HUD)ischargedwiththeoverallgoalsofincreasingUShome
ownership, supporting community development, and increasing access to affordable housing free from
discrimination.Thisisahugechargeimpactedbyanindustrythatin2005willputover $US621bn ofresidential
constructioninto place. Accordingto the US Census Bureau (2005)approximately 95% or 1.5mresidential units
willbesitebuilt.Thisfromahomebuildingindustrythatessentiallybuildshomesinthesamemannerasitdid175
years ago. Within the US homebuilding industry, small (<20 homes/year) and mediumsized builders (<100
homes/year)accountforapproximately60%ofallnew singlefamily USstarts(Rappaport& Cole 2000).Therefore
anyindustrybreakthroughsthataretransferredtosmallandmediumsizebuilderswillimpactamajorityofhousing
startsandsubsequentalargerpercentageofhomeowners.
Traditionally, residential construction relies on new product innovations to advance any performance
breakthroughs. This is approached conservatively while the efforts to incorporate higherlevel manufacturing
processesintohomebuildingareallbutnonexistent.TothisendtheUSgovernmentthroughHUDhasinitiateda
significantresearch effort involving a publicprivate Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH),
which is dedicated to accelerating the development and use of technologies that radically improve the quality,
durability, energy efficiency, environmental performance, and affordability of America's housing PATH (2005),
withamajorgoaltotransfercurrenthousingresearchtoindustry.
TowardthiseffortcurrentHUD/PATHresearchisdirectedatfindingtransfermechanismstocommercialise
ortransferpreviouslycompletedresearch.Thischapterisbasedon HUD/PATHs IndustrializingtheResidential
ConstructionSite,PhasesI,II,andIIIandexploresthecontentandtechniquestotransferpreviousresearchonthe
enterprisewideindustrialisationofresidentialconstructionintousefulapplication.Otherprominentresearchefforts
that HUD/PATH has engaged in are Tech Transfer Plus, Commercialization Tools for Manufacturers, and
DiffusionofInnovation(PATH2005).Theseprojectshavethesameaimoftransferringhomebuildingresearchto
homebuilders.

HUD/PATHresearchenvironment
PATHwaslaunchedin1998withaspecificobjectivetoacceleratetheadoptionofinnovativehousingtechnologies.
PATH (2005) promotes innovation through key strategies of identifying and reducing barriers that impede
innovation, disseminatinginformationtospeedthedevelopmentandadoption, andbyencouragingbroaderdiffusion
of innovations. Within the PATH website are numerous research reports that address innovative technologies,
processes, and techniques. One of HUDs funded research projects Industrializing the Residential Construction
Site(HUD2000)hasresultedinexaminingthehomebuildingindustryfromanonproductbasedindustrialisation
approach to an approach that identifies process redefinition as the key to effecting industrialisation of the whole
homebuildingindustry.

IndustrialisingUSresidentialconstruction
In this work the emphasis on industrialisation as an innovative residential construction process modifier is
purposefullytargetedattheevolutionandinterfaceofcurrentoffice/fieldpractices.Theintentistogainefficiencies
and reduce errors through more intentional process designs that focus on optimising productivity of the whole
process rather than on discrete subcontracts. The authors propose that for the industrialisation of residential
constructiontooccurtheindustrymusttranslateandeventuateintocurrentresidentialconstructiontheconceptsof
contemporary manufacturing. Among these are process design, product design for manufacturing and assembly,
workflowmanagementstrategies,andupstream/downstreamprocurementcontrolmethods.Itisfurtherbelievedthat

25

the housing industry will gain efficiencies in work methods, reduce errors in construction, address trade skill
shortages, reduce housing costs, and optimise productivity by industrialising current residential construction
processesandsystems.
Singlefamilyresidential construction has historically been the product of a craftbased production system
andhas matured into a subcontract management process, devoid of significant craftsmanship, or added builder
value.Thecontemporaryfocusonconstructionimprovementappearstotargetmanagement techniques, forexample,
flexible contracting (subcontracting) and computerised project scheduling in lieu of production management
techniques associated with manufacturing. Christofferson (1999) notes that a staffer with the US National
AssociationofHomeBuildersestimatestheretobeapproximately29,000itemstoaccountforduringconstruction
of a new home. Therefore reaching HUD/PATHs goals to accelerate the adoption of innovation will onlyoccur
when the number of parts to design, engineer, procure, assemble, and construct are transformed into systematic
flowsthroughanindustrialisedprocesses,akintointegratedmanufacturing.Thishasbeenthechargewithmuchof
HUDstechnologyresearchandthustheagencyscurrenteffortstotransferresearchknowledgeintopractice.
Characteristics of residential construction such as fragmented subcontracting reduces a builders risks but
results in a loss of systems integration and overall process efficiency thusresulting in increased production error,
low efficiency, and poor quality (HUD 2000, 39). This is evidenced by the lack of integrated designs for major
subsystems,thatis,structural,HVAC,electrical,andplumbingsystems.Thislackofintegrationfrequentlyresults
inatangledmessofsubsystemsaffectingoverallhousingperformanceandaffordability.Previousresearchreveals
thatindustrialisingresidentialconstructionisbestservedthroughfullsystemsintegrationthataccommodatesfour
areas of integration: physical integration, performance integration, operations integration, and production
integration.Informationintegrationisafifthformofintegrationandisconsideredtheumbrellaformofintegration
andisnecessarytoactuallyachievethesediscreteformsofintegration(HUD2000,40).
Research indicates that information integration offers the greatest transferable opportunities to improve
overallproductivity,quality,andcosteffectivenessinhomebuilding.(HUD2000).Thecurrentresearchquestions,
at hand, are: how to develop a transfer mechanism? and what forms can a transfer guide take that offers an
understandableandusabletransferopportunityforsmallandmediumsizehomebuilders?

RESEARCHSTRATEGYANDFINDINGS
Researchiscurrentlyinprogresstowarddevelopingatransferguidethatusespastresearcheffortsandappliesthose
resultsinaformthatissimpleandusableforassistingsmallandmediumbuildersintheiracquisitionandexpansion
of industrialised processes and techniques that optimise performance, production, operations, and physical
integration.Thetransferguidephaseoftheprojectisanoutgrowthofthepreviousresearchandistheefforttoget
theresearchresultstothehomebuilder.Thediscussionsthatfollowexplorethestrategyandfindingsfortheoriginal
researchinadditiontothestrategyfordevelopmentofthetransferguide.

Datacollectionandfindings
Data collection is being accomplished through an advisory board of builders that participates in the research by
allowing access to field sites, office practices and management techniques, including design, engineering,
procurement, and operations. The advisory boardhas been composed of a crosssection of small, medium,large,
modular, and production homebuilders, prime contractors, speciality contractors, component manufacturers,
designers,engineers,andresearchconsultants.Uponpostulatingthestrategyofindustrialisationasatranslation
fortransformation,areview oftheliteraturewasconducted,theninterviewsandobservationswereusedtogather
dataforcompilation,mapping,andanalysis.
Theliteratureandinterviewsresultedincasestudiesthatevidencedmanufacturerswhoadoptedinformation
integration applications including justintime (JIT) supply chain management, manufacturing resource planning
(MRP, MRPII), enterpriseresource planning (ERP), objectoriented CAD (OOCAD), and design for manufacture
and assembly (DFMA) have experienced productivity and quality gains due to their highly integrated design,
production,andprocurementsystems.Coupledwiththeliteraturesearchadatacollectionprocesswasimplemented
that allowed detailed process maps to be produced depicting various work/information/production flows for the
differenttypesofbuilders(HUD2000,69).
Analysisintimatedthatvariousimplementationprioritiesforindustrialisationtransferencetovariousvolume
sizebuildersareappropriate.Asummaryoftheseproposedimplementationprioritiesfollows.

26

Characterisationandindustralisationopportunitiesforsmallvolumeresidential
builders
Smallvolume homebuilders are characterised, by HUD (2000, 62), as building fewer than 20 homes per year.
Rappaportand Cole(2000) characterises small builders as building fewer than 25homes and in 1997 this group
accountedfor39%ofallsinglefamily homebuildingstarts.Smallbuildersalsotypicallyemployfourorlesspeople.
ThiscategorymakesupasignificantportionoftheUSresidentialconstructionindustry.Duetotheirsmallvolume
these buildershavelimitedoperatingfinanceandcapitalsupportandextensiveindustrialisation technologiesmay
requirecapitalinvestmentthatisbeyondtheircapacity(HUD2000,63).Thesebuildersalsolackthesupplychain
influencethatcanforceachangeinthewaytheycurrentlyoperate,andthustheadoptionofindustrialtechnologies
islikelytobedrivenbytheirsuppliers,and/ordistributorswhowishtobroadentheirmarkets.
Manysmallvolumebuildersaresmallenough,typically fourorlessemployees,thatthebuilderpersonally
performs many information management building tasks. In many instances, the builder is responsible for design,
either through purchasing or provided by the client, direct product and material procurement, project scheduling,
subcontractor coordination, and job site supervision and they arrange for permits and inspections, deal with the
home owners,andinteract with banksand owners on financing,andmay also do basic job cost accounting. This
effortengagesthesmallvolumehomebuilderatahighlypersonallevel.Althoughcapitalinvestmentsmayneedto
beaddressedbyexternalsources,theimplementationprioritiesidentifiedbythepreviousresearchincludethe:
developmentofprocurement/productionschedulingsystemstoimproveworkflow
introductionandimplementationofobjectorientedCADsystemsthatallowprocesslinkagesfromorder,
design,engineering,procurement,throughproduction.
(HUD2000,64)

Characterisationandindustralisationopportunitiesformediumvolume
residentialbuilders
Mediumvolumebuildersaretypicallycharacterisedasregionalbuilderswithanannualvolumeof25100homes
per year. These builders are in a better position than smallvolume builders to respond to the challenges of
industrialisation.Theircapitalinvestment,systems,andtrainingareatahigherlevelthanasmallbuilderandthey
are likely to have supply chain influence. Many builders in this category have begun explorations into
industrialisationthroughwallpanelisationandhigherlevelprocurement,scheduling,andaccount/costcontroltools
(HUD2000,64).
Although accounting and cost control tools are in use their extension to include preconstruction activities
still lacks maturity. Providers of integrated information systems have begun offering linked accounting and
procurementsystemsinawebbasedformat.Thisintegrationshouldoffermediumsizedbuildersanopportunityto
industrialise some of their betterdeveloped operations management techniques. HUD (2000, 65) reports that the
missing link for mediumsized homebuilders are systems tools, for design, production simulation modelling, and
fieldconstructioninformationnecessarytoformanenterpriseresourceplanning(ERP)solution.Thusformedium
sizedbuilderswhoconstructfrom25100homesandupwardsto200homesperyeartheimplementationpriorities
are:
introduction of OOCAD systems linked to purchasing and accounting systems that provide integrated
informationERPforcustomers,suppliers,materialspurchasers,subcontractors,payments,andinspections
theuseofsupplychaininfluenceandERPtomovetoJITprocurement
developmentofintegratedinformationsystemsforresourcemanagement,scheduling,andconstructionprogress
reporting
developmentoffieldstafftoolsforonsite useoftheinformationsystems
access production modelling and simulation systems for further refinement of existing field processes,
developmentandanalysisofnewprocesses.

Characterisation and industralisation opportunities for largevolume residential


builders
Thesebuildersarecharacterisedasgiantsandtypically buildover200homesperyear.Theyexertconsiderable
supplychaininfluence,usenationalsupplycontracts,andmaintainsophisticatedinformationmanagementsystems
atboththenationalandregionallevelsthatintegratefinance,procurement,sales,andmarketing.Althoughthereis
sophisticationinaccountingandprocurementthereappearsto belittledifferenceinthesiteconstructionmethods
usedbythissectorandthe mediumsizedbuilder.Jobsiteorderingandproductionschedulingaretypicallydoneby
afieldsuperintendent,whoisresponsiblefortheconstructionof1020housesannually.WhileCADsystemsare
usedinthedesign,verylittleuseismadeofOOCADorbuildinginformationmodelling(BIM)softwaretoinitiate
anintegratedworkflowinscheduling,engineering,procurement,andproduction.Feedbacktoandfromthefieldis
considered a significant obstacle to further industrialisation of the process. According to HUD (2000)
implementationprioritiesforhighvolumebuildersinclude:

27

transformingthecurrentuseofCADtoan OOCADorBIMfocusedsystemtoengageresourcemanagement,
scheduling, ordering, and supervision information and link it to the companys existing purchasing and
accountingsystemsforanintegratedERP
developing toolsforfieldstafftoenable onsite useupdatingoftheintegratedERP
usingdesignformanufactureandassembly(DFMA)andotherproductionmodelling,analysisandsimulation
systemstofurtherrefine existingfieldprocesses.

DISCUSSION
Tooles (1998, 330) analysis of over 100 homebuilders revealed that homebuilders perceive technological
innovationsasariskthatisreduciblebygatheringandprocessinginformationabouttheinnovations.Theobjective
of the transfer guide is to assist in pointing toward effective innovations and encourage their adoption. Other
research also reveals that adopters of high and lowuncertainty nondiffused innovations consult more external
sources of information during their adoption process. The Center for Housing Research, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University and NAHB Research Center (2004) reports that the types of singlefamily
homebuilding firms most likely to be early adopters of product innovations were likely to have a technology
advocate within the building firm, use technology transfer programs like PATH, and rely on established
manufacturers standing behind their building and construction products. These findings are useful for identifying
additional strategies, such as applying focus areas for adopters to explore and gaining needed knowledge and
applicabilityofchampionstoenhanceandpromotetheopportunitiesfortransfer.
HUD(2001)focusesoninformationflows,linkages,filtering,andtheirimpactsonerrorsanddisconnectsin
theresidentialconstructionworkprocesses.Theselinkagesprovidethegreatestopportunity forapplyinginterface
managementtechniquestoimproveproductionflows.AdditionallyHUDsrecognitionoftheinherentdifferencesin
thefocusofofficebased(processoriented)vs.fieldbased(actionoriented)activitiesoffersinsightintotheuseof
information integration as the key to transforming current homebuilding practices. From the HUD research, the
domainsandlinkagesthatofferadvancementofindustrialisationintheofficetofieldtransformationsare:
Salestodesigntoproduction: Thisisanimportantlinkageasitallowsrealtimedecisionmakingforuptodate
scheduling,procurement andproductselection.
Productiontodesign/engineering:Thisworkstoeliminatetheerrorsindrawingsordesignsthatunderminethe
beliefintheaccuracy,currency,andcompletenessoftheinformationpresented.
Customer service to design to production: This linkage reinforces the feedback mechanisms that allow early
detectionofpoorlyperforminginnovations.
The transfer guide research is concentrated less in fieldtooffice linkages and more on overall enterprisewide
linkageswithinthedomainsofdesign,engineering,procurement,andproduction.Itisthesedomainsofinfluence
that appear to offer the more effective integrative aspects for transformation from a craftbased sitedetermined
enterprisetoanintegratedindustrialisedprocess.

TRANSFERGUIDEDEVELOPMENT
Builderadvisoryboard
Arepresentative crosssectionofsmall,medium,andlargebuilderswereapproachedtoassistinthetransferguides
development.Fivebuildersagreedtoparticipateinthedevelopmentandrealisationofthetransferguide.Builders1
and2aresmallvolume(510homes/year)semicustombuilders.Theirproductdesignisprovidedthroughstockor
ownerfurnishedhouseplanswithfrequentoneoffminormodifications,includingsiteadaptationssubcontractedto
localarchitects.Allotherworkissubcontractedtoaselectgroupofcontractorswithprocurementandsupervision
providedbythebuilder.
Builder 3 is a mediumvolume (4060 homes/year) custom/semicustom/speculative builder. Builder 3
maintains a land acquisition, development, and homebuilding enterprise and custom designs each home in
consultation with theclient. Supervision is performed inhouse. Framinghasrecently been subcontracted out and
efforts are underway to transition to purchasing prefabricated open and closed wall panels and subcontracting
labour.
Builder4isalargevolume(700homes/year)productionbuilderandasubsidiaryofaninternationalbuilding
materialssupplier,yetisnotconsideredagiant.Builder4providesinhousearchitecturalservicesandofferspre
designedsinglefamilydetachedhouseandtownhouseplans withcustomisableoptions,soldthroughonsitesales
models.Thecompany ownsandoperatesitsownwood wallpanelmanufacturingplant.Thisfacilityisintegrated
withintheupstreamdesignenvironmentwithwallpanelproducedattheplantusedinallhomeproduction.Allof
the onsite productionissubcontracted.Outsidematerialsuppliersareusedinconjunctionwiththebuilders(parent
companys)availableresourcechain.

28

Builder 5 is a mediumvolume (200 homes/year) production builder. Builder 5 operates differently than most
production builders in that they operate as a smallvolume decentralised builder network within their own larger
organisation.Thesesmallerentitiesarerunbythe areabuilder likeaseparatecompanywithinthelargercompany.
AsaresultthesupplychainforBuilder5hasbroadenedandtheproductstandardisationvariesfromoneBuilder5
area builder to another. Design is provided inhouse from a series of model plans and all construction work
excludingareabuildersupervisionissubcontracted.

Transferguidedevelopmentstrategy
To successfully design and develop an industrialisation transfer guide for use by small and mediumsized
homebuildersitsessentialthateachbuilderscurrentstateofindustrialisationbeassessed.Theresearchiscurrently
focusedatthislevelwithdevelopmentofasimpleuserappliedassessmenttool.Oncetheuserestablishesalevelof
industrialisationtheintentistoallowthetransferguideto providefocusareastoselfdirectresourcestoreachan
envisioned objective. To validate the guides effectiveness the builder advisory board will assist in testing the
transfer guide throughout its development. In strategising a transfer guide several objectives are essential for
effectiveness. It was determined that the objectives stated below are fundamental for development of an effective
transferguide:
A measurable consistency in categorising the maturity level of builder industrialisation. This allows for
identificationofcurrentstatusandtransferopportunities.
Identifiableworkflowdomainsconsistentwithpreviousresearch.Thesearedesign,engineering,procurement,
andproduction.
Identification of industrialisation criteria for use in assessment and transfer. These are operations, tools,
techniques,methods.
Measuresdependenciesandlinkages.
Discussabletransfertechniques.

TRANSFERGUIDEFOCUS
It is understood that a complete feedback loop incorporating linkages from the purchasing client to a satisfied
homeownerandbackisessential toaholisticapproachyetitremainsoutsidethedefinedscopeoftheresearch.Thus
thetechniqueforcompilingandimplementingtheguidehasbeentocreateahierarchicalmatrixforselfassessment
thatestablishesatthehighestlevel,theexpandedworkingdomains,andthengranulateseachdomainintocategories
withfurtherrefinementsbyincorporatingoperationalprocess/productmethodscriteriathatsupportvaryinglevelsof
domainintegration.SeeFigure4.1andTable4.1forfurtherinsight.
Withineachdomainareassigneddegreesofindustrialisationfromlowtohighcharacterisedasacquiring,
advancing, and achieving. A series of questions are posed to the transfer guide user and an assessment is
calculated based on theresponses. The questions are focused within each domainandare developed to assess an
establishedlevelofindustrialisationwithineachdomain.Thequestionsfocusonoperations,tools,techniques,and
methods.Acommonfourquadrantgridismappedexpandingfromthecentreintoeachofthefourdomains.Within
each domainproposed degrees of industrialisation are also set radiating away from the centre. The quadrants are
dividedbyhorizontalandverticalaxesthatarefocusedasabovetheline,scopedefinitionwhile belowtheline
isresourceutilisation.AbovethelinearetheDesign(D)andEngineering(E)domainsthatinitiateandimplement
scopedeterminants.Belowthelineappliestovendor/suppliers resourcerelationshipsintheProcurement(P)domain
and subcontracting resource relationships in the Production (O) domain. These involve the initiation and
implementation of resources. The vertical axis also creates a sliding scale for measuring industrialisation as
functionsof totherightoftheline as initiating andtotheleftoftheline asimplementing.

29

Figure4.1: TheShadedPolygonShowstheIdentifiedLevelofIndustrialisation

Figure4.1showsanoverlayforauserwho hasestablishedanadvancinglevelofDesign(D)andEngineering(E)
yethasnotextendedthissamelevelofindustrialisationtoProduction(O)orProcurement(P).Fromaquickvisual
analysisofFigure4.1ausercansurmisethattheorganisationbeingassessedisadvancingdesignandengineering
industrialisation yet hasnt expanded the linkages into the domains of Production and Procurement for their
advancement. This particular example would allow discussions and points of reference for users and potential
transferees to explore initiating their resource relationships with suppliers to capitalise on design linkages while
implementingthesesamepotentialstosubcontractorresources,allwiththeintentofexpanding.Additionallyitis
believedthatbuilderscansharethistransferguidewithsubcontractorsandsuppliersto,ineffect,measuretheirown
levelsofindustrialisationandthushelpextendtheoverallenterprise.
Once a baseline understanding is developed, additional dialogue can expand the users understanding of
acquiring,advancing, andachievingindustrialisation of the residential constructionprocess. The transfer guide is
intendedtocontinuewithinsightfulapproachesforcrosscategorylinkages,suchasprocurementtodesign,design
to production, and production to procurement. These are currently being explored and represented by a linked
investmentclassificationdomainthatinturncreatesaninvestmentfocusandleadstowardaddressingspecificlinks
that can be used to support transfer from an acquiring state to an advancing or achieving state within the
builderstargeteddomains.
Itisintendedthatabuildercanusethetransferguidetoadjustorganisationalfocusondomainspecificareas
ofinvestmentinordertomeetspecificinternalobjectives.Thus,ifthedesireistoincreasethroughput,andtheguide
recognises that procurement is a bottleneck, the builder can focus resources and investment in the procurement
domain.Table4.1showsonepotentialexampleofapartialanalysisderivedwithinaportionofthedesigndomain
withdesiredlinkagestoProcurement.
In this example the builders standard operational procedure for preparing design documentation is to use
traditional3DCAD.Thebuilderidentifiesthislevelasadvancing andassuchisreadytomovethedesignprocess
toahigherdegreeofindustrialisationthroughinvestinginadditionaldesignsoftware.Simultaneously,thebuilder
wouldliketoadvancevendorcoordinationandalsopositivelyimpacttheProcurementdomain.Fromthisanalysis
thebuilderisalsoabletoidentifyresourcesthatareavailableforgatheringmoreinformationandknowledgewith
the intent of advancing the overall enterprise. This is consistent with Tooles (1998) and theCenter for Housing
Research, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and NAHB Research Centers (2004) findings that
riskaverse buildersaremorelikelytoadoptinnovationafterdoingresearch.

30

Table4.1:ExampleofaPortionofIndustrialisationFocusMatrix
Domain

Operational
criteria

Method

Currentdegree
Acq

Production
implementation
Documentation

Design

Vendor/supplier
coordination

2D
CAD
3D

Adv

Investment
linkage

Investmentfocus

Resource

Designsoftware

A/E,software
vendor

Designsoftware,
procurement

ERP,material
supplier,BOM

Ach

OOCAD

BIM

X
X

CONCLUSION
Thisresearchisstillunderwayanddeliveryofthefinaltransferguideisstillpending.Whathasbeenidentifiedis
thatresidentialconstructionbuildersandclientsintheUSaremovingbeyondarchaicprocessesandareworkingto
acceptnewknowledgeandtowardthatendfocusacademicresearchongettingthisnewknowledgetoitsclients.In
this particular instance, that is, the US homebuilding industry. This is being engaged through development of an
IndustrialisationTransferGuideforSmallandMediumVolumeHomebuilders.
Theproposedcomponentsofthistransferguideadvancedinthetextare a:
1. selfassessmentcomponentforgaugingthedegreeofacompanysindustrialisations
2. methodology for simple interpretation and workable fluency for establishing the advancement of
industrialisationinresidentialconstruction
3. focusmatrixthatgivesusersinsighttoinvestmentstrategiesastheyadvancetowardandachievehigherlevels
ofindustrialisation
4. pocket handbook that can be used to comprehend industrialisation characteristics andreinforce strategies for
advancement.
The development of a transfer guide for industrialisation of residential construction can take many forms but the
fundamentals are that the integration of design, engineering, procurement, and production through information
exchanges and linkages will lead to enhanced optimisation of the processes, enable increased throughput, and
increaseaffordabilitywhileraisingquality.

REFERENCES
CenterforHousingResearch,VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversityandNAHBResearchCenter2004.
TheDiffusionofInnovationintheResidentialBuildingIndustry.Washington:OfficeofPolicy Developmentand
Research,USDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment.
Christofferson, J.1999.Managingspecificationinformationflowthroughtheresidentialconstructionprocess.
JournalofConstructionEducation,4(1):6982.
http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html (accessed19October2005).
OBrien,M.,R.WakefieldandY.Beliveau.2000.IndustrializingtheResidentialConstructionSite.Washington:
USDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment.
PartnershipforAdvancingTechnologyinHousing.2005.PATHSponsoredBASFHomeDemonstratesAffordable
GreenBuildingPractices. http://www.pathnet.org/ (accessed19October2005).
Rappaport,B.andT.Cole.2000. 1997EconomicCensus:Constructionseriesspecialstudyhousingstartsstatistics:
Aprofileofthehomebuildingindustry. Washington:USCensusBureau.
Toole,T.1998.Uncertaintyandhomebuildersadoptionoftechnologicalinnovations. JournalofConstruction
EngineeringandManagement, 124(4):323332.
USCensusBureau.2005.ConstructionSpendingMarch2006:Constructionataglance.
Wakefield,R.,M.OBrienandY.Beliveau.2001.IndustrializingtheResidentialConstructionSite:PhaseII
informationmapping.Washington:USDepartmentofHousing andUrbanDevelopment.

31

CHAPTER5

EnsuringValueforMoney:
AValueManagementApproachto
ManageMultipleStakeholders
intheBriefingProcess
GeoffreyShen
INTRODUCTION
Briefing (also known as architectural programming in the USA) is the process of identifying and defining the
requirements of the client organisation in the earlydesign stage of a construction project, through which clients
inform others of their needs, aspirations, and desires for a project (Construction Industry Board (CIB) 1997). A
brief is the document that defines client requirements for a facility. Defining client requirements and
communicatingthemtootherstakeholders is crucialtothesuccessful deliveryofaproject(OReilly1987).Briefing
is a complex and dynamic process involving frequent interactions with the stakeholders of the project to create a
sharedunderstandingandcommitmentamongthem(Barrett & Stanley1999).Agoodbriefshouldincludeaprecise
descriptionofthefunctionalitiesrequiredbythestakeholdersinthecontextofanunderstandingoftheirindividual
value systems. Such a precise definition and good understanding of these requirements will benefit all of the
stakeholders.Theneedtoidentifyandmeetclientrequirementsintheconstructionindustryhasalsoledtorepeated
callstomakebriefingmoreclientoriented,andtodeliverbettervalue formoney byrenewingitsfocus onclient
requirements(Latham1994Egan1998).
Duetothecomplexitiesinvolvedinaccuratelyidentifyingtheactualneedsandrequirementsoftheclientand
conveyingthemtotheprojectteam,andtheimmensemagnitudeofprojectinformationthatneedstobeconsidered
duringthebriefingprocess,projectbriefsareofteninadequateandnotsufficientlyexplicit,andthusmaynottruly
reflecttherequirementsoftheclient(Graham1983).Toovercomethisproblem,anumberofbriefingguideshave
beendevelopedtoaidtheformulationof briefs(e.g.Newmanetal.1981Goodcareetal.1982Pna&Parshall
2001Salisbury1990).Despitetheseearlyattempts,thecurrentbriefingpracticeisstillconsideredtobeinadequate
bymanyresearchers(e.g.Kellyetal.1992Duerk1993Barrett&Stanley1999,Kamaraetal.2002,Shenetal.
2004Kellyetal.2005).Theproblemsoftraceabilityofrequirements,identificationofstakeholders,assessmentof
their interest and commitment to the project, and the management of potentially conflictingrequirements remain
unresolvedinthecurrentpractice.
Ensuring value for money is of paramount importance to client organisations in todays everincreasing
competitiveenvironment.Constructionprojects,especiallyprojectsinthepublicsector,however,are alsobecoming
moreandmorecomplex,involvingmanystakeholdersofdiversebackgroundsandprofessionalexpertise.Effective
management of these stakeholders to achieve better value for money is essential to the success of construction
projects. In the briefing process, it is necessary to consider the interests of all stakeholders, both primary and
secondary,andmaintainabalancebetweendifferentstakeholderinterests.Thosewithresponsibilityforthebriefing
processshouldstrivetomaintainagoodworkingrelationshipamongallstakeholders.Despitealltheeffortsfrom
theindustryandacademia,inadequateinvolvementofrelevantstakeholdersremainsoneofthemajorproblematic
areasinthebriefingprocess,andlittleattentionisgiventothemanagementofmultiplestakeholdersinthisearly
stageofprojectdevelopment.
This chapter introduces how value management can be used to manage multiple stakeholders to work
collaboratively to ensure value for money for construction projects. It describes the importance of managing
stakeholdersintheearlyphaseofaprojectandpresentsamethodofmanagingstakeholdersthroughidentification
andassessmentoftheirneeds,wants,commitment,interestandpower.Theeffectiveuse of valuemanagementin
reallife projects are given in detail through case studies, to illustrate how a client organisation can work closely
with other stakeholders including the enabling agencies, approval authorities, its consultants and sometimes
potentialcontractorstodevelopinnovativesolutionsandtobuildconsensusintheearlystage ofthedevelopment
process.Thischapteralsoelaboratesontheimportantrolesplayedbytheuseofvaluemanagementincreatingan
environment whereby stakeholders can develop ownership of the proposed solutions and be committed to the
implementationoftheseproposals.

32

THENEEDTOMANAGEMULTIPLESTAKEHOLDERS
Thenumberofstakeholdersinterestedinaprojectcandramaticallyincreasethecomplexity oftheproject.Eachof
thesestakeholdersusuallyhasapersonalinterestintheprojectandthismayleadtodifferentprioritiesandconflicts.
Poorstakeholdermanagementcanleadtomanyseriousproblemsinconstructionprojects.Forinstance,aclearand
comprehensivedefinitionofthesuccessorfailureofaprojectmaynotbedeterminedtheprojectmanagermaystrive
tomeetgoalsthatwereneverintendedbythestakeholders(Meredith&Mantel2003).Additionalproblemscaused
by inadequate stakeholder management that could lead to the failure of a project include poor scope and work
definition,inadequateresourcesassignedtotheproject(bothintermsofquantityandquality),poorcommunication,
changesinthescopeofwork,unforeseenregulatorychanges,unfavourablenewsabouttheprojectinthepress,and
negativecommunityreactionstotheproject(Karlsen2002),allofwhichmaybethemajorsourceofdelaysandcost
overruns. These problems can be overcome if the stakeholders areactively included in the frontend planningand
integratedintotheprojectteam,andasystematicapproachisusedtoidentifyandmanageprojectstakeholdersinthe
projectdeliveryprocess(Jergeasetal.2000).
Thetermstakeholdersdescribesindividualsandorganisationswhoareactivelyinvolvedintheproject,or
whose interests may be positively or negatively affected as a result of project execution or successful project
completion (PMI 1996). Itis worth distinguishingthisterm fromthe term client, whichrefers to the sponsoring
organisationorinitiator,whoisdirectlyresponsiblefortheproductionanddevelopmentofaproject(Bresnenetal.
1990).Differentstakeholdershavedifferentlevelsandtypesofinvestmentandinterestinconstructionprojectsand
canbeseenasmultipleclientsfortheprojectinwhichtheyareinvolved.Thosewhoadvocateastakeholdertheoryof
organisationsmaintainthatbusinessneedstoconsidertheinterestsofawiderrangeofgroupsapartfrommaximising
thefinancialreturnstotheowners.Cleland(1986)consideredprojectstakeholderstoencompass:
generalmanagers
primecontractors
competitors
suppliers
creditors
governmentagencies
consumergroups
intervenors
localcommunities
generalpublic
stockholders
designers
constructors
managementcontractors
functionalmanagers
professionals
workpackagemanagers
projectmanagers.
The instrumental view of stakeholder theory is to maintain a reasonable balance between the interests of different
stakeholders. Previous studies have shown that managing multiple stakeholders and maintaining an acceptable
balancebetweentheirinterestsiscrucialtosuccessfulprojectdeliveryanddemocraticpreferences.Atthecorporate
level,projectstakeholdersarethepeopleandgroupswithinaninterestintheproject,andwhocanaffectitsoutcome.
Theyrepresentaprimaryfocusforprojectmanagers,whoneedtounderstandandinterpretstakeholderrequirements
sothattheirexpectationswouldbereflectedinthesolution.
The effective management of stakeholders in a project is a key to project success in construction projects
(Jergeasetal.2000).However,thisisoftenanaspectthatisnotaddressedeffectively,andtheprobabilityofhavinga
successful project isreduced due to conflict between the project team and one ormore stakeholders. Jergeas et al.
(2000) suggested that the purpose of the project needs to be understood, communicated, and feedback from
stakeholdersbesolicitedinordertoachievealignmentbetweenthestakeholdersandprojectteam.Thisistheonly
way expectations can be managed,hidden agendas brought to the surface, and project priorities established. More
researchisneededtodeterminetheextentto whichtheseproblemsaffectprojectmanagerssothattheappropriate
measures can be taken. However, the management of stakeholders is generally limited to those whohave a direct
effectoraredirectlyaffectedbytheproject.Theindirectstakeholdersaredealtwithonlyonareactivebasistheyare
managed only when they create problems preventing the project from being successfully completed. A more
formalisedprocessforidentifyingandmanagingstakeholdersisneeded.

33

APPROACHESINMANAGINGSTAKEHOLDERS
Walker(2000)putforwardtheargumentthatabroaderviewoftheclientneedstobeconsideredtoencompassat
leastmajorstakeholders,andastakeholderanalysisshouldbeundertakentoensurethatabalancedviewofqualityis
obtained from the outcome perspectives of all major stakeholders. Smith and Love (2004) developed an approach
knownasstrategicneedsanalysisforstakeholdermanagementattheinceptionofaproject.Thisapproachusesa
workshopsettingtofocus onstakeholderinvolvementinproposingandidentifyingarangeofstrategicoptionsfor
theproposedproject.Karlsen(2002)conductedasurveyamongprojectmanagersinNorwaytocollecttheirviewson
stakeholdermanagement.Hedescribedaformalandsystematicprojectstakeholdermanagementprocess,including
initial planning, identification, analysis, communication, action, and followup, which provides some empirical
insights into the process of project stakeholder management. Newcombe (2003) explored the concept of treating
project stakeholders as multiple clients for construction projects and used stakeholder mapping to analyse the
natureandinfluenceofvariousstakeholdersonamajorconstructionproject.
Boddy (2002) proposed a holistic approach to carry out a stakeholder analysis during the early stages of a
project.Leungetal.(2004)investigatedtheimpactsofcommitmentamongsttemporarystakeholdersintheproject.
Theresultsindicatethathighaffectivecommitmentinduceshighperformanceandsatisfaction,whereascontinuous
conflicts provoke an intention to quit. It isrecommended that further studies on the factors affectingthe forms of
commitment in construction management be conducted to improve the performance of construction professionals.
Olander and Landin (2005) opined that a negative attitude to a construction project by stakeholders can severely
obstructitsimplementation.Suchobstructionwillleadtooverrunsandexceededtimeschedulesduetoconflictsand
controversies concerning the design andimplementation of the project. The study reveals thatan evaluation of the
demandsandinfluenceofthestakeholdersshouldbeconsideredasanecessaryandimportantstepintheplanning,
implementation, and completion of any construction project. They suggest that further research is needed to
formulate a more general model of how a stakeholder management process should be conducted for construction
projects.Themodelshouldbeabletocombinetheidentificationofstakeholders,anassessmentoftheirneedsand
theirdemandsonprojectimplementation,anassessmentoftheirpotentialinfluenceonprojectdecisions,choiceof
stakeholder strategy, an assessment of consequences of project decisions, and an evaluation of the stakeholder
managementprocess.
Althoughafewtechniqueshavebeenusedinthemanufacturingindustrytoensurethatthedevelopedproduct
meets customer requirements, very few of these techniques can be practically used in managing the needs and
requirements of multiple stakeholders of construction projects. Taking quality function deployment for example,
although it is beneficial to the product development process, it is limited in its ability to deal with conflicting
requirements(Prasad1996).Inthecontextofateamofmultidisciplinarystakeholders,wherethefocus,perspective,
orientation,knowledge,andexpertiseofthestakeholdersareoftenquitediverse,there isastrongneedforastructural
processtomanagetheirdiverseandconflictingrequirements,andtopresenttheminadesignneutralway.Oneofthe
toolsthatcanmeetthischallengeisfunctionalperformancespecification(FPS),whichenablesaprecisedefinitionof
theneedsforafacilitytobemadeinfunctionaltermswithoutreferencetothetechnicalsolutions.

THEVALUEMANAGEMENTAPPROACH
Using value management (VM) in the briefing stage, as a means of formulating the brief, is the most beneficial
application(NSWGovernment1993).Bydefinition,VMisastructuredandanalyticalgroupprocesswhichseeksto
improvevalueand,whereappropriate,valueformoneyinproducts,processes,services,organisations,andsystems.
TheVMstudyprocessiscentreduponaparticipatoryworkshopinvolvingamultidisciplinary,representativegroup
of people working togetherto seek the best value outcome for a particular situation (Standards Australia 2004). It
enables clients to participate fully inthe briefing process, and facilitates communication between clients and other
stakeholders(Barton2000).AnessentialelementoftheVMmethodologyistheexpressionofclientrequirementsas
functions(afunctionisthespecificpurposeorintendeduseofaprojectthatmakestheprojectsell,producerevenue,
or meet requirements). This VM approach enables a systematic identification and clear definition of client
requirements,animprovedunderstandingoftheobjectivesandperspectivesofvariousstakeholders,andtheeffective
accomplishment of these functions (Kirk & Spreckelmeyer 1988 Shen 1993). It also acts as a common language
amongstakeholdersofthe project,sothattheycanworktogetherharmoniouslytoidentifyopportunitiesavailablefor
developmentandtohighlightanypotentialproblemsattheverybeginningoftheproject(Grayetal.1994Lawson
1997).
In Hong Kong, the technical circular issued by the Environment,Transportation, and Works Bureau (2002)
calls for VM studies in major public projects. The Construction Industry Review Committee (2001) also
recommendedthatVMshouldbeusedmorewidelyinlocalconstruction,becauseVMcanhelptheclientsandthe
projectteamtofocus ontheobjectivesandneedsoftheprojectandofallstakeholders,bothlongandshortterm.
While the VMapproach is effective at bringing stakeholderstogether to formulate briefs, existing tools within the
VMtoolbox cannotaddressclientrequirementseffectivelythus,itisessentialtoidentifyand/ordevelopeffective
toolstospecifyclientrequirements(Shenetal.2004).

34

Inordertounderstandthevariousinterestedpartiesintheproject,alltypesofstakeholdersshouldbeidentifiedand
represented during the early stages of the project. The stakeholders commitment, interest and power should be
assessed before the briefing exercise. During the briefing process it is important that all stakeholders needs are
assessedsothatasatisfactoryandrealisticsolutioncanbeobtained.Muchtimeandeffortshouldbedevotedtothe
keyplayersinthebriefingprocess.Importanttasksfortheprojectmanagerinclude:
identifyingstakeholdersinaproject
assessingtheircommitment
assessingtheirpowertohelporhinderthechange
assessingtheirinterests,andhowthiswillaffectwhattheythinkanddoaboutthechange
assessingtheirneedsanddistinguishingtheirwantsfromtheirtrueneeds
managing relations with them to gain their support, minimise opposition and generally create favourable
attitudestothechange.

Identificationofstakeholders
Projectstakeholdersareidentifiedbytheirinterestsintheprojectresourcesandhowthoseresourcesarelikelyto
affecttheirwellbeing.Asimplewayto visualisethisistoprepareamapshowingthestakeholdersinaprojectas
describedinthefollowing:
Writethenameoftheprojectinacircleatthecentre ofasheetofpaper.
Draw other circles around the sheet, each identifying an individual or group whom you regard as having a
stakeintheproject.Placethemostsignificantnearerthecentreothersaroundtheedge.
Makesurethatallrelevantinterests havebeenincluded seniormanagement,colleagues,staff,andpeoplein
otherorganisations.
KellyandDuerk(2002)proposethatthosewithresponsibilityforthebriefingprocessshouldundertakeatestofthe
relative position of stakeholders. This test is known as the ACID test. It is used to determine who should be a
memberofthebriefingteamandthedetailsareasfollows:
Table5.1:ACIDTest
Component
Authorise

Consult

Inform
Do

Guidelines
Include individuals with the authority to take decisions appropriate to the stage of
the development of the project. Those have executive authority to take decisions
are invaluable members of the value management team through their ability to
immediately sanction a particular line of discovery or take a decision during the
workshopwhichresolvesanissueorunblocksaparticularlineofinvestigation.
Include experts who have to be consulted regarding particular aspects of the
project during its evolution at the workshop. If a particular line of investigation is
dependent upon consultation with an absent expert, workshop progress may be
compromised.
Donotincludethosewhohaveonlytobeinformedofdecisionsreachedduringthe
workshop.
Include those who are to carry out major tasks specified at the workshop. In this
waythosewhoare,forexample,todesignorconstruct,basedondecisionstaken
attheworkshopwillbefullyconversantofthatdecision.
(Source:AdaptedfromKelly&Duerk2002,43)

Assessmentoftheircommitment
Thenextstepistoassessthedegreeofcommitmentofthemainstakeholderstotheproject.Theprojectmanager
canassessthelevelofcommitmentofeachstakeholderonascalemarkingbothcurrentanddesiredlevelssuch
as present = X, hoped for = Y. Boddy (2002) suggests that the degree of stakeholder commitment is best
measured on a scale with the following parameters: vigorous opposition, some opposition, indifferenttowards it,
willletithappen,willhelpithappen, andwillmakeithappen.

Assessmentoftheirinterests
Thenextstepistoassesstheinterestsofthemainstakeholders thoseonwhomyouwanttoconcentrate.Thiscan
bedoneonagridwiththefollowingheadings:theirgoal,currentrelationship,whatisexpectedofthem,positiveor
negativetothem,likelyreaction, andideasforaction(Boddy2002).

35

Assessmentoftheirpower
Johnson and Scholes (1999) and Newcombe (2003) advocate the idea of analysing not only the interests of
stakeholders, but also their power in an organisations strategy (see Figure 5.2). This idea is also relevantat the
level oftheproject,asitindicateswhatkindofrelationshipthemanagerneedstoestablishwitheachgroup.The
acceptabilityofthedirectionofaprojecttokeyplayers(segmentD)shouldbeamajorconsideration.Themanager
needstodevotemuchtimeandefforttokeyplayers.Lesseffort,oradifferentkindofeffort,willbeacceptableto
thoseinothersegments.Amajorhazardtobeawareofisthatplayersmaysuddenlychangetheirpositionsuch
asfromSegmentBtoD.Theprojectmanagerneedstoadapttheirapproachaccordingly.
Figure5.2:StakeholderMapping:Power/InterestMatrix
LevelofInterest

Low
Power

High

Low
A
Minimal
effort
(e.g.generalpublic)

High
B
Keep
informed
(e.g.Localauthority)

C
Keep
satisfied
(e.g.developer)

D
Key
players
(e.g.designers,users)

(Source:AdaptedfromNewcombe2003,844845)

Assessmentoftheirneeds
Toassessthetrueneedsofthestakeholders,Bytheways(1965)functionanalysissystemtechnique(FAST)canbe
used,whichcomprisesthreestepstoconstructaFASTdiagram:
1. Generationoffunctions
Thekeystakeholderswillbeaskedtoparticipateinaworkshoptobrainstormthefunctionsthatarerequiredbythe
project. These functions may be highorder executive functions or relatively loworder wants. All functions are
expressedasanactiveverbplusadescriptivenoun,recordedonstickynotesandscatteredrandomlyacrossalarge
sheetofpaper.AlistofbrainstormedfunctionsforaresidentialdevelopmentisshownontheTable5.2.

36

Table5.2:BrainstormedFunctionsforaResidentialDevelopment
Allowprivateparticipation
Betteruseofland
Changecommunityperception
Controlfinances
Controloperationalcost
Controlprogram
Createpleasingenvironment
Enhancefacilities
Ensurebuildability
Ensurebuildinglifetime
Ensureoperability
Ensureusercomfort
Establishmultifunctionintegration
Establishprojectbrief
Improveaccessibility
Improveuserinterface
Increaseflexibility
Meetcommunityneeds
Minimisenuisancetopublic
Morerecreationalfacilities
Reducedeterioration
Relievecompliant
Secureenvironment
Upgradelivingstandard

Createvalue
Enhancecommunication
Enhanceenvironment
Establishlocalcommunitypressure
Improvesafetystandard
Limitcost
Maintainaccess
Monitordust
Monitorenvironment
Pleaseneighbourhood
Preserveparking
Protectexistingbuilding
Providerecreationalspace
Reducedust
Reducegovernmentaccommodation
Reducemosquitoes
Reducenoise
Satisfycompensation
Satisfysafety
Securefunding
Suppressvibration
Transferresponsibilitytoprivatesector

2. Classificationoffunctions/constructionofprojectfunctionprioritymatrix
Atthecompletionofthebrainstormingsessionall theparticipantsareinvitedtosortthenotesintoamoreorganised
form.Thefunctionalprioritymatrixisconstructedbyaskingabouteachstickynotefunctionwhetheritistechnical
orstrategicandwhetheritconstitutesaneedorawant.Thenoteistransferredtotheappropriateboxinthematrix
whereitspositionisorderedrelativetotheotherfunctioninthebox(Table5.3).Thehigherprioritiesarelistedat
thetopsoftherespectiveboxes.Itshouldbeemphasisedtotheteamthatthisisaniterativeprocessandtherefore
anyteammemberisentitledtomoveapreviously orderedstickynote.Althoughthissoundsconfrontationalitis
veryrarefordisagreementtooccurandultimatelythecorrectorderingofallthefunctionsisachieved.
3. Constructionoffunctiondiagram
Astrategicorcustomerorientedfunctionanalysissystemtechnique(FAST)diagram,asshowninFigure5.3was
constructedbyfocusingonthestrategicneedsandwants.Thehighestorderneedsformedthemissionoftheproject
withsupportingfunctionsbeingpositionedtotheright.Thestrategicwantswerepositionedbelowthecentrelineof
themissionstatement.Themissionstatementrequiredwordcraftingtomakeitreadasaflowingstatement.

Managingstakeholders
Thefollowingissuesareworthnoting.
Relationships
Identifykeyplayersandwhatcanbedonetohelpthembeforetheirassistanceisneeded.Buildrelationships
beforetheyareneeded.Itisalwayseasiertoreceiveafavourafterithasbeengranted(Gray & Larson2002).
Establishthelinksbetweenstakeholders.Theremaybecloselinksbetweensomeoftheseinterestgroupsor
linksmayrapidlydevelopduringtheproject.Thisrefinementofstakeholdermapmayindicatehowactionsto
deal with one group can affect others either in favour of or against the project. Stakeholders talk to each
other,andwillpassbadnewsaswellasgoodroundthegrapevine.

37

Table5.3:TheProjectFunctionPriorityMatrix
Strategicneeds
Secureenvironment
Establishmultifunctionintegration
Enhancefacilities
Ensureusercomfort
Meetcommunityneeds
Createpleasingenvironment
Upgradelivingstandard
Improveuserinterface
Betteruseofland
Changecommunityperception
Minimisenuisancetopublic
Reducedeterioration
Controlfinances
Controloperationalcost
Relievecompliant
Morerecreationalfacilities
Improveaccessibility
Increaseflexibility

Technicalneeds
Allowprivateparticipation
Ensurebuildability
Ensureoperability
Ensurebuildinglifetime
Establishprojectbrief
Controlprogram
Improvesafetystandard
Limitcost

Strategicwants
Pleaseneighbourhood
Reducegovernmentaccommodation
Transferresponsibilitytoprivatesector
Protectexistingbuilding
Establishlocalcommunitypressure
Satisfycompensation
Enhanceenvironment
Securefunding
Createvalue
Providerecreationalspace
Enhancecommunication

Technicalwants
Reducemosquitoes
Reducedust
Preserveparking
Suppressvibration
Reducenoise
Maintainaccess
Monitorenvironment
Monitordust
Satisfysafety

Sleepers
Notallstakeholderswillbeobviousatthestart.Projectstaffmaynotanticipatetheirinterests,andtheythemselves
maynotrealisethattheprojectwillaffecttheirposition.Theymaystillemergelaterintheprojecttoprotecttheir
interests. It is better that the project manager takes the initiative to seek them out and be aware of potential
difficulties(Boddy2002).
Timing
The attitudes and actions of stakeholders may change as the project takes shape, and at different phases. The
significance of this is that it emphasises the dynamic nature of the relationship between the project and the
stakeholders.Outsideevents,aswellastheactionsoftheprojectmanager,affecthowtheinterestgroupsviewthe
project.Sometimesthiswillbringthemaroundassupportersatothertimestheshiftwillbetheotherway.The
projectmanagerhastobevigilant,nottakethecurrentpositionofastakeholderascertain,andbealerttoexternal
changeswhichmayshifttheposition(Boddy2002).
Facetofacecontact
Trustissustainedthroughfrequentfacetofacecontact.Projectmanagersmustmaintainfrequentcontactwithkey
stakeholderstokeepabreastofdevelopments,assuageconcerns,engageinrealitytesting,andfocusattentiononthe
project.Frequentfacetofaceinteractionsaffirmmutualrespectandtrustamongothers(Gray & Larson2002).

38

Figure5.3:StrategicFASTDiagram

USINGVMTOMANAGEMULTIPLESTAKEHOLDERSINWATER
SUPPLYPROJECTS:ACASESTUDY
Oneofthevitalfactorstosupportthesustainablegrowthofametropolitanareaistheavailabilityofareliableand
wholesome watersupply. HongKong,beingabigcityandadynamiceconomiccentre,isnoexception.Overthe
pastfewdecades,ithasbeensuccessfulinturningthecommunitywatersupplyfromasituationofseriousshortages
toonewithhighqualityservices.ManyinnovativeideashavecontributedtowardsthesuccessofHongKonginthis
regard.Theuseofseawaterforflushing,buildingreservoirsinthesea,anddeliveringrawwaterfromDongjiangin
Guangdong over the hills to Hong Kong are some wellknown examples. Apart from adequate water resources,
efficientwatertreatmentprocessesanddistributiontoindividualconsumerstapsarealsoessential.
Thesewatersupplyprojectsnotonlyinvolvecomplexplanning,designandconstructionactivities,butalso
often necessitate negotiations with a large number of stakeholders whose interests may be conflicting with one

39

another(Ku& Shen2003).Oneoftheexamplesisarecentlycompletedfeasibilitystudyofdevelopingdesalination
facilities for fresh water supply in Hong Kong.The objective of this study was to investigate the use ofthe best
available desalination technologies for the costeffective provision of fresh water in Hong Kong. Aspects to be
covered in the study include technology, engineering, cost, and environmental issues. The stakeholders of this
projectinclude:
ManagementGroup,WaterSuppliesDepartment(WSD)
EnvironmentalProtectionDepartment(EPD)
AgricultureFisheriesConservationDepartment(AFCD)
PlanningDepartment(PlanD)
AntiquitiesandMonumentsOffice,LCSD
LandsDepartment(LD)
MarineDepartment(MD)
consultantsstudymanagerandmembers.
The focus of the VM workshop was to identify suitable sites for each of the three identified desalination
technologiesofRO,MSFandMEDVC,forthecosteffectiveprovisionoffreshwatertoHongKong.Participants
of the workshop include representatives from each of the above stakeholders. They have different professional
backgrounds,knowledgeandexpertise,representingaconstructiveandcomplementaryoverlap.Thisisinlinewith
thenormalpracticeinconductingVMworkshops,whichnormallyinvolveprocessexperts,engineers,departmental
representatives, representatives of major stakeholders of relevant socioeconomic sectors. Involving these
stakeholders is also demanded by the mission of the WSD that is to provide a reliable and adequate supply of
wholesomepotablewaterandseawaterto the customersinthemostcosteffectivewaytoadoptacustomeroriented
approach in the services to maintain and motivate an effective, efficient and committed workforce to serve the
community to remain conscious of the responsibilities towards the environment and to make the best use of
resourcesandtechnologyinstrivingforcontinuousimprovementinservices.
ByfollowingtheVMapproach,allthestakeholders,includingtheprojectteam,areabletocriticallyreview
andexaminethefunctionsoftheproposedwaterworks.Althoughtheclientmayhaveapreconceivedideaoftheuse
function of a particular project element, other stakeholders may see things differently and propose aesthetic
functionsthatcanaddvaluetotheproject.Forexample,theusefunctionofareservoirisapparentlytostorewater
for future use. Thedrainage expertmay see that a function of the reservoiris toregulaterunoff after heavy rain.
WithsystematiccommunicationsduringtheVMworkshop,allstakeholders,especiallytheprojectteam,willhavea
thoroughunderstandingoftheprojectsfromallangles.Hence,theprojectteamwillbeabletoincorporatetheviews
ofthestakeholdersinbringingforththeproject,makingitmorereadilyacceptedbyalltherelevantstakeholdersat
thesubsequentimplementationstages.
InthecreativitystageofaVMworkshop,allsortsof initiativestoservethesamefunctionoftheprojectswill
be explored. For example, in looking for a suitable site to build a desalination plant, the stakeholders practically
examinedallpossiblesitesalongthecoastlinesinHongKong.AqualitativeassessmentconductedintheVMwould
be a useful step to prioritise the sites for detailed studies. With consensus reached amongst the stakeholders this
wouldgreatlyfacilitatesubsequentpublicconsultationasallpossiblesiteshadalready beenexaminedbyrelevant
stakeholders.Althoughtheshortlistedsitesmightnotbeperfectinallaspects,theywouldatleastbemorereadily
accepted.ThisisanobviousbenefitoftheteamapproachadoptedinVM.Withaproperlyplannedandexecutedjob
plan,the VM for waterworksnormally requires twodays only. Significant process can be made during this short
period of time: the functions of the proposed waterworks are critically examined, alternative options can be
considered, and preferred options are recommended and owned by all the stakeholders, which can lead to
commitmenttotheimplementationoftheproposals.
It is essential to identify the key stakeholders and solicit their commitment and participation in the VM.
Practically thereisanupper limit on the size of the groupparticipating in the VM beyond which communication
willbecomeineffective.Withthislimitation,itisveryimportantfortheprojectteamtoidentifyaVMgroupthat
can represent a wide spectrum of interest groups. It does happen that during VM study new stakeholders are
identified.
From the implementation of the VM approach in a variety of reallife construction projects (including
buildingand civil engineering projects), we can summarise that the critical success factors in using the proposed
methodology to manage multiple stakeholders in the briefing process of construction projects are (Shen & Liu
2003):
themethodology
VMjobplanmustbefollowedintheworkshop
attitudeofparticipants
rightattitude,appropriatestakeholders,awarenessoftheprocess
executiveclientsupport
supporttotheVM workshopsandimplementationofproposals

40

managementofprocess
clearobjectives,settime,followupactions,reviewandfeedback
professionalworkshopfacilitation
probingwiththerightquestions,usingappropriatetools,managingtheprocess,maintainingthemomentumof
theteam.

CONCLUSIONS
It is of vital importance to identify project stakeholders and to understand their expectations and needs for a
construction project inthe briefing process. Stakeholders with different levels and types of power and interest in
constructionprojectshavedifferentexpectations.Thismustbeaddressedbytheprojectmanagersadequately.Itis
essentialtoconsidertheinterestsoftheprojectstakeholdersandmaintainabalancebetweendifferentstakeholder
interests.Muchtimeandeffortshouldbedevotedtothekeyplayersoftheproject.Theeffectivemanagementof
stakeholdersinaprojectisoneofthecriticalsuccessfactorsofthebriefingprocess.
The VM methodology for managing multiple stakeholders in the briefing process has been proved to be
successfulinavarietyofprojects.Assoonastheprojectstakeholdersareidentified,theircommitment,powerand
interestsshouldbeassessed beforethebriefingexercises.By sodoing,theneedsofallthestakeholdersincluding
the clients can be identified and clarified, making the briefing process more effective and efficient, which is
essential to client satisfaction as well as successful delivery of construction projects. Further research has been
plannedtoinvestigateadditionaltechniquesandtoolsthatcanbeusedinmanagingstakeholders,andtovalidatethe
proposed methodology further by studying the results and implications of using the methodology in managing
multiplestakeholdersinthebriefingprocessinreallifeprojects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this chapter was supported by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special
AdministrativeRegion,China(PolyU5007/02E).

REFERENCES
BarrettP.S.andC.A.Stanley.1999.Betterconstructionbriefing.Malden:BlackwellScience.
BartonR.T.2000.Softvaluemanagement methodologyforuseinprojectinitiation:alearningjourney.Journalof
ConstructionResearch,1(2):109122.
Boddy D.2002. ManagingProjects:Buildingandleadingtheteam.London:PearsonEducation.
BresnenM.J.,C.O.Haslaam,A.D.Beardswoth,A.E.BrymanandE.T.Kei.1990.Performanceonsiteandthe
buildingclient:CIOBoccasionalpapernumber42.Ascot:CharteredInstituteofBuilding.
Bytheway,C.W.1965.Basicfunctiondeterminationtechnique.5thNationalMeetingoftheSocietyofAmerican
ValueEngineers,April.
ClelandD.I.1986.Projectstakeholdermanagement. Project Management Journal,17(4):3643.
ConstructionIndustryBoard.1997. BriefingtheTeam.London:ThomasTelfordPublishing.
ConstructionIndustryReviewCommittee.2001. ConstructforExcellence:ReportoftheConstructionIndustry
ReviewCommittee.HongKong:HongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionGovernment.
DuerkD.P.1993. ArchitecturalProgramming:Informationmanagement fordesign. NewYork:VanNostrand
Reinhold.
Egan,J.1998. RethinkingConstruction:ThereportoftheConstructionTaskforce (EganReport).UK:HMSO.
Environment,Transport,andWorksBureau.2002. TechnicalCircularNo.35/2002:Implementationofvalue
management.HongKong:HongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionGovernment.
GoodcareP.,J.Pain,J.MurrayandM.Noble.1982.Researchinbuildingdesign.Occasionalpapernumber7.
Reading:UniversityofReading.
GrahamP.1983.Readingtheclientsmind. Building,30September:2223.
Gray,C.andE.Larson.2002. ProjectManagement:Thecompleteguideforeverymanager.USA:McGrawHill.
GrayC.,W.HughesandJ.Bennett.1994.TheSuccessfulManagementofDesign:Ahandbookofbuildingdesign
management.Reading:CentreforStrategicStudiesinConstruction,UniversityofReading.
JergeasG.F.,E.Williamson,GJ.SkulmoskiandJ.L.Thomas.2000.Stakeholdermanagementonconstruction
projects.AACEInternationalTransactions,14(3):12.112.6.
Johnson,G.andK.Scholes.1999. ExploringCorporateStrategy:Textandcases,5thedn.NewYork:PrenticeHall.
Kamara,J.M.,C.J.AnumbaandN.F.Evbuomwan.2002.Capturingclientrequirementsinconstructionprojects.
London:ThomasTelford.
KarlsenJ.T.2002.Projectstakeholdermanagement. EngineeringManagement Journal,14(4):1924.
KellyJ.andD.Duerk.2002.Constructionprojectbriefing/architecturalprogramming. BestValueinConstruction,
eds.J.Kelly,R.MorledgeandS.Wilkinson.3858.Cornwall:BlackwellScienceLtd.

41

KellyJ.R.,S.MacPhersonandS.P.Male.1992. TheBriefingProcess:Areviewandcritique.London:Royal
InstitutionofCharteredSurveyors,SurveyorsPublications.
Kelly,J.,K.Hunter,G.ShenandA.Yu.2005.Briefingfromafacilitiesmanagement perspective.Facilities,23
(7/8):356367.
KirkS.J.andK.F.Spreckelmeyer.1988. Creative DesignDecisions.NewYork.VanNostrandReinholdCompany.
KuC.C.andQ.P.Shen.2003.Ensuringvalueformoneyforwatersupplyprojects:avaluemanagement approach.
2003Conference on Construction Services and Management.Wuhan,China,2022October.
LathamM.1994. ConstructingTheTeam:Jointreviewofprocurement andcontractualarrangementsintheUnited
Kingdomconstructionindustry. Finalreport.London:HMSO.
LawsonB.R.1997. HowDesignersThink:The designprocessdemystified.Oxford.ArchitecturalPress.
LeungM.Y.,A.Chong,T.NgandM.C.Cheung.2004.Demystifyingstakeholderscommitmentanditsimpactson
constructionprojects.ConstructionManagementandEconomics,22(7):701715.
Meredith,J.R.andS.J.Mantel.2003. ProjectManagement:Amanagerialapproach,5thedn.NewYork:John
Wiley.
Newcombe,R.2003.Fromclienttoprojectstakeholders:astakeholdermappingapproach. Construction
ManagementandEconomics,21(8):841848.
NewmanR.,M.Jenks,S.DawsonandV.Bacon.1981.Briefformulationandthedesignofbuildings.Oxford:
OxfordPolytechnic.
NSWGovernment.1993. CapitalProjectProcurement Manual.Sydney:NewSouthWalesGovernment,Australia.
OReilly,J.J.1987. BetterBriefingMeansBetterBuildings.London:BuildingResearchEstablishment.
Olander,S.andA.Landin.2005.Evaluationofstakeholderinfluenceintheimplementationofconstructionprojects.
International Journal of Project Management,23(4):321328.
Pna,W.andS.A.Parshall.2001. Problem Seeking: An architectural programming primer, 4thedn.USA:John
Wiley&Sons,Inc.
PMI.1996. Project Management Body ofKnowledge.NewtownSquare:PMI,PA.
PrasadB.1996.Concurrentfunctiondeployment:anemergingalternativetoQFD:conceptualframework.CE96
Conference. Toronto,2628August.
SalisburyF.1990. TheArchitect'sHandbookforClientBriefing.London:ButterworthArchitecture.
Salisbury,F.1998. Briefing YourArchitect,2ndedn.Oxford:ArchitecturalPress.
ShenQ.P.1993. AKnowledgeBasedStructureforImplementingValueManagement intheDesign ofOffice
Buildings:PhDThesis.Salford:UniversityofSalford.
ShenQ.P.andG.W.Liu.2003.Criticalsuccessfactorsforvaluemanagement studiesinconstruction. Journalof
Construction Engineering and Management,129(5):485491.
ShenQ.P.,H.Li,J.Chung andP.Y.Hui.2004.Aframeworkforidentificationandrepresentationofclient
requirementsinthebriefingprocess.Construction Management and Economics,22(2):213221.
SmithJ.andP.E.Love.2004.Stakeholdermanagement duringprojectinception:strategicneedsanalysis.Journal of
Architectural Engineering,10(1):2233.
StandardsAustralia.2004. ValueManagement:RevisionofAS/NZS4183:1994,draftforpubliccomments.Sydney:
StandardsAustralia.
WalkerD.H.2000.Client/customerorstakeholderfocus?ISO14000EMSasaconstructionindustrycasestudy,
TheTQM Magazine,12(1):1825.

42

CHAPTER6

TheClientsRoleinDrivingan
AppropriateProjectCultureLeadingto
InnovativePerformanceOutcomes:
InContextsofAustraliaandChina
JianZuo
DavidNess
GeorgeZillante
INTRODUCTION
The construction industry has been long accused of poor performance, an adversarial atmosphere, and notorious
disputes (Jamieson &Thorpe 1996 Kumaraswamy 1997 Kanji & Wong 1998 Kagioglou et al. 1999 Wong &
Fung1999Barlow2000Loveetal.2001Dulaimietal.2002Humphreys,Matthewsetal.2003Winch2003).
The traditional procurement approach, which is characterised by a winlose scenario, is criticised for being
responsible for such poor performance (Rwelamila et al. 2000 Walker & Hampson 2003). In essence, the
adversarial attitudes of the project participants are viewed as the main obstacle to achieving optimum project
outcomes(Chanetal.2003).
Therehavebeencallsforaculturalchangewithintheindustrytoremovethesebarriers(APCC1997Cole
2002Latham1994Egan1998).Astheresult,somenewalternativeprocurementapproacheshaveemerged.These
includeconstructionmanagement,designandbuild,guaranteedmaximumprice,andrelationshipcontracting.These
approaches are employed to procure facilities inmore andmore cases. Among them,relationship contractinghas
becomethemostpopularprocurementapproachinthepublicsectoroverrecentyears.
Toimplementrelationshipcontractingintheconstructionindustry,anappropriateprojectcultureisneeded.
The adversarial atmosphere, which has been inherited from the traditional procurement practice, should be
abandonedcompletely.
Thischapterwillcontributetotheknowledgeofrelationshipcontractingbyidentifyingthecommonfeatures
ofprojectcultureintheseprojects.Thesearebasedonpreliminaryinterviewsandamorewiderangingsurveyof
participantsfromaround15projects.Thesecoveredprojectsemployingbothrelationshipcontractingandtraditional
methodsofprocurement.Thiswasfollowed bysimilarresearchthathasbeenconductedinChinarecently.Some
majorcontractorsandrelevantgovernmentofficerswereinterviewed fortheircommentsonproject cultureissues
andtheimpactsoftheseontheperformanceofconstructionprojects.Theroleoftheclientindrivinganappropriate
project culture, leading to innovative performance outcomes in a Chinese context was also addressed in the
interviewschedule.

RELATIONSHIPCONTRACTING:HISTORY,FUNDAMENTALSAND
PRACTICES
ThetermRelationshipContractingisusedtoillustratedeliverysystemsthatconcentrateonrelationshipsbetween
participating parties to a construction contract, rather than just on the projectspecific requirements such as
achievingtheobjectivesofthecontract(Quick2002).Inrelationshipcontractsthereisaformalexpressionofthe
relationshipbetweenparticipatingparties.
TheAustralianConstructorsAssociation(ACA)(1999,4),agroupwhosemembercompaniesareallleading
construction industry organisations, defines relationship contracting as a process to establish and manage the
relationships between the parties that aims to: remove barriers encourage maximum contribution and allow all
partiestoachievesuccess.
Fromtheabovedefinition,itcanbediscernedthatthemostimportantelementofrelationshipcontracting,as
thenamesuggests,istherelationshipbetweenthepartiesinvolvedintheproject.Reasonstodevelopandsustaina
good relationship between the participating parties include removing the barriers (to outstanding outcomes) that
exist in a conventional contract and to encourage maximum commitment and contribution from all parties and
individuals.Themostimportantfacetofrelationshipcontractingistoenable(oratleastaimtoenable)allpartiesto
achievesuccess.Suchawinwinapproachisachievedbythealignmentoftheobjectivesofparties(individuals)

43

andgainshare/painshare mechanisms(seelaterforexplanation).Thisisasignificantdeparturefromthetraditional
winlosescenario.
Arelationshipcontractcouldbeany contractthatseeksto emphasistherelationshipbetweenthepartiesto
achieveoptimaloutcomesforthejobtobedone(Quick2002).Asacontractemployingsomeformofmanagement
regime to manage the relationship, there aretwo kinds of contract that are currently popular within the industry:
alliancing, and partnering (Rowlinson & Cheung 2004). Alliancing, where the parties form a cohesive entity, is
characterised by all parties jointly sharing the risk and reward. This gainshare/painshare scheme is the key
differencefrompartnering,wherethepartiesstillretainindependenceandmayindividuallysufferorgainfromthe
relationship(Walkeretal.2002).Thischapterwillmainlyrefertothealliancingformofrelationshipcontract.
Developedintheearly1990s,alliancingachievedhugesuccessintheUKsoil&gasindustrybydelivering
projectsatlowercost(Quick2002).ThefirstprojectusingthenewprocurementapproachwastheWandooBOil
Platform, which was built by Ampolex (Ross 2001). Since then, alliancing contracts have been used to deliver
diverseprojects,especiallymajorinfrastructure projects,bothinthepublicsectorandtheprivatesector.
Althoughalliancing hasbeenappliedintheAustralianindustryformorethan10 years,alltheseprojectshave
beenofacomplexengineeringnatureratherthanbuilding/constructionprojects.TheNationalMuseumofAustralia
(the Acton Peninsula Alliance) was the first building project employing alliance contracting in the world. This
project was identified as a successful alliancing project by the Australian National Audit Office for its excellent
achievementsinrelationtothebudget,time,quality,designintegrity,andriskmanagement.
In South Australia, two major public projects that have employed relationship contracting (alliance
contracting)are the Adelaide Convention Centre extensionandthe Lyell McEwin Health Service Redevelopment
(LMHS) Stage A. Both projects were completed with outstanding performance. Carr and Exton (2004) have
previously described the success of relationship contracting on the Lyell McEwin Health Service Redevelopment
Stage Aproject.Theindicatorsofsuccessincluded:
Cost:Theconstructioncontingencywasonly2.5%comparedwiththebenchmarked5%.Astheresult,$1.7m
weresavedforinitiatingthenextstageoftheredevelopmentprojectandbuyinghospitalequipment.
Environment:Theprojectenthusiasticallyadoptedecologicallysustainabledevelopment(ESD)principlesand
environmentalresponsibilityindesign,constructionandoperation.NinetyESDinitiatives(openspace,equity
ofaccess, water,etc.)have beenincorporatedintothedesignanddocumentationwithoutadditionalcost.For
example, waste minimisation achieved outstanding results including nontoxic demolition waste 100%
recycledsolaravailabilitymaximisedwithsolarhotwater,reducingenergyconsumptionby10%.
Quality:Defectfree completionwasachieved.
Healthandsafety:Theincomecompensationclaimsforeverymillionhoursworkedinthisprojectwaslessthan
25%oftheindustrynorm.
Because of the significant achievements on the Lyell McEwin Health Service Redevelopment Stage A, the state
government decided thata similar procurement approach would be used for future major public projects (Carr &
Exton2004).

PROJECTCULTURENEWVISIONOFRELATIONSHIP
CONTRACTING
Aculturalchangeisneededacrosstheprojectteaminordertoimplementrelationshipcontracting.
Anumberofstudieshavebeenundertakentoinvestigatetheinfluenceofcultureatdifferentlevels(national
culture,organisationalcultureetc.)onconstructionmanagementpractice(Loosemore&Muslmani1999Chan &
Tse 2003). In the construction context, cultural studies have also been undertaken at both the industry and
professionallevels.Forinstance,adversarialrelationships,fragmentedapproachesandconfrontationalrelationships
have been identified as forming the culture within the construction industry (McGeorge et al. 2002). There are
differences between cultures of the different professions involved in construction projects (Liu & Fellows 1999).
However,therehavenotbeenmanystudiesthathavefocusedonthecultureattheprojectlevelanditsinfluenceon
construction project management practice. As a projectbased industry, the construction industry needs more
insightsontheculturalissuesattheprojectlevel.
ZuoandZillante(2005)presentedthefindingsofacriticalreviewontherelatedliterature.Althoughthereare
notmanystudiesexplicitlyexaminingprojectculture,especiallyinaconstructioncontext,theydoincludereviews
ofthelimitedliteraturethatinclude:
thedefinitionoftheprojectculture
generalstatementsontheprojectculture
effortstomeasuretheprojectculture aswellasitsimpactsontheperformanceofprojects.
Theliteratureshowsthatappropriateprojectculturesdocontributetowardsthesuccessofprojects.Thereviewhad
severalconclusions:

44

Thereisnocleardefinitionofprojectculture,especiallyinthecontextofconstructionprojects.Thisisan
ambitiousconceptresultingfromdifficultiesinconceptualising andthenmeasuringprojectculture.
Therearelimitedexamplesofasimpleapplicationofaconventionalorganisationalculture modeltomeasure
theprojectcultureofconstructionprojects.Organisationalculturemodelsaregenerallymanagementderived
andhavelittleconsiderationtothespecificcharacteristicsofconstructionprojects.
Theframeworkpreviouslyproposed(Kumaraswamyetal.20012002)istoocomplextomeasureproject
culture byapplyingHofstedesculturalmodeltoeachsubcultureanditscontributorycomponents,ortothe
cultureoftheprojectasawhole.Asthereareanumberoforganisationsaswellasspecialistsinvolvedina
typicalconstructionproject,itisobviousthattherewillbealargenumberofresourcesneededtodiagnosethe
wholeprojectculture.

Itissuggestedthatarelativelysimple,easytouseandcontextspecificframeworkisrequiredformeasuringproject
culture in a construction project. Drawing on a wellrecognised definition of organisational culture (e.g. Schein
1985Hofstede1997 Zuo & Zillante2005,357)defineprojectcultureas:
Thesharedvalues,basicassumptionsandbeliefsthattheparticipantsinvolvedinaprojecthold
thatdeterminethewaythey processtheprojectandtherelationshipwitheachotherintheproject
environment.
Toaccommodatethespecificcharacteristicsofconstructionprojects,ZuoandZillante(2005)proposeaconceptual
framework based on the modification of a wellestablished organisational culture model: Cameron and Quinns
(1999)CompetingValuesFramework.Thesedimensionsinclude:
fragmentedvs.integrated
goalorientedvs.processoriented
flexiblevs.stable
taskorientedvs.peopleoriented
adversarial attitude/behaviourvs.cooperativeattitude/behaviour.
(Zuo & Zillante2005)
Thisprojectculture frameworkandaquestionnairewerefirstlyscreenedbyacademicsandexternalconsultantsand,
secondly, verified by means of preliminary interviews. As a result, the conceptual framework and questionnaire
weresufficientlyrobusttobeusedinfurtherstudies.

RESEARCHPROCESS
This research has involved preliminary interviews with a number of industry professionals, followed by a more
wideranging survey of participants from around 15 projects (including relationship contracting and traditional
methodsofprocurement).Afurtherroundofindepthinterviewswithkeyparticipantsiscurrentlyunderway.
TheprofileofintervieweesisillustratedinFigure6.1.
Figure6.1: TheProfileofAustralianInterviewees

Each interview lasted around one hour. In each case the author spent the first five minutes explaining the
backgroundoftheresearch(e.g.topic,researchquestionandobjectives).Theterminologies(suchasthedefinition
oftheprojectculture inthisstudy)usedinthisstudy werealsoexplainedtotherespondentsbeforecommencingthe
interview. The interviewees were asked to make comments on cultural issues at the project level, based on their
experience.Someofthequestionsaskedintheinterviewswere:
Doyoubelievethereisanidentifiableprojectculture withintheprojectenvironment?
Whatcomponentsconstituteanappropriateprojectculture?
Whoshouldberesponsibletodevelopandtomaintainanappropriateprojectculture?

45

Whatarethefeaturesoftrust?

During the preliminary interviews, the interviewees were encouraged to refer to examples of projects with which
theyhadbeeninvolved,includingtheAdelaideConventionCentreandLyellMcEwinHealthService.Thishelped
toelicitviewsonprojectcultureingeneral.Thepreliminaryinterviewfindingsalsoservedtoverifyandrevisethe
conceptionalframeworkaswellastheresearchinstrumentthatwasdesignedaftertheliteraturereview.
A survey was then conducted to examine the project culture in the construction projects according to the
designed conceptual framework. Again, there were around 15 construction projects investigated, which included
relationship contracting and conventional procurement. The survey respondents covered a wide range of industry
practitionersincludingclients,architects,maincontractors,subcontractorsandotherconsultantsincludingquantity
surveyorsandengineeringconsultants(structural,civil,buildingservices hydraulic,electrical,mechanical,etc.).

RESEARCHRESULTS:COMMONFEATURESOFPROJECTCULTURE
INRELATIONSHIPCONTRACTINGPROJECTSCOMPAREDWITH
TRADITIONALAPPROACHES
All interviewees believed cultural issues at project level influence the performance of a construction project
significantlybycultivatingaparticularattitudeamongparticipants.
Although there were various statements on the culture in the construction projects that were procured via
relationshipcontracting,itisinterestingtonotethatthefeaturesarequitesimilarintheseprojects.
Thecommonfeaturesofprojectcultureintheprojectsthatadoptrelationshipcontractingincludeareshown
inFigure6.2.
Figure6.2:CommonFeaturesofProjectCultureinRCProjects

Bestforthe
project

Noblame,
nodispute

Understanding
eachothersroles,
expectationsand
values

Outcome
oriented

Highlevelof
commitment
fromallparties

Flexible

Supportive
teamwork

Notfeeling
threatenedby
others

Common/Alignedgoals

Relationship
Contracting
ProjectCulture

Timelydecision
making

Mutualtrust
andrespect

Ownershipofthe
project

Focusedand
effective
communication
Alignmentofthe
individualobjectives
withthecollective
objectives

Talkstraight
Willingness
tohelp

Earlywarningof
theproblem

Theownershipofthecontractpartlycomesfromthesharingoftheriskandreward.Beingboundedinthecontract
by this way, all parties have to work together to deal with the possible problems encountered during the project
process.Thisalsoensuresthemaximummutualcommitmentfromallparticipatingpartiesandindividualsbecause
allpartieswilleitherwinorlose.Thishasalsobeenreferredascollectiveresponsibilityforperformancewithan
equitablesharingofriskandreward (seealsoRoss2001).

46

Another key element is openness and honesty. This is associated with another element early warning of the
problem.Anumberofintervieweesthatwereinvolvedinrelationshipcontractingprojectsstatedsentimentssuch
as:
Keepinggoodrelationshipsisthecoreoftherelationshipcontracting.Butthisdoesnotmeanthat
participants will not reveal the problem they found during the process. Early warning of the
problemisveryimportanttokeeptheprojectrunningsmoothlyand, moreimportantly,healthy.
IntheLMHSStageAproject,sometimestheprojectparticipantsspentmorethanthreehoursinthemeetingroomto
discusstheissuesraiseduntilthesolutionwasagreedandarrivedat.Thishasalsobeenreferredtoas transparency
or openbookauditingby otherscholars(e.g.Ross2001Quick2002Ario,Torre&Ring2005)andindustry
reports(e.g.AustralianConstructorsAssociation1999AustraliaNationalAuditOffice2001).
Itisveryinterestingtonotetheuseofasportingmetaphorbyoneintervieweetoillustratetheimportanceof
noblameculture:
Weshouldnotblameeachotherwhenencounteringdifficulties...Justasinafootymatch,ifone
teammatedropstheballoccasionally,otherteammateswillnotblamehimwhenhemakessucha
mistake.Rather,theywillencouragehimtopickuptheballtokeepgoing.
All respondents indicated that all project team members should contribute to the development of an appropriate
projectculture.Thereforeitisveryimportanttoselecttherightpeopletobeinvolvedintheproject.Ross(2001)
suggestedthatinallwellfunctioningalliancestheparticipantsshould:
respecteachother
supportratherthanblameeachother
gotoextraordinarylengthstohonourthecommitmentstheyhavemade,bothcorporatelyandindividually.
Theintervieweeswereencouragedtocomparetheirexperienceswiththeprojectsprocuredunderbothrelationship
and conventional contracting. Almost all interviewees stressed that the common features of project culture in
relationship contracting projects seldom exist in the projects procured by traditional approaches. One client
representativestated:
Thesameparticipantsperformedbetterinarelationshipcontracting projectthantheyperformedin
anotherprojectthatwasprocuredviatraditionalhardmoneycontractThebadprojectculture
was verydetrimentaltothattraditionalproject[The]procurementmethodof fixedlumpsum
did notencourageacollaborativeapproachorleadingastrongteamproject.
The preliminary interviews were followed by a relatively wideranging survey, again covering both relationship
contractingandconventionalprojects.Thequestionnairesurveygenerallyconfirmedthefindingsofthepreliminary
interviews. The identified features of the relationship contracting project culture were associated with improved
performanceoftheprojectintermsof:
thesatisfactionoftheprojectteamwiththeprojectprocess
thesatisfactionoftheprojectteamwiththerelationshipswitheachother
servingtheintendedclientsand endusers
commercialsuccess
learningfromtheprojectprocess.

THECLIENTSROLEINDRIVINGANAPPROPRIATEPROJECT
CULTURE
Preliminaryfindingsindicatedthattheclientplaysaveryimportantroleinthedevelopmentoftheprojectculture in
construction projects. Although it was stated that all project team members have a part to play, the client was
identified as the most important key contributor for the development and maintenance of an appropriate project
culture. Most interviewees indicated that the capacity andlevel of resources of the client directly impacton their
abilitytoinfluencetheexpectationsandvaluesofotherprojectparticipants.
Thisresultisnotasurprise.Intraditionalcontractualarrangements,clientsneednotcommitverymuchtothe
project.Normallyclientswillengagetheprimaryconsultant,usuallythearchitect,torepresentthemtomanageall
the project process. In such contractual arrangements, risk is transferred to the designer, contractor and
subcontractorsasmuchaspossible.Thistraditionalriskmanagementstrategyoftenfailsbycreatinganadversarial
climate,ahighlevelofcommercialdisputation,timeandcostoverrunsandoverallpoorperformance(ACA1999).
Ontheotherhand,inalliancecontractingarrangements,therisksareembracedratherthanbeingtransferred.
Allpartiessharetherisksandrewards.ACA(1999,16)illustratedtheadvantagesfortheclienttosharetheriskas
follows:

47

Eventakinga10%shareoftheprojectsriskproducesacompletechangeoftheattitudeofthe
clientatalllevels.Theycooperatetoreducecostsratherthantoincreasecosts.Contractsbecome
enjoyable and productive rather than adversarial and negative. Under an adversarial contract,
inspectorsofteninsistonthecontractorspending$100,000togivetheclienta$1,000benefit
Under relationship contracting, if the client is carrying 10% of the risk, the inspector will only
insist on the contractor spending $10,000 for a $1,000 benefit for the client a massive
improvement.
This arrangement creates a true alignment between all parties and the project outcomes. However, much more
commitmentisrequiredfromtheclient,whoneedstoallocatemoreresourcestotheprojectprocess,frominception
topostoccupation.Theclientneedstoattendthesitemeetingsanddesignmeetings,whereasthisisunnecessaryin
traditional arrangements. Normally, the client will delegate the consultant (architect or project management
consultant)todothat.Throughgreaterparticipation,theclientcanexertmoreinfluenceontheprojectbybeinga
real projectteammember.
Inaddition,anintegratedprojectteamapproachispopularlyemployedinalliancingprojects.Thetraditional
masterand servanthierarchical team structure, which isblamed for the adversarial attitudes and behaviours, is
abandoned in such approach. As a result, clients need to rethink their role in the project team. Clients will be
normalteammembersandtheircommitmentisrequiredfordevelopingandsustaininganappropriateprojectculture
andhencethesuccessoftheproject.Inshort,theinfluencesoftheclientindrivinganappropriateprojectcultureare
numerousandshouldnotbeignored.

FACILITATORSROLE
Mostrelationshipcontractingprojects(includingLyellMcEwinRedevelopmentStageA)hadafacilitatortohelp
build the project culture during a series of workshops. Some clients even commented that the facilitator should
assumetherole/responsibilitiesoftheprojectmanager.
Butthiswasnotalwaysthecaseinrelationshipcontractingprojects.Forinstance,therewasnofacilitatoron
oneprojectthatwasprocuredviaalliancecontracting.Astheparticipantsinthatprojectstated:Aslongaswehave
known each other very well and we have known very well what is needed to be done, why would we need a
facilitator to coordinate that? However, this case is unusual in the construction industry. Firstly, not all alliance
contractingprojectscouldproceed very smoothlylikethisproject.Secondly,thereisalongwaytogotoachieve
culturalchangeintheindustry.Itisnotexpectedthatthemajority ofindustrypractitionerscouldunderstandtheir
roles (and change their mindsets) very well in a short timeframe. Therefore, a facilitator role is still seen as
necessary in relationship contracting projects but that persons role may be reinforced by the knowledge of
relationshipcontractingspreadingtomoreandmoreindustrypractitioners.

OPPORTUNITIESFORFURTHERIMPROVEMENTS
Carefulthoughtisneededbeforemakingthedecisionwhetherornottoadoptrelationshipcontracting.Theliterature
pointsoutthatthedownsidesofthisformofcontractingarethehighcostintheearlystagesoftheprojectandthe
high level of commitment required from all participating parties (including clients). The interview findings
universallyconfirmedthis.
Specifically, cosy behaviour within the team and defensive attitudes towards others were identified as
pitfalls by the interviewees. Under therelationship contracting arrangements,project participants may behave too
uncriticallytowardseachotherandacceptlowerstandards.Collectiveresponsibilitiesforoutcomesmaymeanthat
responsibility for the issues associated with the projects progress may be diffused. One interviewee (client
representative)alsohighlightedthedefensiveattitudeasoneofthenegativesofrelationshipcontracting:
themembersofthe integratedmanagementteam(IMT)workedverywellandcooperativelyas
acloseknitunit.Buttheymayignoretheinterestsofothersinvolvedintheprojectwhoarenot
IMT members. For example, theexecutive leadershipteam(ELT) sometimes faced difficulty in
decisionmaking due to delay in reporting by the IMT. The IMT argued that the ELT need not
knowtoomuchdetails
Ontheotherhand,inonequotedproject,theteamacceptedareducedprofittoachievetheprojectbudget,asthe
furnitureandequipmentcomponenthadbeenseriouslyunderestimated.Suchcommitmenttoachievingtheproject
budgetisasubstantialbenefit.
Anotherissueistheprobityassociated withateambeingengagedbyagovernmentclientforanumberof
projects, based upon their successful performance and relationship. A majority of interviewees agreed that it is
importanttomaintainthestabilityoftheteaminfutureprojectsasthesameteammembersalreadyunderstandthe
principles of relationship contracting and how they should behave and relate under such arrangements. But this
obviously raises the question: where is the competition and probity? This may be a significant issue for public
projects,andisbeingexaminedinfurtherstagesofthisresearch.

48

These issues need to be addressed in future research and projects. It is suggested that more training and
workshops are needed to remove the barriers and boundaries between the project team members and the
organisationstheyrepresent.Brieflyspeaking,genuinecommitmentfromallprojectparticipantsisnecessaryforthe
successofrelationshipcontracting projects.

RESEARCHFINDINGSINCHINA
Similar research is currently being undertaken in China to investigate the clients role in driving an appropriate
project culture, leading to innovative performance outcomes in a China context. Due to time and resources
constraints,thispartof theresearchhasmainlyfocusedonprojectcultureissuesfromtheperspectiveofcontractors
andgovernmentofficers.
Thirtyeightseniormanagersandconstructionmanagersfromsignificantcontractorsinthelocalmarketwere
approachedfortheircommentsonprojectculture issuesandtheimpactsoftheseontheperformanceofconstruction
projects.Theywereencouragedtogiveexamplesdrawnfromtheirfirsthandexperience.Fivegovernmentofficers
werealsointerviewed,mainlyfortheircommentsontheprocurement approach,i.e.relationshipcontracting,andthe
possibilityofimplementingthisinChina.
Eachintervieweewasfirstintroducedtotheaimsofthisresearch:thecomparisonsofindustrypractitioners
views onprojectcultureanditsinfluenceontheperformance ofconstructionprojects.Thenthey wereshown the
summaryoffindingsoftheresearchconductedinAustralia.Thissummaryincludedthecommonfeaturesofproject
cultureinsuccessfulprojects,fromthepointofviewoftheirAustraliacounterparts.SomeAustralianexamplesof
theappropriateprojectcultureandhowthisinfluencedperformancewerealsointroducedtotheinterviewees.
In general, the research findings in China are in line with those in Australia. A majority of interviewees
agreedthatprojectculturegreatlyaffectsperformance.Theyacknowledgedthatapositiveandappropriateculture
doescontributetowardsthesuccessofconstructionprojects.Accordingtotheinterviewees,thecommonfeaturesof
the appropriate project culture concluded from the Australianbased research are also applicable in the China
context:
Allprojectculturesmustservetosatisfytheclient,i.e.toachievetheclientsrequirements.This
list of features of project culture can do that all these are very important to foster a
collaborative relationship among parties these also help to motivate participants for possible
innovations
Amajorityofintervieweesstressedtheimportanceofthewholeprojectteamhavingacommongoal.Accordingto
them,amismatchofobjectivesofparticipatingpartiesinaconstructionprojectisdetrimentaltoboththeinterfirm
relationshipsandtheperformanceoftheproject:intheprojectweshouldbehaveinthewaythatweallbelongto
thisprojectratherthantoeachparty.Oneseniormanagerfromacontractor gaveanexampleofaprojectwhere
majorpartiesusethesameofficeonsite:
Thishelpedto improve the efficiency of communication anddevelop aharmonious relationship
amongparticipants.Allparticipantswereencouragedtoadopttheotherpartyspointofviewto
thinkaboutprojectissues,whichhelpedtounderstandeachothersvisionsandvalues.Thisalso
helpedtheclienttogainbettervalueformoney.
Allintervieweesstatedthatmoretrainingisneededtoensureallindustrypractitionerscanbehaveappropriatelyand
focusonthecommongoaloftheproject.
SimilartothefindingsintheAustraliancomponentoftheresearch,allintervieweesbelievedthatdriversof
an appropriate project culturecome from various sources. The relevant governmentdepartment (andits officers),
supervision engineer, design institute*, project management consultant and contractors were identified as major
partiestoinfluencetheprojectculture.Buttheclientscriticalroleindrivinganappropriateprojectculturewasalso
acknowledged byallinterviewees.InChina,thegovernmentplaysaspecialrolebecauseitisnotonlythepolicy
developer but also themajor funder of the constructionindustry (thatis,the client). A seniormanager of a state
owned contractor even listed the attitude of the client towards the project and nonclient parties as the most
importantsuccessfactorofaconstructionproject:
ifthereareharmoniousrelationshipsbetweentheclientandotherstakeholders,thesuccessofthe
projectismorepossible.Clientsattitudesdecidethecharacteroftheprojectculture intheproject.
Itisveryinterestingtonotethatmostconstructionmanagerintervieweeshighlightedthedifficultiesinestablishing
anappropriateprojectculture,eventhoughtheyacknowledgedthecrucialrolethatthisplayed:

InChina,thedesigninstituteprovidesvariousconsultantfunctionsthatareofferedbydifferentconsultants
(architect,electricalengineer,mechanicalengineer,etc.)intheconstructionindustryinWesterncountries.
49

We understand that an appropriate project culture is good for the project, but we are too busy
handling other technical issues so that we cannot afford to spend time on creating a positive
projectculture
Inthisregard,seniormanagerintervieweesfromcontractorsstressedthatitisstillnecessarytodevelopandsustain
anappropriateculture:
Yes, some resources are required to do this, but this is helpful for the whole project. The
participants attitudes very much influence the relationship towards each other and whether the
project can be completed successfully. The project cultureinfluences the attitude of participants
towards each other and to the project. It is worthwhile to invest resources in developing an
appropriateprojectcultureandthereturnislongterm.
Ontheotherhand,thereweremixedcommentsaboutrelationshipcontractingandthepossibility ofimplementing
thisintheChineseconstructionindustry.Mostintervieweesadmittedthattheprinciplesofrelationshipcontracting
shouldhelp industry practitionersto solve some issues that originated from interfirmrelationships. However, all
governmentofficerintervieweespointedoutthatitwouldbedifficulttoadoptthisapproachinChinaatthemoment.
In China, many construction projects are still procured through the traditional designtenderconstruct
approach.Underthisformofprocurement,asupervisionengineermustbe employedtomonitorthehealthofthe
project.Asathirdparty,thisengineermusthandleissuesfairly.Therearenoexamplesofrelationshipcontracting
beingusedtoprocureconstructionprojectsinChina.
In 2003, the Ministry of Construction, the department that is responsible for the management of the
construction market, issued a document to encourage the industry to adopt the EPC (engineeringprocurement
construction) or D&B (design and build) approach and to push developer clients to engage a PMC (project
management consultant) to manage the whole project on behalf of the client (MoC 2003). In contrast to the
supervisionengineer,thePMCisdirectlyemployedbytheclienttomanagethewholeprojectfromitsinceptionto
completion. This kind of procurement approach is called Dai Jian Zhi in Chinese, which means that there is
anotherentity(thePMC)tomanagetheprojectfullyonbehalfoftheclient.
Acting on behalf of the client, the PMC has been authorised to control the project process to ensure the
objectivescanbeachieved.Inmostprojectsthatarefundedbythegovernment,theappointmentofaPMCiseven
mandated. In such cases, the government will only be responsible for funding the project and finalising its
commissioning.ThegovernmentdelegatesallotherphasestothePMC.Astheresult,thePMCtakeallrisksfrom
theclient.Normally,thereareclearincentiveschemes forthePMC.Forinstance,thePMCcanbepaidacertain
percentageofanincentivepooliftheskillsofthePMCresultincostsavings.Therefore,thePMCismotivatedto
ensureallprojectobjectivesareachieved.
Figure6.3:OrganisationChartIllustratingtheUseofthePMCApproachinChina

In summary, it is compulsory to employ a supervision engineer on construction projects, while the government
department encourages and sometimes mandates the client to engage a skilled and experienced PMC in order to
manage the project better. This is always the case with governmentfunded projects. In view of this, the Lyell
McEwinHealthServiceRedevelopmentStageAapproachwherebyafacilitatorratherthanaPMisengagedand
thewholeteamsharestheriskandrewardswouldbeunacceptableatpresentinaChinacontext,fromalegal
perspective.Thetraditionalmethod,wherebyaprojectmanagerisengagedtomanageaprojectandassumesoverall
responsibility,ismorelikelytobeappliedintheconstructionindustryinChina.Thismodelhasbeenappliedinthe
50

AdelaideConventionCentreExtensionsProjectinSouthAustraliaandmanyotherrelationshipcontractingprojects
worldwide.
WhatisthewayforwardforChina?WhilethePMCtakesallrisksfromtheclientinaChinacontext,thereis
stillanopportunityforasmartrisksharingschemebetweenthePMCandtherestoftheprojectteam.ThenoPM
approach, which is the latest development in relationship contracting and may be the trend for future projects,
couldbeintroducedbyafutureChinesegovernment.Thiswouldnecessitatelegislativechanges.

CONCLUSION
This chapter has examined relationship contracting from a project culture perspective. Preliminary interviews
revealed that there were common features of project culture in those projects adopting relationship contracting.
These features included outcome orientation, openness and honesty, mutual trust, early warning of problems,
willingness to help, shared visions, flexibility, and ownership of the project. This list of features of the project
culturewascompatiblewiththeconceptualframeworkestablishedonthebasisofliteraturefindings.
By focusing on how to establish and maintain an appropriate project culture, it helps to understand the
successstoriesofrelationshipcontracting andhowthissuccesscouldbereplicatedonotherprojects.
Basically all project participants, including the client, need to change their mindset about their behaviour
duringtheprojectprocess.Thesuccessofconstructionprojectsreliesonwhetheranappropriateprojectculturecan
bedevelopedandsustainedacrosstheprojectteamduringtheprojectperiod.Theidealsituationisthatthisproject
culturecouldbedevelopedfromtheverybeginningoftheprojectbasedonthecommitmentfromallparties.This
projectcultureshouldalsobemaintainedcarefullybyworkshopsortraining.Bybeingmoreinvolvedintheproject,
the client will need to commit more resources and contribute towards the development and maintenance of the
projectculture.Thewillingnessofclientstochangetheirmindsetswillbethekeydriverforanappropriateproject
culture that canleadtoinnovativeperformanceoutcomes.
Itshouldbenotedthatthechangeinculture occursfirstandthatrelationshipcontracting isaformofcontract
thathelpsthisprocessalong.Atthesametime,itisrequiredtodevelopandsustainanappropriateprojectculture
(viatheculturalchange)basedonthecommitmentfromalltheprojectparticipants.
Normally a series of workshops is conducted during the project period to build a highperformance team.
Accordingto Department for Administrative and Information Services (2001) the popular topics addressed in the
workshopsincluded:
exposing the participants to the fundamentals of high performance team technology, providing the tools of
masterytooperatewillinglyandconfidentlyinsidetheintegratedteam
aligningwithandcommittingtotheobjectivesfortheproject
determining,clarifying,negotiating,andcommittingtotheexactexpectationsthateachstakeholdergrouphas
oftheothers
developingandcommittingtoasetofactionplanstorealiseprojectobjectives
deepeningthefoundationofrelationshipsuponwhichasuccessfulprojectcanbebuilt.
Itisapparentthatthesetopicsareintendedtochangethemindsetofprojectparticipantsfromadversarialbehaviour
to a more cooperative and collaborative culture within the team. Therefore, it is suggested that the participants
shouldpayattentiontothesefundamentalsofacollaborativeapproach(refertoFigure6.1)ratherthanjustonthis
specific procurement approach relationship contracting. Once again, the genuine commitment of all project
participantsisnecessaryforthesuccessofrelationshipcontractingprojects.Itisrecommendedthatanewitem(e.g.
projectculture)beaddedtotheworkshopagendatoestablishtheappropriateprojectculturewithintheprojectteam
and sustain it during the project period. By doing so, project participants will more easily understand the
fundamentalsofacollaborativeapproachandgenuinecommitmenttothecollaborativecontractwillbemorelikely
tobeachieved.
The research findings in China are generally in line with those Australia. Almost all of the Chinese
intervieweesagreedthatanappropriateprojectculturedoescontributetowardsthesuccessofconstructionprojects.
Theyalso confirmedthelistof commonfeaturesoftheappropriateprojectcultureandtheclientscriticalrolein
driving an appropriate project culture leading to innovative performance outcomes. Most of the Chinese
intervieweesacknowledgedthatrelationshipcontractingprinciplescouldhelpresolvemajorissuesinconstruction
projects procured through the current traditional approach. Without prior relationship contracting experience, the
Chineseconstructionindustrywillneedtheexperienceandskillof itsAustraliancounterparts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TheauthorswouldspecificallyliketoacknowledgeMr.AndrewHutchinsonofAlchimiePtyLtdforhisvaluable
contribution to this chapter via the agendas for high performance team workshops, and also Mr Peter Petrou of
CheesmanArchitectsforkindlymakingthese agendasavailable.

51

REFERENCES
Ario,A.,J.TorreandP.Ring.2005.Relationalqualityandinterpersonaltrustinstrategicalliances.European
ManagementReview,2(1):1527.
AustraliaNationalAuditOffice.2001. ContractManagement:Betterpracticeguide.Canberra:AGPS.
AustralianConstructorsAssociation.1999. RelationshipContracting:Optimisingprojectoutcomes. NewSouth
Wales:AustralianConstructors Association.
AustralianProcurement andConstructionCouncil.1997. ConstructAustralia:Buildingabetterconstruction
industryinAustralia. www.apcc.gov.au (accessed3May2006).
Barlow,J.2000.Innovationandlearningincomplexoffshoreconstructionprojects.ResearchPolicy, 29(8):973
989.
Cameron,K.andR.Quinn.1999.DiagnosingandChangingOrganizationalCulture:Basedonthecompeting
valuesframework.NewYork:AddisonWesley.
Carr,J.andD.Exton.2004.LyellMcEwinHealthServiceredevelopmentstageA:casestudy.ClientsDriving
ConstructionInnovation:Mappingtheterrain,eds.K.Brown,K.HampsonandP.Brandon.,162168.Brisbane.
CRCforConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
Chan,A.,D.ChanandK.Ho.2003.Anempiricalstudyofthebenefitsofconstructionpartnering inHongKong.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 21(5):523553.
Chan,E.andR.Tse.2003,Culturalconsiderationsininternationalconstructioncontracts. JournalofConstruction
EngineeringandManagement, 129(4):375381.
Cole,T.2003. FinalReportoftheRoyalCommissioninto theBuildingandConstructionIndustry:Summaryof
findingsandrecommendations,volume1 (ColeRoyalCommissionReport).Canberra:AGPS.
DepartmentforAdministrativeandInformationServices.2001. LyellMcEwinHospitalRedevelopmentProject:
Highperformancetrainingandselectionprocesskickoff.Adelaide:AGPS.
Dulaimi,M.,Y.Ling,G.Ofori,GandN.Silva.2002.Enhancingintegrationandinnovationinconstruction.
BuildingResearch&Information, 30(4):237247.
Egan,J.1998. RethinkingConstruction:Thereportoftheconstructiontaskforce (EganReport).London:HMSO.
Hofstede,G.1997. CulturesandOrganizations:Softwareofthemind. NewYork:McGrawHill.
Humphreys,P.,J.MatthewsandM.Kumaraswamy.2003.Preconstructionprojectpartnering:fromadversarial to
collaborativerelationships. SupplyChainManagement:Aninternationaljournal,8(2):166178.
JamiesonM.andA.Thorpe.1996. Refocusingcollaboration technologiesintheconstructionvaluechain.CIB
ConferenceProceedings.Slovenia,911July.
Kagioglou,M.,R.Cooper,R.andG.Aouad.1999.ReengineeringtheUKconstructionindustry:theprocess
protocol.2ndInternationalConferenceonConstructionProcessReEngineering.Sydney,1314July.
Kanji,G.andA.Wong.1998.Qualityculture intheconstructionindustry.TotalQualityManagement,9(4/5):133
140.
Kumaraswamy,M.1997.Conflicts,claimsanddisputesinconstruction. EngineeringConstructionand
ArchitecturalManagement,4(2):95111.
Kumaraswamy,M.,S.Rowlinson,M.RahmanandF.Phua.2002.Strategiesfortriggeringtherequiredcultural
revolutionintheconstructionindustry.PerspectivesonCultureonConstruction,eds.R.FellowsandD.
Seymour.268285.Sydney:CIBPublications.
Kumaraswamy,M.,M.S.RowlinsonandF.Phua.2001.Originsanddesireddestinationsofconstructionproject
cultures. CIBWorldCongress.Wellington,NewZealand,26April.
Latham,M.1994. ConstructingtheTeam.London:HMSO.
Liu,A&R.,Fellows,R.1999.Culturalissues.Procurement Systems:Aguidetobestpracticeinconstruction,eds.
P.McDermottandS.Rowlinson.141162.NewYork:Routledge.
Loosemore,M.andH.Muslmani.1999.ConstructionprojectmanagementinthePersianGulf:intercultural
communication. InternationalJournalofProjectManagement, 17(2):95100.
Love,P.,Z.Irani,H.Li,E.ChengandR.Tse.2001.Anempiricalanalysisofthebarrierstoimplementinge
commerceinsmallmediumsizedconstructioncontractorsintheStateofVictoria,Australia. Construction
InnovationJ1:ConstructionInnovation,1(1):3141.
McGeorge,W.,A.PalmerandK.London.2002. ConstructionManagement:Newdirections,2ndedn.Oxford:
BlackwellScience.
MinistryofConstruction.2003.ThepolicytodevelopEPC andD&B contractorfirmsandtheprojectmanagement
consultantfirmsintheconstructionindustry.
http://www.realestate.gov.cn/file.asp?recordno=7971&teamno=103&line=100 (accessed12January2006).
Quick,R.2002.Introductiontoalliancing andrelationshipcontracting.QLS/BAQSymposium.Brisbane,2March.
Ross,J.2001. IntroductiontoProject Alliancing onEngineeringandConstructionProjects.
http://www.fletcherconstruction.co.nz/article.php?article_id=103 (accessed12October2005).
Rowlinson,S.andF.Cheung.2004.Areviewoftheconceptsanddefinitionsofthevariousformsofrelational
contracting. InternationalSymposiumofCIBW92onProcurementSystems.Chennai,India,710January.

52

Rwelamila,P.,A.Talukhaba,andT.Kiyaa.2000.Africanintelligentsia:whyhaveweembracedhyperbarefoot
empiricisminprocurement practices? 2ndInternationalConferenceonConstructioninDevelopingCountries:
Challengesfacingtheconstructionindustryindevelopingcountries.Botswana,1517November.
Schein,E.1985.OrganizationalCultureandLeadership.SanFrancisco:JosseyBass.
Walker,D.andK.Hampson.2003. Procurement Strategies:Arelationshipbasedapproach.Malden,Mass.
BlackwellScience.
Walker,D.,K.HampsonandR.Peters.2002.Projectalliancing vsprojectpartnering:acasestudyoftheAustralian
NationalMuseumProject.SupplyChainManagement:Aninternationaljournal, 7(2):8391.
Winch,G.2003.Howinnovativeisconstruction?comparingaggregateddataonconstructioninnovationandother
sectors:acaseofapplesandpears. ConstructionManagement&Economics, 21(6):651654.
Wong,A.andP.Fung.1999.Total qualitymanagement intheconstructionindustryinHongKong:asupplychain
managementperspective.TotalQualityManagement J1:TotalQualityManagement, 10(2):199208.

53

Part3
ProcurementandRiskManagement

54

CHAPTER7

RebalancingRiskandRewards
JimDoyle
OVERVIEWOFTHEAUSTRALIANINDUSTRY
Structureoftheindustry
AlllevelsoftheAustralianconstructionindustryaresufferingdecliningprofits:
The major contractors dominate the market and industry as a whole, but the number of entities is shrinking
throughfailures(suchasWalterConstructionGroup)andacquisitions.
The mediumsized businesses are squeezed between the lowcost small contractors and the generally well
financed(ifnoteconomicallyprofitable)majors.
The small end of the industry is the home of most subcontractors and niche/home builders. The sector is
noticeableforitsverylowentrythreshold,allowingunderresourcedandnovicebusinessestostarteasily,and
itscorrespondinglyhighfailurerate.Theresultantskillandtechnologylosstotheindustryissignificantanda
barriertoindustrysuccessandgrowth.
(Weaver& Hyde2005)

Profittrends
Therewardavailabletothevariouscontractorsandsuppliersistheprofittheymakefromtheworkstheyperform.
Thelevelofprofitabilityintheindustryislowanddeclining(Richardson2005). In the past, the traditionally low
profitabilityoftheindustrywasoffsetbyarelativelyhighturnoveroncapitalandtheabilityofheadcontractorsto
harvestthebenefitofmanagingcashflowsgenerallybyclaimingearlyanddeferringpaymentstosuppliersand
subcontractors.Inthepast,thismeantawellmanagedbusinesswaslargelyfundedbythecashflowderivedfromits
projects andanet profit margin of 2% could be multiplied by a factor of two or three based on turning over the
entirecapitalbaseofthebusinessseveraltimesinayear.
Bothoftheseelementsareunderthreat.AninternalsurveybyWestpacBank (Hyde2005)showsthat therate
ofturnoverofassetsacrossallmajorindustryplayershasbeensteadilydeclining,andin20032004wasaveraging
less than 1.5, whilst the introduction of Acts in various states, similar to theBuilding and Construction Industry
SecurityofPaymentAct,enablessubcontractorsandsupplierstoenforcetheirrightstotimelyandregularpayments
(Doyle2004).

Industryrisks
The Australian construction industry has a number of characteristics that increase both development and
construction risks. Some are endemic such as the industrial relations climate and multiple layers of government.
Others,particularlybuildingandconstructionindustrysecurityofpaymentslegislation,andtherapidescalationin
materialpricesarenewandtheindustryisstillattemptingtocometogripswiththeconsequences ofthechange.
Othersarestructuralmarketsizeandvolatility,informationtechnologyandinnovationrequiringcriticalmassand
rewarding scale, governmental policy preference for single provider on major deliverables and labour market
realities.Twoofthekeyrisksimpactingeverybuildingprojectareindustrycapacityandbuildingindustrysecurity
ofpaymentlegislation.
Industrycapacity
TheAustralianbuildingindustryhasbeenstrugglingtomeetarapidlyescalatingdemandinmanykeyareas(see
Figure 7.1) although a recent report by Master Builders Australia (Master Builders Australia 2005) based on a
survey of its members shows current industry conditions flattening out in the June 2005 quarter and suggests a
easingmaybestartingtoappear.

55

Figure7.1:ConstructionWorkload$A
$60,000

$m

Pipelineofw orkincurrentprojectsAustralia

$50,000
Residential
$40,000
Nonresidential
$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$0
1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

(Richardson2006,6)
Thecurrentbuildingboom(withworkloadsclosetothe2004peak)hasledtopriceescalationandthedeskillingof
the overall workforce as contractors employ aggressively seek to fill vacancies and encounter delays as suppliers
andsubcontractorsexperiencethesameoverdemandasthemaincontractors.
Thisshortageofskilledworkersandlackofoverallindustrycapacityhas ledtotheaverageannualtradeprice
inflation exceeding 6% pa over the last three years (to 2005) and trade price inflation is expected to continue to
average 5% for thenexttwo years (DeloitteTouche Tohmatsu2005). Very few contractors on fixed price bids
wouldhaveallowedfortheseratesofinflation(andstillhadthelowesttenderprice).
Buildingindustrysecurityofpaymentlegislation
Building and construction industry security of payment (BCISOP) legislation in force in most states has been
accurately described as enforcing a pay now, argue later regime onto the construction industry. Claims made
under the relevant Acts are typically resolved within four to six weeks, and adjudicated payments are generally
enforceable withinsevendays.Whilstanyadjudicatedamountisconsideredapaymentonaccount(similartoa
normalprogresspayment)theimpactoncashflows fortheorganisationthatisrequiredtopay canbe significant
withanumberofawardsexceeding$1m (NSWGovernmentConstructionAgencyCoordinationCommittee2005).
The Acts are causing a radical rethink of many traditional project management and contract management
processes.Allprofessionalcontractadministratorsmustmanageeveryaspectofacontractontheassumptionthatall
outstanding issues will be included in a claim under the Act in the next month. It is no longer acceptable to let
claimsremainunanswered(Doyle2005).

Thecostoffailure
More frequently one sees new headlines announcing profit downgrades for one major contractor or another. This
trendislikelytobeasdamagingtotheclientsoftheAustralianconstructionindustryasitistotheshareholdersin
the businesses featuringinthe announcements. Despite many attempts to draft watertight contracts,no contract
can protect clients from the failure of a contractor or protect them from the cost of defending claims made by a
contractorsomepartoftheultimateriskisalwaystheclients!ThisistheactualexperienceofclientsoftheWalter
ConstructionGroup,HenryWalkerEltin,andothers.
Wherethecontractor remainsviable butknows theyarelosingmoney,theclientispotentially subjecttoa
rangeofclaims,eithergenuineorfabricated.Eveniftheclientissuccessfulindefendingaclaim theyare unlikely
to recover the full costs (internal, external, tangible and intangible costs) associated in managing the dispute.
Negotiated settlements frequently involve reduction in scope, quality or other facets of the project as well as
financialsettlementsandongoingimpactsoncorebusinessobjectives.
The Victorian governmentandthe Spencer Street Station developers agreedto settle their disputes in mid
2005butwithnumerousreductionsinscopeanddesignchangesincludingreducingtheareacoveredbythewave
roof,deletingamajornewpedestrianlinkandusinglowercostfinishesontheplatforms.

56

Where a negotiated settlement is not possible, the natural reaction of any business facing a significant loss is to
attempttocutitscostsbydowngradingonsitesupervision,reducingqualityand/ortheslowingoftheconstruction
process.
Theconsequence ofallofthesepotentialoutcomesultimatelyimpactsthebuildingindustrys clients.They
paymoreandreceivelessthantheyexpected!Changingthisoutcomeisakeyingredientinthefuturegrowthofthe
industry.Whentheconstructionindustryisperceivedbyitsclientstodeliverqualityandvalue,thepotentialmarket
foritsserviceswillincreaseasclientschoosetoinvestdiscretionaryexpenditureinAustralianconstructionprojects.

THERISKSINFIXEDPRICEDESIGNANDCONSTRUCTCONTRACTS
OneofthemoredisturbingtrendsintheAustralianconstructionindustryhasbeenthetendencyforclientstoattempt
to transfer all of the project risk to the contractor. This approach is most obvious in the increasingly common
applicationofdesignandconstruct(D&C)contracts.D&Ccontractsplaceasignificantportionofthedevelopment
risk onto the contractor but in many cases, the contractors margin remains the same as for a traditional tender.
Whilethisformofcontractcanbeeffective whencorrectlyapplied,overuseleadstoconfusion,lackofclearrisk
allocationanddisputes.

D&Ccontracts:Theclientsperspective
Theuseof D&Ccontractsgrewoutofthe supplysidebuildingboomofthe1980sandissuperficiallyattractiveto
clients,oftenasawayofreducingdesigncostsanddelays.Projectswerebuilttoonsellandqualitywasfocusedon
shorttermneeds.Thecurrentdemandsideboomisbuildtoowntheoverallcontractingprocessshouldnow
befocusedonquality,wholeoflifecosting,andalongtermviewofvalue.
The likely consequence of using the combination of an overstretched principals team and a D&C
constructioncontractwithalow fixedprice include:
1. Acceptinglowcostdesigninpreferencetoaqualitydesign.Thecontractorwillhavepushedthedesigncostsas
low as possible to minimise its overall cost and, as a consequence, the designers will not have the time or
budgettoundertakeproperdesignconsultationsandreviewswiththeclienttoproduceanoptimumdesign.
2. Lossofclientcontroloverthedesign.AslongasthefinaldesignmeetstheD&Cbrief,thecontractorwillhave
mettheirobligations.Writingaperfectdesignbriefisvirtuallyimpossible,thereforeeveryinterpretationwill
beheavilybiasedbytheneedofthecontractorsdesigners,andthecontractor,tosavecostsratherthanthebest
longtermoutcomesfortheclient.
3. D&C provides a socalled single point of responsibility. If the project is a major failure the client can
theoretically sue the contractor, or the contractors insurers. However, construction clients cannot mitigate
ultimate risk (that is, the liquidation of the head contractor) and increase their exposure to damage by
attemptingtoavoidallrisk.Withoutpropermanagementstrategiestomonitorandrespondtoissuesbeforethey
becomeprojectcritical,theclientmayendupwithnoeffectiveandcommercialrightstothedesignworkdone
bythecontractor(particularlyifdesignershaveto be changed)andwillinevitably facemajorcost escalation
andtimedelaysinattemptingtocompleteabuildingafterthecontractorhasgoneintoliquidation.
4. Byacceptinganunrealisticprice,clientsareinvitinglongertermexpenses.Contractorsforcedintoalosswill
almost inevitably seek to recover monies by making claims this is now much quicker and easier for the
contractors with the advent of the various security of payment Acts. The other natural reaction from a
contractor losingmoney on a contract isto attempt to cutcosts. Typically this involves reducing supervision
with an inevitable impact on quality, and may also involve overt reductions in the quality of materials and
workmanship. The costs incurred by a client in closely supervising a contractors work to enforce quality,
defendingclaimsandseekingtorecoverlosesanddisputedadjudicationpaymentscanquicklyerodeanyinitial
gainsachievedbyacceptinganunrealisticallylowprice.
ThequalitymovementinmanufacturingledbypeoplesuchasDeming(Deming1982)andCrosby(Crosby1969)
have long stated that quality should be designed in, not inspected in. This philosophy is equally true for
construction.Constructionindustryclientsneedtoquestionthewisdom ofabandoningcontrolandinfluenceover
thedesignprocessfortheirprojecttothelowestcostcontractor/designer.MorecollaborativemodelsfortheD&C
trackcanbeusedtoproduceamoresatisfactoryresult.

D&Ccontracts:Thecontractorsperspective
D&Ccontractstransfersubstantialrisk aswellasresponsibility tothecontractor.
Inthefirstinstance,theD&Ccontractorhasamassiveconflictofinteresttoresolve.Ononehandthereare
the contractors obligations to their shareholders, employees and subcontractors to generate profits and remain
viablesotheycanpay wagesanddebts.Thissetof obligationsrequirestheD&Ccontractortoseekthecheapest
possible solution to their contract obligations so as to maximise their profits (or minimise losses). This is
diametrically opposite to the normal obligations of a designer which typically involve seeking to achieve the

57

optimum design solution for the client by taking the time to balance multiple considerations including quality,
wholeoflife costing,budgets,aestheticsanddesigncosts.
ThenextmajorriskacceptedbytheD&Ccontractoristheinterpretationofthedesignbrief(and/oraccepting
thenovationoftheclientsnominateddesigner).Anyapparentambiguityinthebriefwilltendtobereaddownby
the contractorand up by the client. If the client wins the argument,the D&C contractor can end up buildinga
muchmoreexpensiveprojectthantheyallowedintheirtender.Thisriskiscompoundedifthecontractisafixed
price,awardedtothelowestbidder!
BeyondtheissuessurroundingtheD&Cprocessdiscussedabove,theD&Ccontractor alsoacceptsthefull
spectrum of design and development cost risks.The design solution may simply cost more to build than initially
estimated. Traditional development margins were in the order of 30% to allow for the escalation of costs as the
designevolved.InD&Ccontracts,manycontractorsareacceptingthesedevelopmentrisksattraditionalcontracting
margins wesuggestthisisarecipefordisaster.
Theindustryneedsabetterwaytoapportionrisk,responsibilityandprofits.

DEVELOPINGINTEGRATEDCONSTRUCTIONTEAMS
TheproblemsandrisksoutlinedabovearenotuniquetoAustraliatheUKbuildingindustryhasexperiencedsimilar
problemsoverasignificantnumberofyears.Thekeydifferenceisthattheindustryanditsclients,withtheactive
supportofgovernment,have both beenworkingtoresolvetheissues.
ReportsbyLatham(1994)andEgan(1998)haveledtotheformationofConstructingExcellence(aimedat
achievingastepchangeinconstructionproductivity bytacklingthemarketfailuresinthesector)andthepublication
of numerous studies, reports and recommendations. Other initiatives include the Delay and disruption protocol
(TheSocietyofConstructionLaw2002) whichfocusesonthemanagementofschedulesandtimerelateddisputes.
The conclusion from these reports, supported by numerous case studies and surveys, is that a cooperative
approachtoconstructiondeliversrealbenefitstoalloftheparties.TheLathamreport(1994)indicatespartneringas
a way forward to improve efficiency and profitability. Egan expanded on this concept to recommend integrated
supplyteamsandlongtermclient/constructionteamrelationshipstoallowlessonslearnedtobeincorporatedinto
thenextproject.
ThesurveydataavailablefromtheConstructingExcellencewebsiteshowsanengagedclientandsuccessful
teaming can delivera better building ata lower cost, inless time than traditional contracting andthe builders
makemoremoney!
TheselessonshavenotbeenentirelyignoredbytheAustralianconstructionindustryasignificantnumberof
majorprojectshavebeensuccessfullydeliveredusingpartneringandalliancecontractsandhavelargelydelivered
onthepromiseof betterbuildingsatreducedcosts.Egansideasoflongtermrelationshipsbetweensupplyteams
andclientsalsoseemtobetakingholdinanumberofmaintenanceandsupportareas.
However, the models in use at the moment are expensive to implement, focusing on bespoke contracts,
managementandteam retreats, focused team building exercises and thelike. Whilst this level of investment in
teamcreationisjustifiedforlarge$100m+contracts(wherethecostoffailurecouldbeenormousandthebenefits
ofsuccessequallygreat)itisnot practicalornecessaryonsmalltomediumsizedcontracts.
Thebalanceofthischapterwilladdresstherequirementsforacontractingmodelthatimplementsthelessons
ofLatham(1994)andEgan(1998)inacosteffective,pragmaticwaydesignedforcontractsofjustafewmillion
dollarsvalue.

Teamformation
The key element within the ideas of Latham and Egan, as well as the proponents of partnering and alliance
contracts, is the need to develop a strong team consisting of the client, head contractor, designers and key
subcontractors/suppliers. Significant effort is poured into team creation in the expectation that a strong team will
evolve, committed to the common cause of delivering a great project that meets all of the different partys
expectations.Thisisonekeyareawheretheneeds(andbudget)ofamajorprojectdiffersignificantlyfromsmaller
projects.
Competingtheoriesofteamdevelopment:Tuckman
Thetraditionalapproachtodevelopingteamsadoptedbymostpartneringagreementsappearstobebasedonthe
theories of Tuckman (Tuckman 1965 Tuckman & Jensen 1977). The assumptions are that teams are groups of
people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose and hold themselves mutually
accountable for its achievement. Ideally, they develop a distinct identity and work together in a coordinated and
mutually supportive way to achieve their agreed goals. Successful teams are characterised by a team spirit based
around trust, mutual respect and helpfulness. This usually requires colocation, and helps to move through the
forming,stormingandnormingphasesofdevelopmenttoachievetheultimateaimofaperformingteam(refer
toTable7.1).

58

Table7.1:TuckmansModelofTeamFormation
Stage
Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing

Explanation
Teammembersgettoknoweachother
Teammemberstryingtosorteachotherout
Teammembersstartingtoworkasagroup
Teammembersperformingasacommittedteam
(Source:AdaptedfromTuckman1965)

TheunderlayingassumptionintheTuckmanmodelisthatthecreationofacommitted,performingteamisasteady
progress through various stages of development and the commitment of time and effort, together with critical
physicalsupports(e.g.colocation)andpsychologicalsupports(e.g.theovertsupportofseniormanagementfrom
all parties) will achieve the desired results. Experience suggests that this model is both realistic and achievable
providedthenecessaryenvironmentiscreatedandadequateandcontinuinginvestmentsmade.
Whilst being an appropriate model for large projects with relatively stable teams, the problems with this
approachonsmallerprojectsinclude that:
theprojectisrarelybigenoughtowarrantafullycolocatedteammany smallprojectteammemberswillbe
parttimeworkingfromtheirownoffice
thetrustandcolocationaspectsoflargeprojectteamsallowtheassumptionthattheteamwilllargelyresolve
problems internally, with dispute escalation occurring at a relatively late stage on smaller projects support
systemsneedtobeinplacetogeneratetrustandresolvedisagreementsmuchsooner
although large project teams seek to involve a wide range of parties in the team (it is both necessary and
desirable),thecommitmentofmanypartiesonasmallerprojectisoftentoolimitedtowarrantmucheffortin
engagingtheminateam.
Competingtheoriesofteamdevelopment:Gersick,punctuatedequilibrium
Gersicks(1988)conceptofpunctuatedequilibriumproposesthatteamformationisnotcharacterisedbygradual
change, rather it is punctuated by cataclysmic events that force movement to the next evolutionary level.
AccordingtoGersick,theteamwillquicklydevelopasetofoperatingprincipleswhicharesufficient,butlessthan
optimal,intheearlystagesofaprojectwherethereisanormallyagreatdealofgoodwill.Ittakesatriggerevent
to move the team out of this level of operation. This trigger can be dissatisfaction with project progress,
interpersonalconflictoranyoneoftheusualprojectflashpointsofscope,time,costandquality.
This trigger is the catalyst for revision of team relationships, either consolidating the team values and
contributingtohigherteamperformance(iftheresultispositive),or,iftheresultsarenegative,theteamcouldbe
forcedtodisbandorhaveitsmembershipmodifieditisalmostimpossibletoreverttotheprecataclysmmodeof
operationafteroneofthesetriggers.
Inthecontextofpunctuatedequilibriumprojectmanagersneedtooperatedifferently.Atthestartofasmall
construction project, there is little time to build atrustingrelationship between the various members of the team.
They must work out their differences on the fly and blindly trust one another to do their jobs. Swift trust
(Meyerson et al. 1996) does not justhappen there are factors in the environment whichare preconditionsthat
enableandencouragetrusttobegivenandusedwell.Someoftheseare:
Linkedoverallgoals,rewardsandpenalties.Byputtingpeopleinthesameboattheyareforcedtodevelopa
systemofcommontrust.
Interdependence. Where people are independent, less trust is needed. However, if some are more dependent
thanothers,thenpowerpositionsarecreatedwithamuchlesstrustingenvironment.
Justenoughresources.Thereshouldbesufficientresourcestodothejob,otherwisebattlesforresources will
erodetrust.Theabilitytoincreaseresourcesquickly,inlinewithprojectrequirements,isalsonecessary.
Professional role focus. A focus on acting as, and treating others as, professionals leads to trust in their
professionalcapabilities.
Combining these two theories creates a framework withinwhich performing teams can be developed for smaller
projectswithouttheneedtoexpendthesignificanttimeandeffortinvolved(andwarranted)indevelopingteamsfor
majorprojects.
Thekeycomponentsoftheframeworkare:
theprojectclient(withtheassistanceoftheconsultantsandheadcontractor)createsanenvironment
encouragingtheformationof swifttrust andclearpurposeandtiming
thepeopleinvolvedinthecoreteamarekepttoapracticalminimum
supportsystemsareputinplacebeforetheprojectstartstodealwiththeinevitable explosionwiththeovert
aimofliftingteamperformancetoahigherlevel

59

systemsareinplacetoinductnewpeopletotheteamastheprojectprogresseshowever,theinvitationistojoin
theteamasisandcontributeratherthanjoinaprocesstodevelopanewteam.

ARECOMMENDEDFORMOFCONTRACT
Clientengagement
Thekeystartingpointforasuccessfulsmallerprojectallianceisthewillingnessoftheclienttobefullyengagedin
the delivery of its project and consistently focusing on getting the optimum project for the optimum price. If the
clientfocusesoncostsratherthanoutcomesthereislittlepointinengaginginanythingotherthanatraditionalfixed
priceD&Ccontract(withtheusualroundofchallenges,claims,disputesandlitigation).
Unfortunately,thefallacyofafirmfixedpricecontractremainsinmanypeoplesmindsdespitecenturiesof
experience to the contrary(Weaver &Hyde 2005). With current margins below 2%, if builders arelocked into a
fixedprice,theycanbeexpectedtoclaimforeverychange(realorimagined)andtheyhavethe securityof payment
legislation tohelp. Changeis inevitableno client can expect to specify every facet oftheir requirementsand the
contractingprocessshouldrecognisethisrealityandfocusoncreatingvalue.Similarly,attemptstoartificiallyavoid
riskwilloftengeneratesuboptimaloutcomes.Clientsneedtobeawareoftherisksinherentintheirprojectandseek
tofundandmanagetheprojectrealistically.
Enlightened clients, seeking better outcomes, must take the lead in balancing risk, cost and control. Risk
shouldbebornebythepartymostcapableofmanagingit.Control,particularlyoverdesignandqualityshouldbe
retainedbytheclienttoalargerextent,particularlyiftheclientplanstoowntheprojectformany yearsafterthe
contractisfinished.Costsandschedulesneedtoberealisticandachievable.

Contractformation:Clientdrivenprojects(CDP)
The construction contractrequired for a CDP needs to be drafted ina way that defines the work to be done and
facilitatespragmaticalliancing.Keyelementsofthe contractshouldinclude:
Onlyparticipants who aresignificantlyimportanttotheprojectshouldbeinvolvedinteaming.
Theteamingprocessshouldbedesignedtofacilitatethemovementofpeopleintoandoutoftheteamastheir
importancetotheprojectchangesovertime.
Teaminductionsfocusonsupportingtheestablishedculture oftheteam.
Thepricingmodelneedsto be based oneffectivepricingtheoryanddesignedtodrivetheperformancemost
beneficialtotheclient.
Fullinformationastocommercialperformanceofallsignificantplayersneedstobeopenlyavailableandused
asateamasset.
Theprojectneedsafacilitator,separatefromboththecontractor andtheprincipal,todirectprojectimportant
initiatives,leadtheteamformationprocessandfacilitatenegotiationstoresolvedisputes.
Detailedrecordsneedtobekeptoftheresourcesusedontheprojectandthestatusofwork.
Theprojectshouldbeopenbook.Facilitiesneedtobeinplacetoallowthefullvisibilityandexchangeofall
projectrelatedinformationbetweentheparties(anumberofwebbasedportalsystemsarereadilyavailableto
facilitatethisprocess).
Independentexpertsneedtobeinplacetomonitorandfacilitateagreementonallmattersrelatingtocostand
time.
Probity planningandauditsshouldbedesignedintothesystemtobuildandverifytrust.
An effective total quality management (TQM) approach should be embedded in the head contract and
subcontractagreementsandbecomeanintrinsicpartoftheteamsphilosophy.

Contractstructure
Theunderlyingphilosophyinthisproposedmodelisbasedonpragmatism.Itisfareasiertobuildtrustandgenerate
aperformingteamiftherearesystemsinpacetofacilitatevisibilityandaccountability.
Thefacilitatorispaidbythealliancetoleadteamdevelopmentandfacilitatetheresolutionofproblems.A
person skilled in negotiation and mediation appointed before problems arise (and involved in creating the team)
shouldbeinapositiontofacilitatetheresolutionofmostissues,particularlyifallofthenecessaryinformationis
freelyavailable.
Theindependentcostandtimeauditorsareengagedbythealliancetooverseetheprojectteamsdiscussions
intheseareas(nottodothework).Thepresence ofarespected expertwithfullaccesstoalloftherelevantdata
shouldmeanthatanydisagreementsbetweenthepartiesarefocusedonprinciples andfacts,notperceptions.
The contractitself will cause contractors who arenot interested inalliances to selfselect out andto select
only those who are comfortable in suchan environment. Properly drafted, the contract will ensure the partiesare
aware of their commitments to open honest communication and the builtin requirements for probity audits and
reviewswillencouragehonesty.

60

The costs associated with the independent reviewers should not be particularly high if their involvement is
proportionaltothevalueandcomplexity oftheproject.The workthey willberequiredtoperformislimitedand
willbefacilitatedbytheopenaccesstoalloftheprojectsinformation.

CONCLUSION
Alliance andpartnering havebeenprovedtobesuccessfulformsofcontractbothintheUKandAustralia.However,
thecostsunderexistingmodelsassociatedwithdevelopingperformingteams arehigh,tendtorequire colocation,
andarebestsuitedtoverylargeprojects.
Smallerprojectsneedadifferent,morepragmaticapproachtothedevelopmentofpartnershipsoralliances
focusingontheuseofefficientcommunicationsystems(tocreatevisibility)andindependentexperts(orreferees)to
encourage openand effective communicationsandhelpresolve disagreements early, before the disagreement can
escalateintoadisruptingdispute.
The contractmodel discussed inthis chapter outlines the basic framework for such a contractand offers a
newwaytodelivervaluetotheconstructionindustryclientswhilstrestoringalevelofprofitabilitytobusinessesin
theindustry.

REFERENCES
Crosby,P.B.1969.QualityisFree.NewYork:McGrawHillInc.
DeloitteToucheTohmatsu.2005.PropertyandConstructionPresentationMarch2005,Brisbane:DeloitteTouche
Tohmatsu.
Deming,W.E.1982. OutoftheCrisis.Melbourne,Australia:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Doyle,J.2004.Adjudicationpressurisesprojectadministration. PMOZConference.Melbourne,1113August.
Doyle,J.2005.SoP:Anewanswertoanoldquestion. RICSConference.Melbourne,29November..
Egan,J.1998. RethinkingConstruction:Thereportoftheconstructiontaskforce (EganReport).UK:HMSO.
Gersick,C.1988.Time andtransitioninworkteams:towardsanewmodelofgroupdevelopment. Academyof
ManagementJournal,31(1):941.
Hyde,R.2005.WestpacBankingCorporation:constructionriskissues.Sydney:Westpac.
Latham,M.1994.Constructingtheteam:jointreviewofprocurement andcontractualarrangementsintheUK
constructionindustry(LathamReport).London:HMSO.
MasterBuildersAustralia.2005. NationalSurveyofBuildingandConstruction.Canberra:MasterBuilders
Australia.
Meyerson,D.,K.E.WeickandR.M.Kramer.1996.Swifttrustandtemporarygroups.TrustinOrganizations:
Frontiersoftheoryandresearch, eds.R.M.KramerandT.R.Tyler.,166195.ThousandOaks,California:Sage.
NSWGovernmentConstructionAgencyCoordinationCommittee.2005. SecurityofPayment:Adjudication
progressreports. www.construction.nsw.gov.au (October20,2005).
Richardson,C.2006. TheEconomyandtheBudget.Canberra:AccessEconomicsPtyLtd
TheSocietyofConstructionLaw.2002. DelayandDisruptionProtocol.London:TheSocietyofConstructionLaw.
Tuckman,B.W.1965.Developmentalsequenceinsmallgroups.PsychologicalBulletin,63(6):384399.
Tuckman,B.W.andM.A.C.Jensen1977.Stagesofsmallgroupdevelopmentrevisited.GroupandOrganisational
Studies,2(4):419427.
Weaver,P.andR.Hyde.2005.Construction:ariskybusiness.International Construction Conference.Kuala
Lumpur,1417September.

61

CHAPTER8

ClientCapabilitiesandCapitalWorks
ProcurementPolicies:
AComparativeAnalysisofAustralian
Jurisdictions
CraigFurneaux
KerryBrown
DonAllan
NeilAbel
SheenaMcConville
StephenMcFallan
KerryLondon
JohnBurgess
INTRODUCTION
Construction2020(Hampson& Brandon2004)outlinesaseriesofvisionsforsecuringthe longtermsuccessofthe
constructionindustryinAustralia.Inparticular,Vision2proposesafutureinwhich thedesign,constructionand
operationoffacilitiestrulyreflectthepresentandfutureneedsoftheprojectinitiator,futureownersandtenants,and
aspirations of stakeholders [and] will develop better systems for capturing client requirements (Hampson &
Brandon2004,14).
Meetingclientneedsisthusconsideredcriticaltothesuccessofconstructionprojectsandfortheconstruction
industry overall. While there may be many participants involved in a construction project, this chapter defines a
client asthegovernmentorganisationrequiringandpayingfortheconstructionofanewbuilding(Governmentof
SouthAustralia1996,62).
In Australia, government is a significant client as governmentinitiated construction projects approach 30
40% of total industry turnover in the commercial building and engineering sectors. It is thereby in a position to
strongly influence the market due to its procurement policy for capital works and its role as regulator of the
constructionindustry(Hampson&Brandon2004).Untilrecentdecadesthisroleofdesigner,principalandproject
manager was undertakeninhouseby public works departments, but in some jurisdictions, this functionhas been
devolvedto othergovernmentagenciessome of whichhavelittleornoexperienceinconstruction(APCC2002).
Many jurisdictions, however, have developed databases of prequalified consultants who provide advice to
governmentdepartmentsoncapitalworksprocurement.
Each jurisdiction in Australia has developed capital works procurement policies that regulate the way in
whichgovernmentagencies1 procurebuiltassets(seeTable8.1).Theyincludevariousapproachestothewaythese
agenciesengagewiththeconstructionindustryasclients.Capitalworksprocurementpoliciesestablishtherolethat
individualgovernmentagenciescanhaveintheconstructionprocess,and,dependingonthepolicystanceadopted,
mayinvolveanumberofadditionalgovernmentagenciesintheplanning,tenderinganddeliveryofbuiltassets.
This chapter undertakes a case study of procurement in Australia and compares the capital works
procurement policies of the federal, state and territory governments of Australia. A typology of approaches is
advanced,followingcomparativeanalysisofthepolicies.Theassumptionsinherentinthesepolicies,concerningthe
assessment of the capabilities of individual clients when planning and delivering capital works procurement, are
outlined.Atentativepropositionismadeandpossibleavenuesforfutureresearcharecanvassed.
Thecapitalworkspoliciesdiscussedinthischapterarefocusedontheprocurementofbuildingconstruction
valued at more than $100,000. Due to scope limitations, minor works, planned maintenance, wholeoflife asset
sustainability,breakdownmaintenanceand redundancymanagementpoliciesarenotdiscussed,norareprocurement
1

Thetermagencywillbeusedinthischaptertorefertoanygovernmentdepartment,budgetdependentauthority
orentity.
62

policiesofinfrastructuresuchasbridges,mainroads,railways,harbours,andairportsconstruction.Whiletheseare
valid research topics they are beyond the scope of this chapter. Also out of scope, but nonetheless an important
factor in the initial decisions to procure, are the capacities, and preconditions, such as systems and processes,
requiredbyvariousjurisdictions toplanforandeffectivelymanagebroadassetportfolios.

METHODOLOGY
Case studies provide for indepth analysis of a particular issue or technology as it impacts an organisation or
industry,andcanprovidestrongrecommendationsforimprovementsintheory,technologyorpolicy.Casestudiesin
theareaofpolicyhave beencalledforasaway ofadvancingpublicpolicypractice(Osborne&Brown2005).A
case study is a method for learning about a complex instance, based on a comprehensive understanding of that
instanceobtainedby extensivedescriptionsandanalysis of thatinstancetakenasawholeandinitscontext(US
General Accounting Office 1990, cited in Mertens 2005, 237). This research followed the process advocated by
Stake(2000,155)inthatwhenestablishingcasestudiesresearchersneedto:
seekpatternsofdatatodeveloptheissues
triangulatekeyobservationsandbasesforinterpretation
selectalternativeinterpretationstopursue
developassertionsorgeneralisationsaboutthecase.
Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with senior public servants responsible for procurement
policy. Semistructured interviewing was selected as it ensures crosscase comparability (Bryman & Bell 2001,
346),andisimportantwhenconductingexploratoryandexplanatorystudiesparticularlyinordertofindoutwhat
is actually happening in practice (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2000, 245). The sample was based on purposive
sampling (Zikmund 2003, 383) as respondents with particular expertise concerning capital works procurement
policyintheirjurisdictionwereconsideredthemostcriticalinformantsforthisresearch.
Interviewees were asked to outline the approach to capital works procurement undertaken by their
jurisdiction,themainreasonsforthisapproach,andhowtheapproachcouldbeimproved.Additionallygovernment
policydocumentswereanalysedasprimarydatasources.Triangulationwasusedbetweenthevariousdatasources
in order to clarify meaning and verify the repeatability of the observation or interpretation (Stake 2003).
Interviewees were provided with opportunities to review and correct telephone interview summaries, by which
means members of the sample checked the data for accuracy, thereby strengthening the internal validity of the
research(Mertens2005).
Individual informantshave been deidentified and any commercial inconfidence informationhasnot been
divulged.Allinterviews wereconductedin confidence,andthenamesofintervieweeshave beenwithheld.When
citinginterviewees, the generic terminterview datais used as ameans of preservinganonymity. Thenames of
governmentdepartments,governmentreports,andmostgovernmentpolicieshavenotbeenobscuredasmostofthis
informationisalreadyfreelyavailable,eitherontheinternetorinpubliclibraries.Thefocusofthechapterwillnot
beonspecificjurisdictions,orspecificgovernmentdepartmentsoragencies,butrathertheunitofanalysiswillbe
thevariousapproachestocapitalworksprocurement policy.

FINDINGSANDDISCUSSION
ApproachestocapitalworksprocurementbyAustraliangovernments
Procurement policy seeks to organise systematically the array of stakeholders and processes to undertake
constructionprojects.Thesesystemsarecomplexastheyneedtoallowdeliberationsforconstructionprojectsthat
meet requirements for marketderived commercial transactions, but also maintain public probity through
accountability and transparency mechanisms, together with methods for the determination of the need of a built
asset, and how this asset will enable an agency to better deliver services to the public on behalf of government.
Thesepolicesalsodeterminetherelationshipbetweenagovernmentagency,whowantsandpaysforanewbuilding
and is therefore the client, and other government agencies who may have a role in setting government policy,
reviewingprocurement processes,or,insomecases,assumingcontroloftheprocurementprocessitself.
Duetospacerestrictionsadetaileddescriptionofthevariouspolicyapproachesisnotpossible.Asummary
oftheapproachestocapitalworksbyAustraliangovernmentsisprovidedbelow.

63

Table8.1:SummaryofPolicyApproachestoCapitalWorksProcurement

Centralised

AustralianCapital
Territory
Government
ProcurementBoard
and/orProcurementUnit
reviewallprocurement
plansabovethreshold.If
approved,allbudget
fundedprocurementof
capitalworksis
conductedcentrally
throughProcurement
Solutions,Departmentof
Treasury,whoacton
behalfofotheragencies
inprocurementofcapital
works.
SouthAustralia
CapitalWorks
Procurementis
conductedcentrallyby
theDepartmentfor
Administrativeand
InformationServicesfor
allprojectsover
$150,000,whichactson
behalfofother
governmentdepartments
inprocuringcapital
works.Afivestep
infrastructureplanning
anddeliveryframework
mustbefollowed.Works
over$4marereferredto
PublicWorksCommittee,
andmustbeendorsed
byCabinet.

Significantly
decentralised(with
centralisedpolicyand
highprofileprojects
handledcentrally)
NewSouthWales
Commonwealth(federal)
Queensland
Agenciesaccredited TheParliamentaryStanding Construction
accordingtotheir
CommitteeforPublicWorks procurementis
expertise,andthe
(PWC)mustbenotifiedof
devolved,butmany
riskoftheproject.
constructionprocurement
agencieschoosetouse
Involvementofthe
over$2m.Construction
theexpertiseofthe
clientdeterminedby over$6mmustbereferred
DepartmentofPublic
theiraccreditation
tothePWCfor
Works.Strongpolicy
levelandthelevel
recommendationtoCabinet frameworkinplace.
ofprojectrisk.
forapproval.
PublicWorks
Departmentsmanagetheir Committeereviews
ownprocurement,although andmakes
somedepartmentsusethe recommendationon
expertiseoftheDepartment publicworksexpost.
ofFinanceand
Administrationforplanning Agenciesconsidering
anddelivery.
highriskorsignificant
projectsmustseek
ThePWCexaminesthe
PublicWorksadvice.
need,justificationandcost
effectivenessoftheproject
proposalandisnotinvolved
inthetenderingand
deliveryprocesses.
Decentralised
accordingto
organisational
capabilities

Decentralisedwith
centralisedpolicyand
centralboard/committee
reviewofprocess

64

Centralised

NorthernTerritory
Alltendersforcapital
worksover$10,000are
responsibilityofContract
andProcurement
Services,Departmentof
Corporateand
InformationServices.
Themajorityofcapital
works(planningand
delivery)isprovidedby
theDepartmentof
Planningand
Infrastructure.Allcapital
worksprocurementgoes
beforeaProcurement
ReviewBoardfor
endorsement.
WesternAustralia
Whilebudgetand
accountabilityfor
expenditureisdevolved
totheindividual
agencies,responsibility
ofplanning,tendering
anddeliveryofallcapital
worksprojectsrestswith
DepartmentofHousing
andPublicWorks.

Decentralised
accordingto
organisational
capabilities

Significantly
decentralised(with
centralisedpolicyand
highprofileprojects
handledcentrally)
Tasmania
Victoria
Procurementsover
Forcapitalworks
$100,000areendorsedbya projects,procurement
tenderreviewcommitteein isdevolvedtoindividual
thedepartment.ThePublic agencies.Building
WorksBoardthenreviews
Commissionprovides
theprocesstoensurethat
highleveladvice.
dueprocesshasbeen
Anotheragency
followed.Planned
provides
expenditureover$2mmust prequalificationscheme
beapprovedbya
whichisnotmandatory,
ParliamentaryStanding
butstronglysupported
CommitteeforPublicWorks byallagencies.
priortoworkcommencing.
Highriskprojectsare
Departmentsmanageown
generallyreferredto
procurement following
MajorProjectsVictoria.
manualsandguidelinesset
bycentralagency.
Decentralisedwith
centralisedpolicyand
centralboard/committee
reviewofprocess

(Source:Adaptedfrominterviewdata,QLDDepartmentofPublicWorks2004,NorthernTerritory
Treasury2003,WAStateSupplyCommissionAct1991,DepartmentofTreasuryandFinanceTasmania
1997,GovernmentofSouthAustralia1998,BuildingCommission2002,CommonwealthDepartmentof
FinanceandAdministration2005,andNSWTreasury2004a).
TheAustralianProcurementandConstructionCouncil(APCC)isthepeakcouncilforgovernmentprocurementand
constructionpolicyinAustralia.Inadditiontothespecificpoliciesoutlinedinthischapter,theAPCChasissueda
numberofdocumentsthatprovidenationalguidelinestoitsmemberagenciesonprocurementpolicy.Examplesof
thisare the National Prequalification Criteria Framework (APCC 1998), National Procurement Reform Principles
(APCC 2003), Asset Management (APC 2001), and Client Skills: Skills required by Government as the
Construction Industry Client (APCC 2002). The APCC (2002) made a number of recommendations in these
publicationsinordertopromotenationalconsistencyinpolicyapproachestotheprocurementofcapitalworks.
Thecapitalworksprocurementapproachesofjurisdictions,summarisedinthetableabove,haveimplications
foridentifyingandmeetingclientneeds.

Implicationsofcapitalworksprocurementpoliciesforclients
TheAPCC(2002)releasedapaperontheskillsgovernmentagenciesrequireasclientsintheconstructionprocess.
Thisdocumentstatesthatsuccessfuloutcomesinprocuringcapitalworksrequirestheclienttohavethecapability,
skills and expertise to identify needs, negotiate the procurement package, manage the contract relationships, and
monitor the delivery andmeasure suppliers performance(APCC 2002, 6). As a consequence the APCC (2002)
recommendedthatthecapabilitiesofclientsinprocuringbuiltassetsbeassessed.Eachofthejurisdictionsreviewed
hadslightlydifferentwaysofimplementingthisrecommendation,withdifferentproceduresfortheidentificationof
clientneeds,whichareelaboratedindetailbelow.

65

Significantlydecentralised(withpolicyadviceandhighprofileprojectshandled
centrally)
Thestrengthofadecentralisedapproachisthatgovernmentagencieshavealargeamountofsayintheplanningand
building of their buildingsto meet theirneeds (interview data).In Queensland procurement for capital workshas
beendevolvedtoeachindividualagency,withencouragementtodevolveprocurementintoregionalareas(Public
Works2005).However,manyagencieschoosetousetheexpertiseandservicesoftheDepartmentofPublicWorks
whenprocuringnewbuildings(interviewdata).InVictorialikewise,agencieshavetheauthorityandresponsibility
forconstructionofbuildings,witheachministerresponsibleforsuchwork(interviewdata).
In Victoria,the proponentagency, on behalf of theresponsible minister,presentstheneed for a built asset
whichisassessedandconsideredconsistentwiththeirAssetManagementFramework(interviewdata).Identifying
the need for the built asset is specified in strategyand policy and is an early part of a multistaged process for
acquiringbuiltassets.InQueensland,theclientsneedisdrawnfromthestrategicplanningprocess,whichleadsto
anassetstrategyandabusinesscaseproposalforthenewbuilding(QueenslandGovernment2006).
In Queensland, while capital works procurement is decentralised, a significant amount of policy advice is
providedtoagenciesanditmustbeadheredto(interviewdata).InVictoria,onlyhighlevelpolicyadviceisgiven
(interviewdata).Whereaprojectishighrisk,highcost,orsignificant(e.g.heritagelistedoriconic)theninVictoria
theseprojectsmaybeselectedtobehandledbyMajorProjectsVictoria(interviewdata).InQueensland,thereare
certainmandatoryrequirementswhichagenciesmustadheretointheprocurementprocess,includingtheprovision
thatagenciesmustconsultwiththeDepartmentofPublic Works(interviewdata).Forconstructionfirms,thereis
directinvolvementwiththegovernmentagencywhichistheclientonmostprojects,asitistheclientagencywhich
prepares the asset strategy and specific business case for a building, which underlies the subsequent building
specificationsandtenderingprocesses,whichinturnhelpsto ensuretheresultingbuildingmeetstheirownneeds.In
QueenslandandVictoria,theclientsneedsforabuiltassetareprogressivelydevelopedfromstagedstrategicasset
management processes. While different intheir elements, both examine current and future service delivery needs
andtiesthesedirectlytowholeoflifeassetmanagement.Theneedforanynewbuildingistestedinthecontextof
theportfolioitistocontributetoandexplicitlinkstoservicedelivery,governmentobjectivesandstatutorypurpose
ofanagency are subjecttobusinesscasescrutiny.
In Victoria, each client agency proponent prepares and presents their asset strategy for government
consideration.Allassetproposalsarelistedbyagenciesontheirdepartmental multiyearstrategythatprovidesa10
year project pipeline snapshot for government of all asset proposals being developed by agencies. Specific
businesscasesforassetproposalsareprogressivelydevelopedbyagenciesconsistentwiththeirmultiyearstrategy.
The full business case of asset proposals approved by government set the boundaries for subsequent building
specifications and tendering processes, all of which helps to ensure that the resulting building meets the clients
needs. The major liability for this approach is that there is potential for a government agency to ignore or be
unawareofpoliciessetbycentralagencies(interviewdata).Itisalsopossiblethatsomegovernmentclientslackthe
capacityrequiredtocomplywiththispolicyframework,andmaynotchoosethebestapproachtotheprocurement
process,orinappropriatelyallocaterisktocontractors(interviewdata),despitethebestpolicyadvice.
Figure8.2:SignificantlyDecentralisedApproach

66

Under this arrangement, clients are responsible for identifying and articulating their portfolio needs, and if
successful in gaining government approval for a proposed asset investment, the responsible portfolio minister is
empoweredandaccountableformanaging(viathepublicservice)theprocurement ofbuiltassets,withtheprovision
of policy advice by central agencies. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that organisations may lack
capabilityinplaningfor,andprocuring,builtassets.Thepolicyframeworkisprovidedtosupportclientstoidentify
andarticulatetheirneeds,andtoplananddelivercapitalworksprojects.Theoutcomeofthistypeofapproachto
capitalworksprocurementisthereforepredicatedontheorganisationalcapabilityoftheagencythatundertakesthe
procurement,andtheirwillingnesstoseekandtakepolicyandpracticaladviceofthoseagencieswithexpertisein
theprocurementofbuiltassets.

Decentralisedwithcentralboard/committeereviewofprocess
The strength of a centralised board/committee approach is that there is a specifically instituted mechanism to
formallycheckthedesignsolution,andinsomecasesthetenderdocumentation,andtoensurethecosteffectiveness
of the building, as well as the suitability for its stated purpose (Parliament of Australia 2004). While each
departmenthasitsownprocurementguidelines,thecentralisedcommitteeapproachhasthepotentialtoprovidea
check that buildings are needed, will meet their intended purpose, are cost effective and address wholeoflife
considerations.
Committees operating under this approach require a justification of the need for a particular building in
submissions to them. Additionally, individual agencies can identify, and justify, their need for built assets in
budgetaryprocesses,andstrategicassetmanagementframeworkscanalsobeusedtodeterminetheneedofclients
foradditionalbuildings.
Figure8.3:DecentralisedwithCentralBoard/CommitteeReviewofProcessApproach

Each individual agency is responsible for the identification andarticulation of theirneed for a building, together
with the actual tendering process, and the management of the delivery stage of the building project. While these
processes are reviewed by a parliamentary committee, the client is technically responsible for all stages of the
process. Clients need for buildings is tied to budgetary processes, and may include strategic asset management
plans.Implicitinthisapproachisthatclientshavethecapabilitytoprocurecapitalworkshowever,amandatory
checkisprovidedinordertoensuredueprocesshasbeenfollowed.Theoutcomeofthistypeofapproachtocapital
works procurement is therefore predicated on the organisational capability of the agency that undertakes the
procurement,andasaresult,clientswholackcertainorganisationalcapabilitiesarelikelytobeheavilyreliantupon
externalconsultantsintheprocurementprocess(interviewdata).

67

Centralisedapproaches
The main rationale for a centralised approach mentioned by respondents was that a central agency can develop
expertiseandcanensurethatprojectsarewellexecuted(interviewdata).Forsmalljurisdictions,thisisapragmatic
approachthatensuresexpertiseinmanagingcapitalworksprocurementandthemaintenanceofgoodrelationships
withsuppliers(interviewdata).Additionally, bymanagingtheschedulingof capitalworksprocurement,acentral
approachcanstaggerthereleaseofmajorgovernmentprojects,thushelpingtopreventtheconstructionmarketfrom
overheatingbythesuddenglutofgovernmentconstructionprojects(interviewdata).Insmallerjurisdictionsthe
centralisedapproachmaybemoreefficientasitavoidsunnecessaryduplicationinsmallgovernmentagenciesand
allows pooling of limited specialist resources. Additionally, centralised approaches enable the support of local
industrythroughaconsistentandtransparentapproachtocapitalworksprocurement(interviewdata).
Figure8.4:CentralisedApproach

Againstthis,centralisedapproachescanresultinthatagencydeterminingtheneedsofotheragencies:
Sometimes clients believed that they were not sufficiently in control of quality, cost or time
parameters of construction projects which in turn affect their service delivery to public. Some
departments believed that they could better manage public construction projects if they were in
control(interviewdata).
Somerespondentsindicatedthattheyhadmovedawayfromcentralisedapproachestocapitalworksprocurementas
clientsdidnotfeelthattheprocessmetwiththeexpectationofclients(interviewdata).
Implicitinthisapproachisthatclientsareunlikelytohavetheorganisationalcapabilitytoproperlyidentify
theirownbuildingneeds,ortomanagetheplanninganddeliveryofbuiltassets.Thisisquiteplausibleforsmaller
jurisdictionswereanagencymayonlyneedanewbuildingeveryfiveyearsormore,anditisthereforedifficultto
hold on to expertise (interview data). Alternatively, as in the Western Australian case, the capacity and
responsibilityisspecifiedinlegislation.Centralisedapproacheshavethepotentialtoproduceoutcomesthatmaynot
meettheneedsof clients,andtheoutcomeisthereforedependentontheability ofcentralagenciestoensurethat
client needs are specified clearly, that built assets facilitate the provision of services by the client, and that this
informationiscommunicatedclearlytoconstructionfirms.Someofthejurisdictionshavedevelopedsophisticated
policyinstrumentstoassistcentralagenciestoachievetheseoutcomes(GovernmentofSouthAustralia2006).

Decentralisedaccordingtoorganisationalcapabilities
TheAPCC(2002)suggestedthatindividualjurisdictionsundertakeanassessmentofthecapabilitiesofpublicsector
agenciesinprocuringcapitalworks.Whilethisisimplicitintheapproachesexaminedabove,inNewSouthWales2,
theorganisationalcapabilityofagenciesinplanninganddeliveringcapitalworksprojectsisassessedupfront,andis
akeypartoftheprocess(NSWFinance2004a).Forprojectsvaluedover$1m,acentraliseddefaultprocurement
system is provided for those agencies that have not been assessed as having organisational capability in the
planninganddeliveryofcapitalworksprojects(interviewdata).ThepolicyframeworkhasbeendevelopedinNew
South Wales to ensure uniformity in the approach to the market, that the project achieves outcomes for NSW
Treasuryandtheclient,andthatanassetiscreatedwithinaspecifiedrangeofperformance(interviewdata).

WhileSouthAustraliahasdevelopedacapabilitybasedapproachforgoodsandservicesprocurement,capital
worksoperatesunderacentralisedpurchasingapproach(GovernmentofSouthAustralia1998).
68

ForNSWtheprocurementofcapitalworksstartsnotwiththebuildingplanningphase,butwithanassessmentofa
needforthebuildinginthefirstinstance,andhowthisbuildingwillenhancetheabilityoftheagencytoprovide
services to the community (NSW Treasury 2004a), which is similar to processes in Queensland and Victoria. In
other words the policy process requires that building planning commences with a clear identification of how the
buildingwillmeetclientsservicedeliveryneeds.Therelationshipbetweenthebuildingandtheneedsoftheclient
areestablishedearlyina10stageprocess,asistheorganisationalcapabilityoftheclientinprocuringbuiltassets
(interview data). Against this, the process is more complex than other systems, with nine different possible
procurement scenarios depending on the capability of the clientand thelevel of risk assignedto the project. The
policyhasonlybeenineffectforashortperiodoftimeandneedstorunforalongertimebeforebenefitscanbe
assessed(interviewdata).
Figure8.5:DecentralisedAccordingtoOrganisationalCapabilities

Typology
TheAPCC(2002)hasnotedthattheCommonwealth,stateandterritoryjurisdictionsareallonacontinuumfrom
centralised to decentralised, but an attempt to place specific jurisdictions on a typology has hitherto not been
attempted on the public record. The variant approaches examined above could be considered on a typology
accordingtothelevelofcentralcontrolovertheprocurementprocess.Acentralisedapproachmeansthatthereisa
strongcontrolofcapitalworksprocurementbyasinglecentralgovernmentagency,whereasadecentralisedmodel
devolvesprocurementtoallagenciesinajurisdiction.Weproposeherethatthecapitalworksprocurementpolicies
and programmatic responses will vary according to the degree of centralisation or decentralisation present. This
continuum can be based on categories of approaches which can be typified as either centralised, decentralised
according to organisational capability, decentralised with board/committee reviewing process, significantly
decentralised,anddecentralised.Thefollowingtypologyisadvanced:
Figure8.6: TypologyofApproachestoCapitalWorksProcurement

Centralised
High

Decentralised
accordingto
organisational
capability

Decentralisedwith
board/committee
reviewingprocess

Significantly
decentralised

Decentralised
Low

LevelofCentralGovernmentControlofCapitalWorksProcurement

69

CONCLUSION
The federal, state and territory governments of Australia have different procurement policies and approaches to
procurement. The reasons for these variations relate to shifts in government policy (interview data), legislative
mandates (interview data), and a prevailing pragmatic approach to meeting client needs (interview data). Some
approachesarenew,suchastheapproachcurrentlyimplementedinNSW(interviewdata).Thischapterarguesthat
thesepoliciesimplicitlyorexplicitlymakeassumptionsaboutorganisationalcapabilityofclientstodeterminetheir
requirementsforcapitalworksandtheirabilitytooverseetheprocurementprocess.

Implicationsforinnovation
Itisarguedthatgovernmentcaninfluencetheconstructionsectorbythewayitmanagescapitalworksprocurement.
Severalrespondentsindicatedthatchangesweremadetotheprocurementprocess,atleastinpart,tobettermanage
the relationship between government and the construction sector as a whole (interview data). For example, in
Victoria,oneofthereasonsbehindthecreationofthemultiyearstrategy wastoidentifypotentialfutureprojects
that wereinthe pipeline so thatthe construction sector could be provided witha greater degree of certainty of
longerterm demand (interview data).Current policy approaches to capital works procurementhave evolved over
time(interviewdata),andmanymentionedthattheircurrentapproachesareunderreview,orhadjustrecentlybeen
reviewed(interviewdata)orfeltthatachangewasimminent(interviewdata).NSWexplicitlyattemptedtoinnovate
initsapproachtocapitalworksprocurement(interviewdata).Itisapparentthatthereisinnovation byAustralian
governmentsincapitalworksprocurementatapolicylevelandthiscasestudycontributestoourunderstandingof
policyassuggestedbyOsborneandBrown(2005),asdifferentclientsseektoachievevalueformoney(interview
data),implement wholeoflife approachestoassetprocurement(interviewdata),andmanagethepurchaseofcapital
worksstrategically(interviewdata).

Implicationsofclientscapabilitytocapitalworksprocurement
In the significantly decentralised and decentralised with committee review approaches, there is an implicit
assumption that clients are competent in identifying their own needs, and inmanaging the planning and delivery
phases of the project. Risk is managed through policy frameworks that support theidentification of need and the
procurement process, or by conducting mandatory checks on the procurement process. In centralised approaches,
clients are implicitly assumed to lack the organisational capability to procure capital works, and the need is
determined in consultation with the central agency, as is the planning and delivery of the built asset. In the
decentralisedaccordingtocapabilityapproach,thecapabilityoftheclientisexplicitlyassessed,andtheirrolein
theprocurementprocessisdeterminedbytheirlevelofcapability.
Following this analysis a tentative proposition can be advanced, although this requires testing empirically.
Capital works procurement policies have inherent assumptions about the organisational capability of clients to
managetheplanninganddeliveryphasesofconstructionprojects.
Whiletheprocessforassessingorganisationalcapabilitydiffersbetweenjurisdictions,thisprincipleappears
toformpartofthelogicunderpinningtheapproachestakenineachjurisdiction.

Furtherresearch
The project has shown a wide variation of capital works procurement policies in Australia. While examining the
typologies and logic of these approaches, the effect of these different approaches in terms of consistency,
effectiveness,efficiency,probity,productivity andproductinnovation remainsunclear.
Futureresearchcouldconsiderthesequestions:
Howdoclientsperceivetheeffectivenessofcurrentapproaches?
Howdoconstructionfirmsperceivetheeffectivenessofcurrentapproaches?
Whichapproachismoreefficientindeliveringbuiltassets,andhowisthisefficiencydetermined?
Whataretheoutcomesofthevariousapproachesforconstructioninnovation?
Howdoeseachapproachaddressissuesofprobity,consistencyandtransparencyofprocess?
Howdoeseachapproachaffectthecapacityandproductivity oftheconstructionsector?
Howdothevariousjurisdictionsapportionriskintheprocurement process?
Futureresearchcouldadditionallyconsiderthepracticalityorevenachievabilityofanappropriatepolicyregimeand
institutionalframeworkthatseeksconsistencyinafederalsystemofgovernmentsuchasinAustralia.

REFERENCES
APCC.1998.National PrequalificationCriteriaFramework.Canberra:APCC.
APCC.2001. AssetManagement. APCCwebsite:http://www.apcc.gov.au/docs/AssetManagement.pdf (accessed10
February2006).
APCC.2002.ClientSkills:SkillsrequiredbyGovernmentastheConstructionIndustryClient.Canberra:APCC.

70

APCC.2003.NationalProcurement ReformPrinciples. APCCwebsite:


http://www.apcc.gov.au/docs/APCCNatProcurementReformPrinciplesMch2003.pdf (accessed10February2006).
ACTBasis(BuyersandSellersInformationService).2001. www.basis.act.gov.au/basis/ (accessed10February
2006).
Bryman,A.andE.Bell.2003. BusinessResearchMethods.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
BuildingCommission.2002.MinisterialDirectionno.1. TenderingProvisionsforPublicConstruction. Building
Commissionwebsite: http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/asset/1/upload/MinisterialDirectionNo1.pdf
(accessed20January2006).
BuildingCommission.2006.ProcessGuide:Aguidetoclientcontrolofconstructionprojects.Building
Commissionwebsite: http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/www/default.asp?casid=3191 (accessed8February
2006).
Cavana,RY.,B.L.DelahayeandU.Sekaran.2001. AppliedBusinessResearch:Qualitativeandquantitative
methods.Sydney:JohnWileyandSons.
CommonwealthDepartmentofFinanceandAdministration.2005. CommonwealthProcurement Guidelines.
http://www.finance.gov.au/ctc/docs/CPGsJanuary_2005.pdf (accessed23January2006).
DepartmentofAdministrativeandInformationServices.2005. ServicesGuide.
http://www.dais.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/dais_services_guide_Oct05.pdf (accessed23January2006).
DepartmentofFinanceandAdministration.2005. CommonwealthProcurementGuidelines.Canberra:AGPS.
DepartmentofTreasuryandFinanceTasmania.1997. Procurement PracticesManual.Adelaide:AGPS.
GovernmentofSouthAustralia.1996. ProjectInitiationProcess:Asset managementpolicyseries.
http://147.109.254.181/domino/bfg.nsf/
BF6470B28F51292ACA256C980005D576/$FILE/PIP.pdf (accessed21January2006).
Governmentof SouthAustralia.1998. SAGovernmentProcurement ReformStrategy.Adelaide:AGPS.
Hampson,K.,andP.Brandon.2004.Construction2020:AvisionforAustraliaspropertyandconstruction
industry. Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation.
Mertens,D.M.2005. ResearchandEvaluationinEducation andPsychology:Integrating diversitywith
quantitative,qualitativeandmixedmethods.2ndedn.ThousandOaks:SagePublications.
NorthernTerritoryGovernment.2003.TheNorthernTerritoryProcurement Code.NorthernTerritory:AGPS.
NorthernTerritoryTreasury.2003.TheNorthernTerritoryProcurement Policy andStrategies.NorthernTerritory:
AGPS.
NSWGovernment.2005. CodeofPracticeforProcurement.
http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/procurement/pdf/code_of_praccurr.pdf (accessed18January2006).
NSWTreasury.2004a. NSWGovernmentProcurement Policy.
http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/pubs/tpp2004/tpp041.pdf (accessed16January2006).
NSWTreasury.2004b. AgencyAccreditationSchemeforConstructionProjects.
http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/procurement/pdf/accredit.pdf(accessed20January2006).
NSWTreasury.2004c.TotalAssetManagementPolicy. http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/pubs/tpp2004/tpp043.pdf
(accessed20January2006).
Osbourne,S.P.andK.A.Brown.2005. ManagingChangeandInnovationinPublicServiceOrganizations.New
York:Routledge.
ParliamentofAustralia2006. JointStandingCommitteeonPublicWorks: Roleandoperations.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pwc/role.htm (accessed23January2006).
PublicWorksTenderBoard.1997.Guidelines.Launceston:GovernmentofTasmania
QueenslandDepartmentofPublicWorks.2004. StatePurchasingPolicy. Brisbane:DepartmentofPublicWorks.
QueenslandGovernment.2006. CapitalWorksManagementFramework.Brisbane:DepartmentofPublicWorks,
QueenslandGovernment.
Saunders,M.N.K.,P.LewisandA.Thornhill.2000. ResearchMethodsforBusinessStudents. Harlow,England:
FinancialTimesPrenticeHall.
Stake,R.E.2003.Casestudies. StrategiesofQualitativeEnquiry, 2ndedn,eds.N.K.DenzinandY.S.Lincoln,
134164.ThousandOaks:Sage.
Stake, R.E.2005.Qualitativecasestudies. TheSageHandbookofQualitativeResearchMethods,3rdedn,eds.N.
Denzin,andY.S.Lincoln,443466.ThousandOaks:Sage.
Yin,R.K.2003a. CaseStudyResearch:Design andmethods, 3rdedn.ThousandOaks:SagePublications.
Yin,R.K.2003b.ApplicationsofCaseStudyResearch,2ndedn.ThousandOaks:SagePublications.
Zikmund,W.G.2003.BusinessResearchMethods,7thedn.Mason,OH:SouthWestern,Thomson.

71

CHAPTER9

CostofTendering:
AddingCostWithoutValue?
JohnDalrymple
LionelBoxer
WarrenStaples
INTRODUCTION
Thischapterexploresthetenderingprocessandintroduces theneedforaclearmodelof wherethecostsoccurin
that process. By doing so, understanding of the cost of tendering for any project becomes a matter of overlaying
such a model onthe project plan and extracting understanding of where costs can be expected to occur andtheir
magnitude.
Because of the diverse activities undertaken by both purchasers and tenderers, and limitations of some
accountingsystemstoreportoncustomcategories,expensesassociatedwithtenderingaredifficulttocaptureand
quantify. These problems are explained through aninterpretation of the literature, observations of purchases, and
interviewdatatodemonstratethebarrierstounderstandingthecostoftendering.
Eveninthosecaseswheretherearegenuineintentionstocapturecostsoftenderingthereisafailuretodoso.
Itappearsthatimplementationdifficultiesaresoinsurmountablethateitherpeopledonot bother,ormanagement
redirects effort from collecting the costs of tendering data. It is also shown that the expense of tendering and
uncertainty of outcomes leads tenderers to engage in concealed behaviour to reduce the uncertainty and cost
associatedwithtendering(thatis,collusion).Forthisreasonespecially,itissuggestedthattenderingandassociated
costsneedtobeunderstoodingreaterdetail.
Whilethereiscurrentlyawarenessofthecostoftenderingandacknowledgementthateffortsshouldbetaken
to minimise this cost, there is little precise understanding of it in terms of value or how it happens. The cost of
tenderingisnotwellunderstoodinAustraliaorelsewhereintheworld.Thischapterproposesamodelofthe costof
tenderingthroughdefiningthetenderingprocessintermsofmeasurablecomponentsandcollectingsufficientdata
tounderstandthecostsincurredineachcomponent.Thechapteralsopresentsestimatesofordersofmagnitudeof
thecostoftenderingbasedonspecificcasesofprocurementorganisationsatthemacroscopiclevel,whilstevidence
from an international business profile benchmarking study provides some insights into the impost on small and
mediumsized enterprise (SME) sector firms in the construction industry supply chain. This data is derived from
ownermanagerperceptionsofthecostoftenderingintheirfirm.

LITERATUREREVIEW
Apart from a current study under way at the University of Reading as referred to in Hughes et al. (2001), there
appearstobelittleresearchintothecostoftendering.TheCommonwealthofAustralia(1994)conductedacostof
tenderingstudythatlookedatthecosttotenderersofDepartmentofDefencecontracts(Haddad2004).Thesurvey
is not conclusive about the costs of tendering, but does indicate some superficial supplier data and anecdotal
opinions. Being a survey conducted by a market research company, it relied on the diligence of those providing
answers to questions and assumed that they understood the questions and were qualified to provide meaningful
responses.Thesurveydoespresentsomeideasabouthowtostructureamoredetailedinquiry.
The literature that does exist is largely anecdotal and conversational explanations of how tendering costs
occurinpractice.Theseworkscomefromindustryandmightbeperceivedaseffortstoinfluenceindustrypolicy
makers and politicians. This literature would not necessarily meet the highest standards of rigor expected of
academicliterature.However,theyareasourceofdataanddoprovideinsightintothepractitionersperspective.
TheCommonwealthofAustralia(1994)studynotesthat,whilesomeimprovementswereacknowledged,a
varietyofproblemsareidentifiedwiththetenderingprocessalbeitlimitedtosupplyingtotheCommonwealthof
Australiawhichsuggestsalackofconcernforresolvingproblemsassociatedwiththecostoftendering.Itseems
that there is a reluctance to understand the cost of tendering. Yet, the costs would appear to be clearly
distinguishableifseparatedintocomponents.

THECOMPONENTSOFTENDERINGCOSTS
Tenderingisaprocessthattakesplacetoprovideatransparentselectionprocessthatisbasedonobjectivecriteria.It
is most important in organisations that are exposed to a degree of public scrutiny from stakeholders. These

72

stakeholders could be the general public in the case of government departments, or shareholders in the case of
businesses.Indeed,therearebenefitstothetenderingprocess,buttherearealsocosts.Moretothepoint,ifthese
costsarenotmanagedeffectivelytheycanbequitesignificantandnotprovideproportionatereturns.
Tenderingcostsoccurduringthreephasesofanytenderingprocess.Theseare:
preparationoftenderdocumentsbypurchaser
preparationofresponsetotenderbyprospectivesuppliers
assessmentofsubmittedtendersandselectionofsupplier.

Preparationoftenderdocuments
Purchasers incur costs associated with the preparation of documents that are issued to tenderers. These include
specifications and instructions specific to the item being purchased. They also incur costs to assemble a list of
prospective tenderers to whom tender documents will be sent. These documents may be posted to tenderers, but
morecomplicatedpurchasesmayrequirefacetofacemeetingswithindividualtenderersorcollectivebriefingsfor
alltendererstoattend.

Preparationofresponsetotender
Onreceivingtender documents, prospective suppliers arerequiredto make severallevels of assessment.There is
generallyatimeconstrainttodoso.Inthefirstcase,theyneedtounderstandthegoodorservicebeingtenderedand
determinewhetherornottheyhavethecapabilitytosupply.Wheretheydecidetoproceedwithsubmittingatender,
theythenneedtoengageinanappropriatedegreeofpredesignworktodemonstratetothepurchaserthattheyare
awareoftheimplicationsofthetenderandthattheirsolutionisthemostappropriate.Replytotendermaytakethe
formofadocumentorincludephysicalmodelsorinvolve presentations.Thereappearstobeaconcernthat,once
beinginvitedtotender,refusingtodoso willremovetheprospectivetendererfromfuturetenderinvitations.This
may beleadingtowastedeffortpreparingtendersthatrelateto workoutsidethecapabilitiesof organisationsthat
wouldbebetterdecliningtheinvitationtotender.

Assessmentandselection
Whentendererssubmittheirresponsestotender,thepurchaserundertakesassessmentandselectionprocesses.As
withthepreparationofresponsestotender,purchasersareunderanobligationtocompleteassessmentandselection
withinspecifiedtimeconstraints.Especiallyincasesofcomplicatedtenders,wherethereisatwostageassessment,
purchasersareunderanobligationtocompletetheirassessmentswithinareasonabletimeandreplytotenderers.

BARRIERSTOUNDERSTANDINGTENDERINGCOSTS
Without a clear understanding of the cost of tendering, an industrywide assumption has been that the cost of
tenderingisfartoohighandthatitneedstobereduced.Thisblindsortofgropingformeaninghasledtoasolution
toreducethecostoftenderingthroughprequalificationoftenderers.However,withsuchavagueunderstandingof
thecostoftenderingtherecouldbeanequallyvagueunderstandingofthenotionofprequalificationand,insome
cases,anexpectationcouldbeheldbypurchasersthattenderersshouldprequalifyforeachindividualtender.This
misunderstanding of the concept of prequalification undermines the benefits that could be derived from a well
managedprequalificationprogram.
Aworldwidesurveyofprocurementdocumentationfromawiderangeofpublicandprivateorganisationssuggests
itisclearthatthereisanawarenessofthecostoftendering.However,inmostcasespurchasersmerelyacknowledge
thatthecostoftenderingissignificantandtobeawareoftheinternalcostsandthoseincurredbytenderers.Apart
fromthat,thereisnoeffortmadetounderstandthesecosts.Forexample,atypicalcommentmadeaboutthecostof
tenderingis:
If contractors are winning typically one tender if four, then we're paying four times the cost of
tenderingforeachcontract.Theindustryneedstofindabetterwaytoavoidwastingthismoney
(Mills2005).
Thefollowingsubsectionsexploresomeofthebarrierstounderstandingtenderingcosts.

Difficultyindeterminingresourcesallocatedtotendering
Understandingtenderingcostsdependsoncollectingaccuratedataandbeingabletopresentitinameaningfulway.
Becausepeopleandresourcesusedtoconductthetenderingprocessarenotspecificallydedicatedtothetendering
process,determiningwhatresourcesareconsumedduringtenderingisdifficulttodo.Thisisfurthercomplicatedby
howindividualsandorganisationsarerewardedandthemanipulationofdatathatoccurs whenpeoplemaytryto
optimisetheirpersonalrewards.

73

Difficultyorreluctancetoimplement
Whiletherehavebeeninitiativesputinplacetorecordthecostoftendering,thereislittleevidencethattheseare
implemented atall. Governmentand commercial purchasers acknowledge that thecost oftendering is significant
andthateffortsshouldbemadetoreducethiscost.Theyfurtheracknowledgethecostoftenderingintermsofboth
their operationsandthose of tenderers. Many large government departmentshave produced tenderingregulations
that include such a clause. These are based on various standards and guidelines such as theAustralian Standard
Code of Tendering, AS4120 (Standards Australia 1994) and Guidelines for Tendering, published by Australian
Constructors Association, andEvansandPeckManagement(2001).
Notwithstandingtheefforttoacknowledgethecostoftendering,thereisnoreportedattempttoquantifythis
cost.Whilesomeorganisationshaveastatedpolicythattherewillbeapplicationofsomerigortoexaminingthe
cost of tendering(Department of Defence 2005), when questioned,the DirectorGeneral,Contracting Policyand
Operationsadvisedthatnoefforthasbeenmadetoimplementthisinitiative.Othergovernmentagenciesattemptto
allocate costs to the tendering process. Yet, when representatives were questioned they assured us that the data
captured isat best a very rough estimation oftherealhuman andmaterialresources consumed in theirtendering
processes.

Greedandblatantcorruption
Peoplecanbeledtobehavebytherewardstructureoftheirenvironment.Insomecases,ithasbeenobservedthat
people satisfy their greed or engage in various forms of corruption to achieve personal goals. Gellerman (1986)
speaks of good managers making bad ethical choices, but Wakin (1992), drawing on Learner (1975, 111) goes
further, suggesting that bottomline ethics are adhered to by careerists, whose behaviour suggests that their
blatantselfinterestoverrideseveryfactor.Thereislikelytobeawidedistributionalongacontinuumcharacterised
by both these extremes. However, Gellerman (1986, 3) does refer to cases where individuals made a conscious,
coldbloodeddecisiontotakenoprotectiveorremedialaction,intheflagrantdisregardoftherightsofothers.
In drawing on examples of bad ethical choices, Gellerman (1986, 57) proposes that there are four
rationalisationswithwhichpeoplejustifytheirdecisions.First,theyperceivewhattheyhavedecidedtobewithin
reasonableethicalandlegallimits.Second,itisintheindividualsorthecorporationsbestinterests.Third,it is
safebecauseitwillneverbefoundoutorpublicised.Fourth,iftheactioncontributestoobjectivesthecompany
willcondoneitandevenprotectthepersonwhoengagesinit.
Inthesubsequent20yearssinceGellermans(1986)articlewaspublished,somespheresmayhaveseenan
end of the discourse that leads to these rationalisations. However, there remain examples of blatant disregard, as
demonstratedbyRowell(1996)forenvironmentalandsocialissues.Anecdotalevidenceofthisarethefrequentand
often violent protests held to demonstrate opposition to the World Trade Organisation and other globalisation
initiatives. While this reaction may not be warranted, it reflects a possible negative perception in the wider
community.
Foucault(1991)observesthatthoseinpowerinfluencewhatbecomesthedominantdiscourseandthatthey
impose that discourse to exert power, even to the point that they establish reality in terms of what benefits
themselves. Perhaps it is because controversialdiscussionsfrequently arecontrolled by the discourse imposed by
othersthatsomerefusetoengageinpolemics(Foucault1991,381).Pfeffer(1981,30,59)observesthatthosewho
getwhattheywanthavethesocialpowertogetit.Peopleinpositionsofpowermightwellconsciouslyor
unconsciously dominatedecisions(Foucault1980).
The Giles Commission (1992) into the constructionindustry raises the issues of collusive tendering in the
constructionindustry:
Involvement in collusive and anticompetitive behaviour including the surreptitious receipt and
paymentofspecialandunsuccessfultenderersfees.
Theimpliedmessageisthatthecostoftenderingissignificant.Thishasbeenfurthersubstantiatedbyconfidential
discussionswithconstructionindustryrepresentatives.Somehaveexplainedhowtenderersforaprojectenterinto
anarrangementwheretheyeachaddanamountwhichisdistributedtounsuccessfultenderers.
Veterans of many years of submittingtendershave explained their solutionto the expense of tendering in
termsofthecollusionreportedbytheGilesCommission(1992).Onepersoninterviewedstatedthat:
Eachcompanysubmittingatenderaddedacertainamountthat(intheeventofwinningthetender)
wasunderstoodtobedistributedamongtheothertenderers(thosewhodidnotwinthecontract).

GENERICTENDERCOSTMODEL
Havingdemonstratedthatitislikelythatcostoftenderingdatawillbedistorted(ifcollectedatall),itissuggested
that a tender cost model will provide some guidelines to categorise and verifythe cost of tendering data that is
collected.Havingsuchguidelinesisviewedtoprovideacatalysttocollectdataandaframeworktocategorisethe
informationcollected.Thefollowingmodel,showninFigure9.1,couldprovideafoundationforsuchaframework.

74

Figure9.1:GenericCostTenderModel

Phases
Tender
preparation

Steps

Projectdefinitionandscoping
Selectionprocessfortenderers
Tenderdocumentation
Establishmentofcriteriaforselection

Tendering
Callfortenders
Respondingtoinvitationstotenderanddevelopingcommercialoffer
Tendermeetingsandenquiries
Amendmentstotenderdocuments
Submissionandclosingoftenders

Tender
evaluation

Tenderanalysis
Tenderclarifications

Tenderselectionandawards

(Source:AdaptedfromAustralianConstructorsAssociation,andEvansandPeckManagement2001,5)
Itissuggestedthateachoftheproposedstepscouldprovidedemarcationofcategoriestowhichhumanandmaterial
resourcescouldbeallocated.Itisenvisionedthatthesecategoriesneedfurtherdevelopment andrefining.
The reason for advocating the further development of such a model is that tendering costs seem to have
escalatedtoanextentthattheycanbeseenasafactorinacontractorsriskassessment.Thecostsmustbeweighed
againsttheperceivedlikelihoodofsuccess.Itislikelythattheclientcanmitigateatleastsomeofthecostsofthe
tendering process. This is unlikely to eventuate in an environment where the client is unaware of the costs of
tenderingandconsequentlyunawareoftheadditionalcoststhattheyasclientarecarryingasaconsequenceoftheir
espoused tendering processes. In the event that the client is imposing excessive and unnecessary costs on the
contractor through the tendering process, then they are adding costs without adding value. In the quality
managementenvironment,thisisclassifiedaswaste.
Majoradvancesinproductivity,profitabilityandqualityhavebeenachievedinthe manufacturingindustry
as a consequence of increases in knowledge and understanding of quality. One of the imperatives that drove the
improvementinmanufacturingperformancewasthedevelopmentandimplementationofaquality costsmodel.
Thismodelpartitionedthecostsofachievingadesiredstandardofoutputintopreventioncosts,appraisalcosts
and failure costs. This approach enabled managers to make rational decisions about where improvement
investmentshouldbetargeted.Inthecaseofcostsoftenderinginpublicsectorconstructionprojectprocurement,it
islikelythattheuseofsuchamodelwouldenablethecaptureofcostoftenderingdatathatenablesimilarrational
decisionstobemadeaboutthestructureandcontentofthetenderingprocess.Thenextsection,therefore,seeksto

75

quantifythecosts oftenderingforavariety ofcircumstancesbasedondataacquiredfromavarietyofinformants


andsources.

ESTIMATIONOFTENDERINGCOSTS
Thecostoftenderingatthemacroscopiclevelcanbeestimatedonthebasisofanecdotalevidenceanddocumented
sources. This is particularly useful from the perspective of the large procurement organisation, for example
governmentdepartmentsandlargenationalutilities.Fromtheperspectiveofthesmallandmediumsizedenterprise
(SME),databasesusedforinternationalbusinessprofilebenchmarkingthathavedataonconstructionprovidesome
indication of the costs of tendering as experienced by procurement executives and owner managers. Although
neitherofthesesourcesprovidesdefinitiveauditedcosts,they bothprovideanindicativecost.Inviewofthefact
thattheclientultimatelycarriesthecostoftendering,itisintheclientsintereststoseektomitigatethesecoststo
ensure thata business enterprise clientreturns value to itsshareholders and that a public sector client obtainsthe
triumvirateofefficiency,effectivenessandvalueformoney.Inthecaseofthebusinessenterpriseclient,thechoice
ismorestraightforwardsince,ifthecostoftenderingisperceivedtobeexcessive,itisopentothebusinesstoadopt
anotherapproachthatismorecosteffective.Forthatreason,thisworkwillrestrictitselftotenderingcostsasthey
mightimpactonpublicsectororganisationsasclientsandSMEsectorsubcontractorsassuppliers.

Publicsectororganisations
Forpublicsectorclients,theneedfortransparencyandopennessdemandthatthepublicservantswhoengagewith
theconstruction industry representing the public sector have transparentand defensible processes. This underpins
theconfidencethatthetaxpayerrequirestohavefortheaccountabilityofprocurementprocesses.Therequirement
for accountability has placed increasing pressure on public servants and one of the approaches to securing
efficiency,effectivenessandvalueformoneyhasbeentheuseofvarioustenderingmechanisms.Infact,suchwas
the belief in the efficacy of the tendering process, in many cases, it was mandated through legislation. More
recently, there has been a move away from that belief, as public sector clients, like their counterparts in the
manufacturing sector before them, began to take a more holistic view of efficiency, effectiveness and value for
money. However,itisfairtosaythat,inthecaseofpublicsectorconstructionprojectprocurement,ithasproved
easier to criticise the failings of the tendering process than it has to find an appropriate, robust and defensible
replacement.
One of thereasons for therelative inertia in the construction sector has, of course, been that,as suggested
earlierinthischapter,ithasprovedtobedifficulttocapturethecostoftendering.Thishashamperedinnovationin
theapproachtoconstructionprocurement,sinceoneofthemajordriversofseekinganewapproachistoimprove
competitiveness.Intheabsenceofinformationabouttheactualcostsoftendering,thereisalsonovaluethatcanbe
attributedtothepayoffoftheinnovation.Thefactthatthesecostsarefrequentlyinvisibletotheclientandcanbe
verydiffusehascamouflagedtherealimpactofcostoftenderingonthetotalcostsincurredbytheclientinpublic
sectorconstructionprojectprocurement.
Theactofinitiatingthetenderprocessforasignificantconstructionprojecteffectivelytriggersatimelapsed
cascadeofadditionaltenderinglikeprocessesasthemajorcostcomponentsoftheprojectareidentifiedandcosted
to enable the final bid to be assembled. This chapter will now seek to quantify the costs incurred in tendering a
project. Clearly, the complexity of the project, including the level of innovation, for example, will influence the
costs in any particular project. However, by engaging with experts and examining the cascade processes, it is
possibletoestimatethecostsassociatedwiththetenderingprocess.Inaddition,theimpactofthecostsoftendering
shallbecomputedforgovernmentdepartmentswithsignificantresponsibilityforconstructionprojectprocurement.
Inmanycases,thegreatestcostcannotbeestimated.Thetenderingcapabilityofafirmmay,infact,bealimiting
resource.Ifthisisthecase,thentheresultmaybethatthebestandmostcapablecontractorsmaynotevenenterthe
tendering process because the actual costs associated with the process cannot be justified given the perceived
prospects of success, or because the opportunity costs associated with one particular project may be regarded as
excessive and unjustifiable given the perceived prospects of success. If the most appropriate contractor does not
entertheprocessbecauseoftenderingcoststhisislikelytobedetrimentaltotheprojecttoanextentfarinexcessof
therealorperceivedtenderingcosts.
Thecombinationoftenderingcostsandtheprobabilityofsuccessissuchthatthetotaltenderingcostsforany
individualprojectwillescalateasthenumberofcontractorsenteringthetenderingprocessincreases,aswellaswith
therelativecomplexityoftheprojectandtheextentoftheimaginativevalueaddingdesign.Forexample,basedon
theexperienceoftheprojectteam,ifapublicsectorclientseekstendersfromsixcapablecontractorsforadesign
andconstructproject,eachoftheseislikelytoseektendersfrom,say,tensubcontractors,dependingonthescale
and complexity of the project. If each of these ten subcontractors initiated a further cascade down to twenty
suppliersofdifferentsizesandtypes,thentheinvolvementofthesixinitialcontractorshasresultedinsomeformof
responsefrom(6+60+1200)=1266businesses.Usingthismodel,eachadditionalcontractorproceedingtotender
addsafurther211businessestothelistofthoseinvolvedinthetenderingprocess.Clearly,allbusinesseswillhave
incurredcostsassociatedwiththetender,butfewwillreceivebusinessasaconsequence.Thecontractorswillhave

76

entered the process with an average of one chance in six of emerging successful in gaining the contract. For a
relativelycomplex$20minfrastructureprojectwherethedesignandscheduleofquantitiesisprovided,ithasbeen
estimatedwithintheprojectteamthatthecostoftenderingisintheregionof0.5%ofthevalueofthecontractfor
eachcontractortendering.Thisdoesnotincludethecoststothesubcontractorsandsuppliersfurtherdownthechain
ofsupply.Thus,foracaseofsixcontractors,thetotalcostis3%ofcontractvalue,or$600K.
Forasimilardesignandconstructprojectthatinvolveseachtendererinsignificantdesignactivitybeforethe
scheduleofquantitiesandthetenderingprocesstakesplace,itisestimatedthatthecostoftenderingwillescalateto
around3%ofthevalueofthecontractforeachcontractor.Intheearliercasewheresixcontractorswereinvolved,
thetenderingprocessforthecontractorscouldamountto18%ofthe valueofthecontract,or$3.6m.
Consequently,foragovernmentdepartmentinvolvedinsignificantconstructionprojectprocurement activity,
if we take the sixcontractor hypothesis, for each $100m voted by parliament for construction projects, anything
between$3mand$18mislikelytobeconsumedbythetenderingprocessifweignorethecascadeeffectdownpast
thecontractor.Thechallengeistoestablishwhethertheprocessoftenderingisdeliveringthatdegreeofvaluefor
money on one hand and whether, by innovation in the process, based on a careful appreciation of the costs, an
equivalentresultwithoutconsumingthislevelofresourcecouldbedelivered.Thismodelandanalysishasignored
thecascadeeffect ofthetenderingprocess onthesubcontractsector,whichmakesupthemajority offirmsinthe
constructionsector.Evidencefromanothersourceprovidessomeinsightsintothatsector.

SMEsectorsubcontractorsandsuppliers
As part of a program of work that included applying business profile benchmarking to SMEs using the UK
BenchmarkIndex, amodule was used that was specifically designed for use with contractors. This work wasnot
focused on the cost of tendering from the perspective of the public sector client, but from the perspective of a
performanceindicatorfortheconstructionsectorSMEsubcontractor(Mohamed1996Dalrymple2000).Thedata
collected includes cost of tendering as a percentage of turnover and various measures of success rates in the
tenderingprocess.
TheUKBenchmarkIndexdatabasecontainedoverfiftycompaniesandacomprehensivesetofperformance
measuresthatcharacterisetheSMEsubcontractorsectorwasheldforeachcompany.Forthisgroupofcompanies,
thecostoftenderingwasestimatedtobearound1.7%ofturnoverforthelowerquartileand5.8%ofturnoverforthe
upperquartile.Fromthepointofview ofsuccessrate,thelowerquartileestimatewasa16%successrateandthe
upperquartileenjoyinganestimated60%successrate.Fromtheperspectiveofvalueofbusinesswonagainstvalue
ofbusinesstenderedfor,thelowerquartilereportedaround20%withtheupperquartilereportingjustunder60%.
Thus,intheSMEsector,companiesmaybespendingbetween1.5%toaround6%oftheirturnoveronthetendering
process.Thecompaniesseemto enjoysuccessratesofgainingaboutoneineverysixcontractsbidfor,toabouttwo
ineverythreecontractsbidfor.Thedataonthedatabaseisfromavarietyofcontractingbusinesses.Theevidence
fromthedatabaseisconsistentwithdatafromanotherindustrysourcewhereitwasreportedthatgenerallythecost
oftenderingincomparisonwithturnoverisquotedasfollows:
generalcontractors1%to2%
specialistsubcontractors(mechanical,electrical,fireandlift)3%to5%
generalsubcontractors4% to8%.
Successrates(i.e.thenumberofsuccessfultendererscomparedwithnumberentered)isquotedasfollows:
generalcontractors1:6to1:15
specialistsubcontractors1:10to1:20
generalsubcontractors1:15to1:50.
Thecostsoftenderingaresimilartothosecapturedbythedatabase,butthesuccessratesrecordedinthedatabase
aresomewhatbetterthanthosereportedbythealternativesource.Nevertheless,bothsourcesofevidenceindicate
that the costs and consequences of the tendering process for the SME subcontracting sector are significant and
detrimental.

Policyimplications
When considering the public sector procurement process, there are a number of policy implications that
policymakers may wish to consider. Firstly, there is the matter of adding up to 20% to the necessary costs to a
construction project through this approach to procurement. The addition of significant costs without securing
proportionateadditionalvalueresultsinaconsequentpotentialfailuretosecure valueformoney onbehalfofthe
community. Secondly, there is the potential to fail to secure the most appropriate contractor for the project as a
resultofthecontractoroptingnottoparticipateinthetenderingprocessatall.Thismayresultfromperceptionof
thecostoftenderingcoupledwiththeperceivedprospectsofsuccess.Itmayresultfromacarefulappraisalofthe
opportunitycostsassociatedwithtenderingforaparticularprojecttothe exclusionofotheractivity.Itmayariseasa
resultofanappraisalofwhethertheclientwill,attheendoftheprocess,decidenottoproceedwiththeproject.In

77

otherwords,contractorsmaydecidenottotenderforaprojectforwhichtheymaybetheidealcontractorasaresult
ofarationalappraisalofwheretheshareholdersfundsmaybeinvestedtosecurethebestreturn.
AttheleveloftheSMEsectorsubcontractors,therearethreepolicyrelatedmatters.Firstly,thereisthecost
impostontheSMEsectorsubcontractors.Secondly,inanenvironmentwherethesuccessratemaybeaslowasone
chanceinfifty,itislikelythattheeffortdevotedtothepreparationofbidsmaynotbedealtwithaspunctiliouslyas
might be the case where the success rate is much higher. In these circumstances, there are two possible
consequences. The tendering process may result in a price that is higher than it would be if the subcontractor
addressedthetenderwithahigherstandardofcare,resulting intheworkcostingmorethannecessary.Alternatively,
thetenderingprocessmayresultinapricethatfallsshortofthesubcontractorscostsindeliveringthework.Inthis
case,thetenderingprocessmaybeacontributoryfactorinthefailurerateinSMEsubcontractingbusinesses.Such
business failure is clearly disastrous for the business owners and their employees. However, it may also result in
significantlosstosuppliers.Itisalsoatvariancewiththepolicyobjectivesofmoststateandnationalgovernments,
whofrequentlyhavepoliciesthatarefocusedonsupportingandencouragingSMEsectorcompanies.

CONCLUSION
Because of the diverse activities undertaken during the tender process and limitations of accounting categories,
expensesassociatedwithtenderingaredifficulttocaptureandquantifyinarigorousway.Eveninthosecaseswhere
therearegenuineintentionstocapturecostsoftenderingthereisafailuretodoso.Itappearsthatimplementation
difficulties are so insurmountable that either people do not bother ormanagementredirects effort from collecting
costsoftenderingdata.Itisalsoshownthattheexpenseoftenderinganduncertaintyofoutcomesleadstenderersto
engageinconcealedbehaviourtoreducetheuncertaintyandcostassociatedwithtendering.Thatis,collusion.For
thisreasonespecially,itisconcludedthattenderingandassociatedcostsneedtobeunderstoodingreaterdetail.
There are barriers to understanding the cost of tendering. Throughout the world construction industry
tendering is acknowledged to be complicated, adding considerable cost to construction.Efforts to understand the
cost of tendering are confounded by issues that are both visible and invisible to formal accounting of the
construction process. This suggests a need to investigate and understand the problems and their causes. The
evidence from various sources presented earlier in this chapter indicates that the cost of tendering constitutes a
significantimpostonthecostsofconstructionprojects.Aparallelwasdrawnwiththeissuesassociatedwiththecost
ofqualityandthewaythatthedevelopmentofacomprehensivemodelactedasthecatalystforqualityimprovement
activityinthemanufacturingsector.Anotherfactorthatcreatesanimperativetowardsthedevelopmentofageneric
model for tendering costs and a concerted effort to quantify these costs also comes from the experience in the
qualitycostsfield.Oncepractitionersbegantocollectandclassifyqualitycosts,itbecamemoreapparentwhatthe
sourcesandmagnitudesofqualitycostsactuallywere.Theexperiencewasthatmanymorecoststhanhadoriginally
been thought were able to be recognised as the costs associated withnot getting things right first time. Quality
costs were found to amount to up to 30% of turnover for companies that had not embarked on a serious quality
improvementprogram.
Thegenericmodelofthetendercostsproposed wouldprovidea waytopredicttendercosts,collectactual
tendercosts,andthencompareplannedtoactualtendercosts.Thereisalsothepossibilitythatasimilarexperience
mayemergetothatreportedinthecaseofthedevelopmentofarigorousqualitycostmodelinthecaseofquality
management.Thequalityimprovementactivitywasfocusedoneliminatingormitigatingtheeffectsofactivitiesthat
addedcostwithoutaddingvalue.Withasimilarexperienceinthecaseofthecostoftendering,itispossiblethatthe
approach to public sector construction project procurementcould be transformedto enable ahigher proportion of
taxpayersfundstobedevotedtothedeliveryoftheconstructionprojectandlesswouldbedissipatedinpreparation
oflong,complexandveryexpensivetenderdocumentationonthepartofthecontractorswhoare,inevitablygoing
tobeunsuccessfulintheirquesttosecurethecontract.Inthecaseofqualitymanagement,aninfluentialfactorwas
therealisationthatasmuchcostwasaccumulatedinmakingadefectiveproductaswasaccumulatedintheprocess
ofmakingaproductthatwasfitforpurpose.Theparallelisthatunsuccessfulparticipantsinthetenderingprocess
incur equivalent costs to those of the successful contractor. However, there are large numbers of unsuccessful
participants in the tendering process as it is currently constituted. The policy implications for the public sector
clientssuggestthatthisisanareawheretheclientisuniquelypositionedto driveconstructioninnovationandmove
ideasintopractice.

REFERENCES
AustralianConstructors AssociationandEvansandPeckManagement.2001. GuidelinesforTendering. Sydney:
AustralianConstructionsAssociation.
CommonwealthofAustralia.1994. CostsofTenderingIndustrySurvey.Canberra:AGPS.
Dalrymple,J.2000.InternationalbusinessprofilebenchmarkingfortheSME sector:doesitwork? 4thInternational
and7thNationalResearchConferenceonQualityManagement.Sydney,February2000.
DepartmentofDefence.2005. ASDEFCON(StrategicMateriel).Canberra:AGPS.

78

Foucault,M.1980.Power/Knowledge:Selectiveinterviewsandotherwritings19721977.NewYork:Pantheon.
Foucault,M.1991.QuestionofMethod.TheFoucaultEffect:Studiesingovernmentality, eds.G.Burchell,C.
GordonandP.Miller,7386.London:HarvesterWheatsheaf.
Garnett,N.andS.Pickrell.2000.Benchmarking forconstruction:theoryandpractice.ConstructionManagement&
Economics,18(1):5564.
Gellerman,S.1986.Whygoodmanagersmakebadethicalchoices.HarvardBusinessReview,JulyAugust:85
90.
Giles,J.1992. Final ReportofRoyalCommissionintoProductivity intheBuildingIndustryinNewSouthWales
(GilesRoyalCommissionReport).Marrickville:SouthwoodPress.
Hughes,W.,P.Hillebrandt,H.LingardandD.Greenwood.2001.Theimpactofmarketandsupplyconfigurations
onthecostsoftenderingintheconstructionindustry.CIBWorldBuildingCongress.April.
Learner,M.1975.Theshameofprofessions.SaturdayReview,3(3):1012.
Mills,A.2005.LocalGovernmentTaskforce.
http://www.lgtf.org.uk/resourcecentre/publications/document.jsp?documentID=114612 (accessedApril282006).
Mohamed,S.1996.Benchmarking andimprovingconstructionproductivity.BenchmarkingforQuality
Management&Technology,3(3):5058.
Pfeffer,J.1981.PowerinOrganizations.Massachusetts:PittmanPublishing.
Rowell,A.1996. GreenBacklash:Globalsubversionoftheenvironmentalmovement.NewYork:Routledge.
StandardsAustralia.1994. AustralianStandardCodeofTendering.Canberra:AGPS.
Wakin,M.1992.EthicsofLeadership. MilitaryLeadership:Inpursuitofexcellence,eds.R.TaylorandW.
Rosencach,95111.London:SagePublications.

79

CHAPTER10

Clients'BuildingProduct
EcoProfilingNeeds
DelwynJones
PhillipaWatson
PeterScuderi
PeneMitchell
INTRODUCTION
The chapter discusses market research considering the National Australian Property and Construction sector
marketplaceandthetargetmarketsegmentencompassingbuildingproductenvironmentalassessment.
This study was undertaken for the Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation (CRC CI) to
determine market conditions and needs to support strategic planning for commercialisation of prototype
environmentalassessmenttools.
The tools, called LCADesign and LCADetail, calculate environmental and economic (eco) efficiency
measures to provide building and product ecoprofiling capacity. They exploit global industry foundation class
(IFC)datatransferprotocolsandnovelinformationandcommunicationtechnology (ICT)appliedtodevelopthree
dimensionalcomputeraideddrafting(3DCAD)modelsanddeliverbuildingandbuildingproductecoprofiles.

BACKGROUND
Atglobalandnationallevels,keyindustrydriversareenvironmentallysustainabledevelopmentandICT(Brandon
&Hampson2004).Australiaismidpositionedinuptakeofthesetwotechnologiesagainsttwentyothercountriesin
Europe,NorthAmericaandPacificRimmarkets(Huovila2004).
Historically, the push for environmental sustainabilityhas been strongest from Europe but withthe United
Nations defining sustainable developmentas a goalto address escalating globalhabitatandresource depletion in
1972itbecameglobal(Lomborg2004).
Thislastdecadethehottestclimateinrecordedhistory,forexample,hasbeenattributedtoinducedclimate
changefromgreenhousegasemissions(GGE).
Table10.1showsthatbuildingoperations,alone,accountingfor40%ofenergyconsumptioninEurope35%
in the United States of America and 25% in Japan (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)2004).Internationally,buildingsenvironmentalimpactaccountsforabout:
40% induced climate change from GGE in their energy use (United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
2003)
2550%energyusedinmaterialproductionandtheirtransport(Sattery2005)
46 MT GGE generated in Australia in 1999, increasing 34% per year (Queensland Environment Protection
Agency2004).
Table10.1:GrossEnergyConsumptionbySectors

Building

EU(1999)

Transport

USA(2000)

Industryetc

Japan(1999)
020406080
%ofGrossEnergyConsumptionBySectors

100

(Source:AdaptedfromSattery2005)

80

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this market research was to characterise ecoprofiling space across the Australian property,
constructionandbuildingproductsupplychain.
Thischapterdiscussesresultsofmarketresearchconductedbetween2002and2005intofactorsinfluencing:
stakeholdersecoprofilingneedsforbuildingproductdetailing,designandfitout
howfarconventionalbuildingproductecoprofilingtoolsgotomeetsuchneeds
ecoprofilingtooldevelopmentbasedonenablingICT.

METHODOLOGY
Initiallythisstudy consideredtheprimarymarketencompassingthenationalAustralian propertyandconstruction
sectormarketplace.ItthenassessedthesecondarymarketplaceencompassingtheAustralianbuildingproducteco
profilingsegment.Marketresearchwastoinvestigatemarketfactorsinfluencingclientsecoprofilingneeds.
This work is documented in the Confidential CRC CI LCADetail Strategic Plan (Scuderi et al. 2005). To
retainconfidentialitythisreportiscitedratherthantheprimaryreferences.Figure10.1summarisesthescope,focus
andmarketresearchmethodsusedtoanalysetheprimarymarketsectorandsecondarymarketsegmentforbuilding
productecoprofiling.
Figure10.1:FlowChartofResearchMethod

Definitions
In the absence of a standard definition, an ecoprofile is typically a graphic of normalised multivariate
environmental assessments compared to a base case. For this work ecoprofiles are only derived from lifecycle
assessment(LCA)ofbuildingsandbuildingproducts.

RESULTSFROMTHEPROPERTYANDCONSTRUCTIONSECTOR
Thematurenationalpropertyandconstructionmarketsectoremploys7%ofthelabourforceandcontributes14%of
gross domestic product (GDP) including 6% contributed from the building product manufacturing sector
(IBISWorld 2005). Activity in new construction is typically less than 25% of fitout and refurbishment (Jones
2003b).
Industry capital investment is polarised with most multinational enterprise in hightech manufacturing,
masterplanned communities and prestige building (IBISWorld 2005). However, 94% isheld in smalltomedium
enterprises(SMEs)employingfewerthanfivepeople(IBISWorld2005).
Therecenttrenddownfromhighactivityhascreatedexcesscapacityandmorepressureforplayersto
competeforfewerbuildingprojects,andpredictedgrowthisbasedondemandformasterplannedresidential
communities, and largescalecommercialandpublicinfrastructure projects(Scuderietal.2005).Greeningofthe
premiummarketedgeisnowinfluencingkeyplayerresponses(Scuderietal.2005).

Keydrivers
Thetopglobal,nationalandregionaltechnologydriverforpropertyandconstructionindustrystakeholderssurveyed
isecologicallysustainabledevelopment(ESD),followedcloselybytheneedtouptakeadvancedICT(Brandonand
Hampson2004).

81

NationalAustraliandrivers,includinglegislativepressureandenvironmentalinstrumentsinpolicyandregulation,
arealsostronginfluencers(Skippen2004Scuderietal.2005).Environmentallyresponsibleprocurementinitiatives
across all tiers of Australian governments are becoming increasingly influential (Australian Environmental
LabellingAssociation(AELA)2004Scuderietal.2005).
There isalsoacommunityculture of
acting as if the environment mattered but the broad motivation and commitment to green
procurement isbeinghamperedbyalackoftransparentaccurateandevenbasicinformationabout
theenvironmentalimpactsofthemajorityofproducts(AELA2004,3).
Consumerdemandishighwith80%ofthegeneralpopulationsurveyedseekingenvironmentallypreferredproducts
forhomesandworkplaces(AELA2004Scuderietal.2005).
Nationally, government and consumer preference for minimum energy, water and pollution benchmarks
drivesdemandforgreenbuildingproducts (Scuderietal.2005).
TheGreenBuildingCouncilofAustralia(GBCA)andlocalgovernmentalliancesarealsoactingasmarket
drivers(Scuderietal.2005).
TheESDpushandmarketdriverscoupledwiththebuyingpowerandecoprocurementinitiativesacrossall
threetiersofgovernmentcombinetobecomethemainmarketinfluencer(Skippen2004AELA2004Scuderietal.
2005).
Despitebeingheldbackbyalackofinformation,thiscombinationofinfluencesisactingtoforcemarkets
towardsmoresustainabledevelopment(AELA2004,3).
According to Brandon and Hampson (2004), an Australian property and construction industry stakeholder
forum found that the top global driver trend affecting their sector was sustainable development. This forum also
expectedthatICTwillenablesustainabledevelopment.

Barrierstotheuptakeofsustainabledevelopmentandecoprofiling
In addition to lack of information there are also other very significant barriers totheuptake of ESD. Table 10.2
summarisesbarriersfacedforcommercialsuccess,uptakeofecoprofilingandnewICT inthismarket.
Whileindustryisslowlyacceptingsingleissuetoolsmostarerejectedastootime consuming(Skippen2004
Watsonetal.2004Grantetal.2005).
Morebasically,thebiggestbarriertoecoprofilingisinertia,withstakeholdersdoingnothinginthefaceof
compellingpressuretobuyanduseanewtool(Skippen2004).
Table10.2:Commercial,EcoprofilingandICTBarriers
Tocommercialsuccess
Cyclicshorttermdelivery
Reluctanceininvestment
Selfinterestdividesparties
Lackoftrustbetweenparties
NolongtermR&Dfunding
Perceivedascapitaloutlay
Highperformancedemand
Fragmentedsupplychain
Blindonglobalcompetition
Industryfragmented
Needtoadoptnewsystems
Shortsupplycausescompetition

Toecoprofilinguptake
Isseenaskeydriverforleaders
Willdominatefuturethinking
Disagreementongostrategies
Toohardandexpensive
Lackofforesightonissues
Shortageofleadership
Needsprotocolonprocess
Incorporationistooslow
Slowmarketdifferentiation
Thekeyresearchpriority
Notusedtominimiserisk
Urbanloadonnature
externality

ToadvancedICTuptake
Leadersseeitasakeyenabler
Permeatesallscenarios
Costofimprovedperformance
Abilitytochangerapidly
Uptakeisfragmented
Incorporationistooslow
Ignoranceofpotential
Providersdisinterestinsector
LowR&Drelevancehistory
Inertiaforuptakeinlearning
Reluctancetochangepractice
Needcommunicationwebfirst

Source:AdaptedfromWatsonetal.(2004),Brandonetal.(2004)andScuderietal.(2005)

RESULTSFROMECOPROFILINGSEGMENTANALYSIS
Sustainable development responses from various stakeholders include building environmental and sustainability
ratingsystemsandcodessuchas the AustralianNational:
BuildingCodesBoardResidentialSustainability Code(ABCB2005)
GreenBuildingCouncilMaterialSpecifications(GBCA2005)
GreenhouseBuildingRatingScheme(DEUS2005)
GreenhouseOffice:GreenhouseFriendlyProductLabellingScheme(AGO2005).

82

For productlabelling, accreditation is reliant on an authoritative sector standard national inventory database and
rapidecoprofilingwithoutwhichstakeholderswillpaymoreforecoprofilingratingandlabellingdevelopedonad
hocdatabases(Watsonetal.2004).

Stakeholdersandtheirresponses
In the property and construction sector, ecoprofiling stakeholders play roles including as users, providers,
regulators and trainers. Industry has also called for national integrated responses on this issue and in 2003 an
Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council was formed to promote a unified agenda on a greener built
environment(AustralianInstituteofRefrigeration(AIRAH)2005).

Customersandconsumers
Keyproperty,constructionandbuildingproductsectorstakeholdersareonrecordasseekinguserfriendlybuilding
productecoprofilingapplicationsbasedonindustryaccreditednationallifecycleinventory(LCI)databases(Jones
2003a Grant 2004). Lead players also recognise that ecoprofiling is needed to inform decisionmakers in
procurement,design,fitoutandsupply(Scuderietal.2005).Table10.3shows customerandconsumertypes with
theleadinginfluencersincludingthe:
BuildingProductInnovationCouncil(BPIC2005),RoyalAustralianInstituteofArchitects(RAIA)and
EnvironmentManagementIndustryAssociationofAustralia(EMIAA2005)
Australianlocal,stateandfederalgovernmentagenciessuchastheAustralianGreenhouseOffice(AGO2005),
environmentprotectionagencies(EPA)inallAustralianstates,and municipalcouncilsdevelopment approval
(DA)processes
keyprovidersofecoprofilingtoolsandservicessuchastheGreenBuildingCouncilofAustralia(GBCA
2005),EcoSpecifer(EcoSpecifer2005)andtheAustralianEnvironmentalLabellingAssociation(AELA2005).
Table10.3:ExamplesofCustomerTypes
Target

Customerswhomakebuyingdecision

Stakeholders Associations
Manufacturers Associations
&fabricators
e.g.BPIC

Developers
Product
designers

Property&
construction
Design&
specification
Environmental
management

Specification&
standards
procurement&
marketing
Industry,land
&urban

Alliances&
consortiums
professional
e.g.RAIA
Professional
e.g.EMIAA

Government
Regulators:
EPA
Benchmark:
AGO
Federal,local,
stateregulation
Planningcode
approvalDA
Prequalification
tosupply,eco
buy

Consumerswhouse
applications
Companies
Students
Companies
Engineering,
e.g.Glass,
industrial
Windows
design
Companies
e.g.Multiplex
Architectural&
engineering
Qualitysystem
(QA)e.g.
factory

Management
e.g.projects
Architecture&
engineering
Industrial
ecology,law,
management

Whatecoprofilingcustomersandconsumerssay
Various focus groups, interviews and questionnaires were conducted to ask stakeholders about their industrys,
clientsandpractitionersecoprofilingneeds.Resultsfromquestionnairesand10interviews ofproductdesigners
show their work was evenly distributed across residential, commercial and industrial design. Practitioners
environmentaldrivewastomeetgovernment,client,andbusinessaswellaspersonalgoals.Athirdofstakeholders
saidalltheir clients were green, andhalf hada mostly green client base. About 90% said that over 10% of their
businesswasgreen.
Most practitioner user respondents were building, interior, engineering and industrial designers and
architects.AbreakdownofusersbyprofessionsisshowninFigures10.2and10.3where,forexamplethemajority
arearchitects,publicservants,developersandmanufacturers.

83

Figure10.2:ConsumersEcoSpecifier
Education6%
Manufacturer7%
InteriorDesign7%
Government8%
Ecoconsultant8%

LandscapeA.4%
Planners4%
Engineers2%
Architects46%
Build/develop8%

Figure10.3:ConsumersGreenBuildingCouncilofAustralia
Project/FM+Agent6%
Manufacturing12%
Government16%
Contractors8%
Education1%

Architect/Design20%
Build/Develop14%
Consultants9%
Engineers14%

Most buy ecosoftware heard about through clients, colleagues andtrade media and they use it to assess product
selection to comply with their practices and clients briefs.Most sought userfriendly, industryendorsed software
andasshowninFigure10.4.UsersreliedmostontheecoprofilingtoolsSimaproandEcospecifier.
Figure10.4:MainEcoProfilingToolsUsed
Inhouse21%
RAIABPD14%

Ecospecifier29%
Simapro36%

AsshowninFigure10.5thetimetakentodoasingleecoprofileandselectthepreferredproductvariesfromhours
tomonthsdependingonprojectscaleandfocus.Mosttimeisspentontheobtainingofandmanualentryofrelevant
dataandmeasurementsintocomputerspreadsheetsusedtocalculateecoprofiles.Intelligent3DCADusewas80%
with 50% IFCglobal interoperabilitydata transfer protocol compliance and this ismuchhigher than the1030%
generallyreported.
Figure10.5: TimelinessofCurrentEcoProfiling
Hours22%
Days34%

Months22%
Weeks22%

Table10.4showskeycustomerandconsumerecoprofilingtoolneedsfromresponsesof30focusgroupssurveyed
overthree years(Watson2004Seo2002andScuderi2005).
Table10.4:SurveyResponsesCustomerandConsumerNeeds
Customer(buyer)ecoprofilingneeds
Aonestopshopforbuildingsector
Credible,authoritative&controlled
Forproductselectiontoindustry
Wholeoflifecyclecover
Australianaccrediteddataforsector
Sectorstandardprofiling&reporting
Forpropertyownersprocurement
Detailedsupplychainintegrity

Consumer(user)ecoprofilingneeds
Quickautomateduserfriendlytool
Aportaltosupplychaindata
Sourceofauthoritativeindustrydata
Dataup/downstreamofhomeplant
Coverrealsupplychain
Dimensionallyrelevant
Updatedsupplychaininformation
Formanufacturersgreensupply

Results from practitioner surveys reveal that they seek quantitative profiles (Scuderi et al. 2005 Mitchell et al.
2005).Asummary ofthealignmentof ecoprofilingoutcomessoughtby19 focusgroupsheldbetween2002and
2006isdepictedinFigure10.6.

84

Figure10.6:WhereIndustryEcoProfilingInterestsandNeedsAlign

Customers, who make the buying decision, may be different to consumers, who use the product customers have
bought. Manufacturing focus groups, in particular, said needs of customers and consumers are different for
example, customers need economic bottomline benefits while consumers want technical benefits (Skippen 2004
Scuderietal.2005).
Results of four surveys of ecoprofiling consultants showed they need rapid solutions based on Australian
industry inventory databases. The results show industry sector stakeholder ecoprofiling interests andneeds were
foundtoliemainlyin:
creatingAustraliansectorstandardproductprofiling,reportingandcompliance
supportingsectorstandardspecificationandlabellingrequiringqualitydata
facilitatingprovidersecosupplyandpurchasersecoprocurement
educationalsupportinLCAand lifecycle thinking (LCT)(Scuderietal.2005).

Ecoprofilingmarketsegmentshapeandactivity
Ecoprofilingactivityinprocurement,design,fitoutandsupplymarketsegmentswasanalysedandresultsfortwo
publicsectortiersareoutlinedbelow.Australiahasthreetiersofgovernment:federal, stateand local(councils).
Most of the 600 local municipal government agencies ecospecify for construction and refurbishment
(Scuderi et al. 2005). Currently in Australia, 75% of councils in the State of Victoria are ecobuy alliance
members with associates comprising local government associations in the Australian states of Queensland (Qld),
NewSouthWales(NSW)andWesternAustralian(WA).
In20022003councilsinVictoriaspent$7bnonmaterialsandcontractsanditsecobuyexpendituretrends
from$5.9m in2001to$33.5m in2004.
The much larger Australian state governments of Qld, NSW and Victoria also have ecopolicies in all
contractsandapply>4starminimumofficeaccommodationenergystandards(Scuderietal.2005).
In 20022003 the NSW State Government purchased $10.5bnworth of goods and services plus $6.5bn
capital works (Watson et al. 2004). That year the Queensland State Government procurement was $11.5bn with
$1.5bnin newbuildingconstructionplus $5bncapitalworksonstock(Jonesetal.2003b).
Alsoin 2001 Queensland State Government spending on existing buildings was tenfold that spent on new
buildings(Jonesetal.2003b).Thisreflectslargeestateownershigherrecurrentcommitmenttocapitalworkson
oldstockratherthannewstock.
Together refurbishment, fitout, maintenance and repair can account for a significantly larger share of the
capital budget that does constructingnew buildings. This underscores the importance of marketresearchinto the
wider building product procurement, supply, fitout and design rather than that exclusively destined for new
buildings.
The Queensland State Government, for example, developed and distributed 9800 Ecologically Sustainable
OfficeFitoutGuidelinestoninefederaland534stateandlocalgovernmentagenciestofacilitateecoprofilingof
fitoutofexistingstockaswellasnewbuildings(Scuderietal.2005).
Also 30 large marketinfluencing scale manufacturing organisations, found to exist in the national supply
chain,alsoseekeffectiveandtimelyecoprofilingtools.

85

CURRENTECOPROFILINGMARKET
The buildingproduct ecoprofiling target market segmentswere classified according to economic investmentand
business activity reported in procurement, product, fitout, design, and supply. Results showed about half of the
nationalecoprofilingmarketplaceactivityoccurredinNSW,7%inWAand14%inVictoria.
AmarketactivitysummaryinFigure10.7showsthatwhilethehighestactivitysegmentfoundwasdesignall
segments are linked across the supply chain. The results show the ecoprofiling market shape as a circuit with
purchasing,designandsupplyinterdependent.
Figure10.7:ActivityacrossStakeholderPopulations

Lossofecoprofilingcapacityinanysegmentactsacircuitbreakeracrossthefullpathconstitutingtherealsupply
chain. Currently most such tools do not complete this circuit to service supply, design, fitout and procurement
thoughneweronescovermorethanoldertools.
The influence of ecoprofiling in procurementto communicate objectively and directly with that in design,
fitout and supply stakeholders is not yet capitalised upon. Currently procurement is underserviced by objective
informationastoproductenvironmentalquality.Thetimeandeffortinvolvedinacquiringandmanipulatingdata
forecoprofilingismostoftengivenasthereasonforthis.
Thiscontrastswithotherconstituentprofilingthatcontributestodevelopmentof,forexample,foodnutrition
profiles and labels. In that marketplace, supplier, designer and procurer populations communicate nutritional
profilingmoreadequatelyviafoodlabels.
Itwasapparentthattheoptimumbuildingproductecoprofilingtoolpackagingpositionistoserviceallfour
populations, in common language, measures and pathways so as to complete the circuit and that ecoprofiling
applicabletoecolabelsmayfacilitatethis.

IMPEDIMENTSTOECOPROFILINGMARKETUPTAKE
Currentlyinformationaboutsustainabilityofthebuildingproductsupplychainandthebuiltenvironmentislimited
byindustryslackofcapacitytodeliverobjectiveenvironmentalimpactsinformation(AELA2004).Whilevarious
approaches in the building products market provide water and energysaving rating schemes Australia has no
nationalbuildingproductecoprofilingtoolsordatabases(Mitchelletal.2005).
ThemarketresearchfoundmanyunfulfilledstakeholdersneedswiththegreatestneedforAustraliancountry
specificindustrysectorstandardecoprofilingapplicationswithrapiddataacquisitionandcalculation.Theoptimum
buildingproductecoprofilingtoolpackagingpositionwastoserviceallfourtargetmarketsegmentpopulations,in
commonlanguage,measuresandpathwayssoastocompletethefullcircuit.
CompoundingthissituationtheindustryremainsheldbackbyrelianceonMicrosoftOfficeandothertypesof
2Dsoftware(Brandon& Hampson2004).Manyconsiderthatitistimelyforthepropertyandconstructionsectorto
begintoexploit3Dand4Dmodelling,visualisation,analysisandcalculationsoftwarethatcandeliverrapideco
profiling capacity (Lee et al. 2005 Fischer 2005 Dawson 2005). Ultimately this approach is to facilitate
development of an integrated supply chain using advanced ICT to seamlessly design, cost, manufacture and
assemblebuildings(Brandon& Hampson2004).
The authors argue that the industry needs to move forwards with software built on space, object and time
dimensions rather than with reliance even today mostly on line drawings and physical scale models. Enhanced
industry uptake of new 3D CAD ICT platforms will also help to move industry forward in virtual modelling
platformsforarangeofindustry facilitymanagement andprojectdeliveryapplications(Brandon& Hampson2004).

86

ICTENABLEDECOPROFILING
Inresponse to environmental sustainabilityand climate change drivers the CRC CI is exploiting enabling ICT to
supplycoremarketdemandforbuildingindustryproductecoprofiling.LCADetailisbeingdevelopedasaspinoff
from prototype software called LCADesign. LCADesign is a commercial building ecoefficiency assessment tool
whereasLCADetailfocusesonbuildingproducts ratherthanthewholebuilding.
BothtoolsusethelatestICTglobalIFCinteroperability datatransferprotocolsforobjectoriented3DCAD.
TheyeachcontaindataimportedandperiodicallyupdatedfromauniquenationalbuildingsectorLCIdatabaseata
remotesite.Thetoolsarestage2prototypesforbuildingandproductdesignwithsoftwarethathasundergonelocal
andoverseastestingandassessment(Watsonetal.2005).TheLCIdatabaseisastage3prototypedevelopedontop
oftheBousteadLtdGlobalModel4databaseandLCIthat the NSW GovernmentdevelopedfortheGreenGames.
HowthesoftwareworksisdepictedinFigure10.8.
Figure10.8:HowLCADetailWorks

ThisCRC CI software was developed to provide industry sector stakeholders benefits by facilitating users direct
analysisofproductprofiles,withoutdatareentry,asitallows:
rapidanalysis,asdataalreadyinthetoolsisusedtocalculateecoprofiles
theusertoexploitsoftwarethatlargelyeliminateserrorfrommanualdataentry
forproductreanalysiswithaltereddesignstooptimiseecoefficiency.
Advantages in the marketplace are seen to arise mostly from providing a worldclass automated takeoff tool
exploitingresultsexportedfromauniquenationalAustralianLCIdatabase.Keymarketsuccessfactorsarisefrom
technicalsupremacyinrealtimeautomatedtakeofffrom3DCADmodelsanddeliveringtwinenvironmentaland
economicprofiling.CompetitorsdonotofferobjectiveAustralianenvironmentaldatacoupledwitheconomiccost
profiles.
Butultimately,inlightofthischaptersmarketresearchfindings,themainbenefitisprovidingecoprofiling
stakeholdersacrossallmarketsegmentswith:
automatedanddimensionallyrelevantecoprofilingsoftwareto facilitateecodesign
asourceofproductinformationforproductselection,tenderingandbidevaluation
softwaretofacilitatesectorstandardreporting,checkinglabellingandauditing
anAustraliandatabaseprovidingsupplychaindetailsforsupplyandprocurement.

87

CONCLUSIONS
The marketresearch assessed a range of largelyunmet stakeholder buildingproduct ecoprofilingneeds intarget
marketsegmentsinthe national Australianpropertyandconstructionsector.
Informationaboutsustainability ofthebuildingproductsupplychainislimitedbyindustryslackofcapacity
todeliverobjectiveinformationneedstoenablestakeholderstoassessproductselections.Consequentlythetimeand
effortinvolvedin acquiringandmanipulatingdatawasthemainreasongivenforlackof ecoprofilingactivityin
procurement,design,fitoutandsupplymarketsegments.
The most significantneed was for fast and Australian countryspecific userfriendlyecoprofiling software
forquantitativeassessmentforspecification,procurement anddesign.
A basic finding was that the ecoprofiling market shape is a circuit with purchasing, design and supply
interdependentandlossofcapacityinonesegmentactingasacircuitbreakeracrossallmarketsegments.
The optimum building product ecoprofiling tool packaging position was to service all four populations,in
commonlanguage,measuresandpathwayssoastocompletethefullcircuit.
Mosttoolsdonot completethemarketcircuitand,becauseprocurementisunderservicedby ecoprofiling
capacity,itsinfluenceondesign,fitoutandsupplyisunderleveraged.Profilingforproductlabellingmayfacilitate
procurementasinfoodmarkets.
Industry reliance on 2D software compounds the current situation and the CRC CI move to meet such
stakeholderneedsisbasedonuptakeofintelligent3DCAD toolsforecoprofiling.
CRCCIsoftwarehasbeendevelopedtosave>95%oftimeandeffortcurrentlyinvolvedtodevelopproduct
ecoprofiles.Itresolvessignificantkeyuserissuesandprovidesstakeholderswith:
automatedsoftwarefordimensionallyrelevantecoreportingandlabelling
anationaldatasourcefororganisationalprocessimprovement
supplychaindetailsforproductselectiontofacilitatetenderandbidevaluation.
Benefitsincludeallowinguserstodirectlyanalyseproductprofileswithoutrequiringreentryofallthedataasthe
softwareallows:
rapidanalysisasdataalreadyinthesoftwareisusedtocalculateecoprofiles
theusertoexploittoolsthatlargelyeliminateerrorfrommanualdataentry
forproductreanalysiswithaltereddesignstooptimiseecoefficiency.

REFERENCES
AustralianEnvironmentalLabellingAssociation.2004.TheStateofGreenProcurement inAustralia.
http://www.aela.org.au/, http://www.greenprocurement.org.au/ (accessed12December2005).
AustralianGreenhouseOffice.2005.GreenhouseFriendlyProductLabellingScheme.
www.greenhouse.gov.au/greenhouseoffice(accessed12December2005).
AustralianInstituteofRefrigeration,AirConditioningandHeating.2005. EcoLibrium:www.airah.org.au/
(accessed28March2005).
NewSouthWalesDepartmentofEnergy,UtilitiesandSustainability.NationalGreenhouseBuildingRating
Scheme. http://www.abgr.com.au/new/default.asp(accessed12December2005).
Brandon,P.andK.Hampson.2004. Construction2020: AvisionforAustraliaspropertyandconstructionindustry.
Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation.
AustralianBuildingCodesBoard.2005. ResidentialSustainability Code.
http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/www/print.asp?casID=4165 (accessed12December2005).
BuildingProductInnovationCouncil.2005. Mission. http://www.bpic.asn.au/bpic_mission.html (accessed28
March2005).
Dawson.A.2004. TheBuildingandConstructionIndustryTechnologyRoadmap.
http://www.cwic.org.au/Roadmap%20PDF.pdf (accessed24 October2005).
EnvironmentManagementIndustryAssociationAustralia.2005. AboutEBA. http://www.emiaa.org.au (accessed12
December2005).
EcoSpecifer.2005. AboutEcoSpecifer. http://www.ecospecifier.org/ (accessed12December2005).
Fischer,M.2005. 4DCAD Modelling:Visualintelligenceforconstructionmanagement.
http://www.stanford.edu/~fischer/research/4DCADModeling.pdf (accessed24October2005).
GreenBuildingCouncilofAustralia.2005.GBCA OfficeFitout:Materialspecification.
http://www.gbcaus.org/gbc.asp?sectionid=6&docid=684 (accessed12December2005).
Grant,T.2004. EcoDesign Centre:Reviewofgreentools.Melbourne:RMITUniversity.
Huovila.P.2005.Onthewaytowardsasustainableknowledgesociety:theEuropeanapproach. ClientsDriving
ConstructionInnovation:MappingtheTerrain,eds.K.Brown,K.HampsonandP.Brandon.,5149.Brisbane:
CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
IBISWorldAustralia.2005. ConstructionIndustryReport. www.ibisworld.com.au (accessed12December2005).
Jones,D.,D.JohnstonandS.Tucker.2003a.LCIforAustralianbuildingproducts.CIBInternationalSASBE
Conference.1921November2003.

88

Jones,D.,K.LyonReidandD.Gilbert.2003b.Sustainability atWilliamMcCormackPlace. ClientsDriving


ConstructionInnovation:Mappingtheterrain, eds.K.Brown,K.HampsonandP.Brandon,145155.Brisbane:
CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
Lee,A.,S.WuandA.MarshallPonting.2005. nD ModellingRoadmap:AvisionofnDenabled construction.UK:
UniversityofSalford.
Lomborg,B.2004.TheScepticalEnvironmentalist.Cambridge:UniversityPress.
Mitchell,P.,D.JonesandP.Watson.2005.ANationalBuildingProductLCI. 4thALCASConference. Sydney,23
25February.
OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment 2004.EnvironmentallySustainable Buildings.US:DoE
&JR&EA.
QueenslandEnvironmentProtectionAgency.2004. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency. http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/
(accessed12March2005).
Sattary,S.2005.PhDThesis:Transfer.Brisbane:QueenslandUniversity.
Scuderi,P.,D.JonesandP.Watson.2005. LCADetail StrategicPlan.Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentrefor
ConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
Seo,S.2002. InternationalReviewOfEnvironmentalAssessmentToolsandDatabases Report Number2001006B
02.Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
Skippen,H.2004. LCADesign:Marketsurvey. Report.Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentreforConstruction
Innovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgram.2003. IndustryandEnvironment26:23p.6.
WatsonP,Mitchell.P,JonesD,(2004)Environmentalassessmentforcommercialbuildings:stakeholder needsand
toolcharacteristics:Report2001006b01/2,CRCCI.

89

CHAPTER11

DifficultiesinDefiningProduct
Sustainability
ShaneWest
INTRODUCTION
Designing and building community projects is often only able to be conducted with a minimal budget. Having
experiencedthelimitationsposedbyeconomicconstraintsonmanycommunitybuildingprojectsbothasadesigner
and project manager, it isthe authors belief thatthenotion of economic sustainabilityneeds to be explored as a
main component of sustainability as relevant as the commonly identified ecological or environmental sustainable
development(ESD)paradigms.
The major environmental assessment of building tools, BREEAM (UK), Greenstar (Australia) and LEED
(USA),areseriouslyflawedbynothavingeconomicsustainability incorporatedintothematrixofsustainability.
Apartfromtheneedtoincludeeconomicsustainabilityinassessmentsthereisafurtherneedtoexplorethe
complex issue of defining sustainable materials. The difficulties posed by attempting to define products as
sustainableandtheanalysisofseveralareasofconjecture,suchastheconflictingvariablesofthermalmass/density,
andinsulation,arediscussedinthischapter.

OBJECTIVES
Theobjectiveistocomparemethodologiesusedtodefinetheappropriatenessandaccuracyoflabellingproductsas
sustainable. One methodology currently used as measures of sustainability includes material components being
definedassustainablebyvaluingembodiedenergyonaweightscale,thatis,comparingembodiedenergyperkgof
materialkg/MJ.Theweightmethodologyisthencomparedtoavolumetricbasisofm3/MJ.Themethodologies
ofweighttovolumeareanalysedfortheirrelevance.
The terms thermal mass and insulation are sometimes confused and lowembodied energy
materials/highthermal mass materials such as insitu concrete, are often thought of as being good insulators. In
reality,concrete,becauseofitsdensity,exhibitshighthermalconductance,thatis,.itisapoorinsulator,andmay
offerlittlebenefitevenasathermal storeifnotdesignedforsolarefficiency,andcanevenbeadetrimentalheatsink
ifnotadequatelydesigned(West2005).
Under many conditions lightweight hybrid designed buildings with appropriate thermal insulation may be
consideredmoresustainable.FromaCSIROpressreleaseof27Apr2000,LatesttestsbyCSIROhaveconfirmed
that rammed earth walls have poor thermal resistance adding hard facts to the debate about their insulation
properties,Clarke(2000)raisesthequestion,WhydosomanyAustraliansbelieveearthconstructionprovidessuch
acomfortablehome?
CSIROstests confirmedthattheoverallthermalresistance(Rvalue)ofatypicalrammedearth
wall is less than R 0.4,the same as the disputed values provided for by standard design tables.
This is low compared to everyday insulating materials such as glass fibre batts which typically
comewithratingsofR2orR3(Clarke2000).
Thereistheperceptionthatusingsoilmaybetheultimategreenbuildingmaterialasitisseenasbeingpartof
MotherEarth.However,itshouldbeanalysedinthesamewayasallpotentialmaterials.Ifsoilisavailableonsite,
anditistherighttype,andlabourischeapandplentiful,andtimeisnotanissue(asitiswithmainstreambuilding)
thenearthbuildingisanoption,especiallyinsomedevelopingcountriessuchasSriLanka.
Itshouldalsobenotedthoughthatalongwithpoorinsulationvalue,ifsoilrequirestransportingand510%
cementstabilisationthenitsembodiedenergy(GER)levelsbecomequitesignificant.Anotherpointofsustainable
concernforcountriessuchasAustraliaisthatgoodqualitytopsoilisarare/valuablecommodityandthatlargescale
productionofhousingwouldhaveasignificantextractiveimpactontheenvironment.
Itisascientificfactthatasamaterialincreasesindensityitsinsulationvaluedecreases,andthisiscounter
intuitive to many and has created substantial errors in logic and general perceptions such as that if a material is
denseitwillbe agoodinsulatorwheninfacttheoppositeistrue adensematerialwillbeabetterconductor.Itis
truetosaythatifweincreasevolumeofmaterial,insulationwillinturnincrease,butasaninverseproportiontothe
materialsdensity.RefertoFigures11.1and11.2:

90

Figure11.1:DensityofMaterials

2500

Densityofmaterialskg/m3
2000

1500

1000

500

ClayBrick

Insitu
concrete

Aerated
concrete

Extruded
polystyrene

Figure11.2:InsulationValueofMaterials

Note:InsulationvaluesusedinthisgraphhavebeensourcedfromGreenland(1991)
Applying embodied energy as a weighted value per kg or as a volumetric measure will also affect perceptions.
Anotherdifficultyindefiningsustainablematerialsisthemeasureofembodiedenergyfromtablesthatstipulatethe
materialasMJ/kg,andthisisexaminedinFigures11.3and11.4.Itisanotherfactorformisconceptionsaboutthe
useofcertainmaterials.

91

Figure11.3:EmbodiedEnergyAsMeasuredPerkgofMaterialUsed

Note:EmbodiedenergyvaluesusedinthisgraphhavebeensourcedfromLawson(1996)
Aninitialassessmentfromembodiedenergytables(Lawson1996)revealsthefollowingembodiedenergyvaluesin
MJ/kg(Lawson1996)(referFigure11.3).AscanbeseenfromthegraphinFigure11.3acursoryanalysis ofthe
embodiedenergyofmaterialswouldrenderchoosinganyofthepolystyrenesinappropriatebasedonthehighlevels
ofembodiedenergy.
However,a carefullook at applied volume in constructionchanges the total embodied energy dramatically
andtherelativeweightandinsulationadvantagesmustalsobeincludedasathoroughtotallifecycleanalysisofthe
material.
Reworking the equation solely based on MJ/m3 we find that the results are substantially different when
comparingMJ/kgasinFigure11.3toMJ/m3asexpressedinthetotalvolumetricmeasure inFigure11.4.
ItcanbeseenclearlyfromthevolumetricmeasureusedinFigure11.4thatarealisticpracticalassessmentof
embodiedenergyneedstocalculatedratherthanreferringto weightedvaluesasproposedfromsomeecomaterial
guides.
Itshouldbenotedthatmostembodiedenergytablesandecomaterialguidesoperateoninformationobtained
by process energy requirements (PER) which is a basic process/manufacture assessment of energy consumed to
make materials, which does not consider the cost of transport and haulage (crane lift for insitu concrete for
example),timetoerect,durabilityandmaintenanceallfactorstobeconsideredinasuitablebuildingwallpanel
selection.
Definingsustainablematerialsneedstoincorporatemorethanjustembodiedenergy,itneedstobeassessed
alongwithongoingthermalinsulationvalue,buildabilityandeconomicsustainability.

92

Figure11.4

EmbodiedEnergyasMeasuredperCubicMetreofMaterialUsed

METHODOLOGY
An evaluation based on a practical relative wall panel size has proven to be a more appropriate methodology to
assessbuildingmaterialssustainablequalitiesasitisalsoassociatedwithbuildability,transportandsafetyfactors
thatareallimportantcomponentsof economicsustainability (West2005).See Figure11.5.
Figure11.5:AComparativeAnalysisofWallPanelSystems

The external cladding system is the area that thisresearchfocus has been directed towards and several proposed
systems have been evaluated. The data shown in Figure 11.6 relates to panels made of brick, concrete, aerated
concrete,extrudedpolystyreneandaluminiumsandwichpanel.TheadditionofweighttothegraphalongwithPER
embodiedenergyandinsulationproducesausefulappliedcomparativeanalysis.

93

Figure11.6:ResultsofCombinedWeight/InsulationandEmbodiedEnergyasMeasuredper
CubicMetreofMaterialUsed

Externalcladdingpanelsystemswereevaluatedfortheirappropriatesustainability basedonstandardpanelsizingas
showninFigure11.7.ItshouldbenotedthatonlyPERmethodologywasinitiallyevaluated.
Figure11.7:StandardExternalWallPanel

75

2400

Volume
0.108m
3

600

panelcomparison
Anallowancemustbemadeforfinishcoatingstopolystyreneandaeratedconcretepanelsandacomparisoncanbe
madebetweenthesesystemsthatrequiremaintenanceandaluminiumskinnedexpandedpolystyrenesystemthatis
consideredrelativelymaintenancefree.
Massofpaintfilm2mm= 3kgofpaint/panel=186MJembodiedenergy/panel.
(Initial skim coat of 2mm may not be required it could be 300 micron, depending onthe paint system applied.)
Recoatingwillalsodependonthe qualityofthe paintschosen,butgenerallyareapplicationortopcoatingwillonly
berequiredsayevery fiveyears=0.45kgx61.5MJ/kg=27.8MJ).

94

LIFECYCLEASSESSMENT
InabasiclifecycleanalysisusingPERandmaintenance,assumingallwallpanelsmeetminimumR2performance,
withnoallowanceforeaseofinstallation,cranageorsafetyissues,thefollowingcalculationsoflifecycleenergyper
panelwerecalculated:
Polystyrenewithacrylicpaintfinish:
Theembodiedenergyforextrudedpolystyrene(450MJ)withaninitial2mmacrylicpaintfinish(186MJ)=
636MJ/panel. Theadditionof10repaintsduringa50yearlifecycle addedanadditional278MJ,and thetotal
energyperpanel=914MJ
Aeratedconcretewithacrylicpaintfinish:
Aeratedconcrete(353MJ)+paint(186MJ) plusmaintenance(278MJ)= 817MJ.
Expandedpolystyrene(166MJ)witha1.5mmexterioraluminiumsheet(1870MJ)=1100MJ maintenance
free.
Fromthesefiguresitcanbeassessedthatallpanelshadsimilarembodiedenergyandinsulationvalue.Based
onthe abovecalculationsitwouldbehardtojustifyonesystemovertheother.Decreeingaproductasgreen
ornotgreen requiresthoroughevaluationbuildability,safetyandemissionfactorsneedtobeconsidered.
Products need to be considered by evaluating complete material make up starting from the first input of
energy.Inthecaseofpolystyrenethisisfrombeingacoproductofoilrefiningandinthecaseofaeratedconcrete
the small amount of high energy aluminium content used as an additive needs to be evaluated upstream and
downstreamwasthealuminiumrefinedbyahydroorcoalfiredpowersource?Thesearecomplexassessments
butneedtobecalculatedtoarriveataccuratefigures.
Tracing thetotal energy cycle is the only true determinantto assess a materials (or builtup components)
embodiedenergyandenergyconsumedduringitslifecycleandthisinvolvesassessingthesourceofpowersupply
(emissionfactors)inmanufacture,transportandongoinginsulationvalueanddurability.
True assessment of base power supply is needed for accurate greenhouse emissions. By way of example
aluminium with a 170MJ/kg of embodied energy based on coalfired power stations PER is a heavy energy
consumer and with a coalfired power station this would correspond with high CO2 output (unless as with
Tasmanianhydroprocessingofaluminium,thereare lowCO2 emissions).
Aluminium produced by hydro may be deemed to be more environmentally beneficial so far as CO2
emissionsareconcerned,butitstotallifecycleassessment,evenifproducedbyacoalfiredsource,shouldstillbe
opentomarketchoiceconsideredby basicmarketforcesontheprosandconsof supplyanddemandversus
function.Othermaterialconsiderationssuchasaluminiumskinbeingonlya1.5mmcoveringinawallpanel,but
verydurableanditseasilyrecycled,needtobeassessedintotalbeforematerialsaredeclaredunsatisfactory.
Ongoing energy savings due to insulation and low maintenance are important parameters and significant
research was conducted in thisarea byEvans and Ross (1998).This washighlightedinareportprepared for the
NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning by Manidis Roberts Consultants (1996). The report looked at
usinginsulationoveracompletelifecyclefortheSydney2000OlympicGamesvillage.Thereportconcludedthat
reductioninenergyconsumptionoverthewhole lifecycle ofatypicalbuildingthroughtheuseofinsulatingmaterial
was quite spectacular. The findings suggested that the savings in energy for heating the building was
approximately100 times the amount of energy used to manufacture the insulating material. These results were
reflectedinsimilarreductionsinthelifecycleemissionofgreenhousegases.

BUILDINGCOSTSANDENERGYEFFICIENCY
Costshouldbeaconsiderationinsustainabilityequations,andopulenceacknowledgedaseconomicextravagance.
For example, large capitalrich corporations may have an inflated affordability factor compared to less financial
organisationsandbyhavingexcesscapitalmaybeabletopayanextravagantpremiumtoachievefivestarenergy
efficiency which may not necessarily relate to sustainability, and this has to be monitored, to compare outlay to
benefitforoccupancynumbers.
Ithasbeenlabelledspendbigtosavealittle,thatis,ahitechapproach.Theinitialcosttoproducean
energyefficientbuildingmaynotbeabletobepaidbackoverseverallifetimes.Thisisnoteconomicsustainability
andcannotapplytodevelopingnationswheresustainabilityinhousingisatruthandnotabyword,ascapitalisjust
notavailable.
Costefficient construction with low energy consumption standards should be the preferred sustainability
profileratherthanhighcost/hightechbuildings.Buildersanddesignersneedtoconformtoongoingenergysavings
innewdesigns,meetingmandatoryMJ/m2profilesthatrefertoongoingperannumconsumptionduringoccupancy.
If a building is designed to meet a minimum energy consumption standard, market forces will drive the
design/material components to meet the minimum consumption standards for the lowest cost for the consumer
market which, in turn, may represent the best sustainable option: the lowest total energy used in construction to
achieveanacceptableenergyconsumptionstandard.

95

A performancebased energy rating scheme may prove to be more beneficial than an overregulated prescriptive
approach.Asystemapplyingsimplechecksandbalancesrelatingtominimumdesignrequirementsincludingacost
efficiency(CE)factor,whichmeasuresbuildingcost/m2/no. ofoccupantswithanattachedsocialbottomline,would
bemorebeneficialsustainablythanasystemthatrelatestopurelypostconstructionenergyconsumption.
Energy in building materials is a component of the manufactured cost and the materials functional
(insulation)ongoingconsumptioncost.Energyasaconstantinthesupplyanddemandchainwillintheendaffect
theeconomicsofmanufacturing,transportandendsiteuseand,dependingonthephysicalmakeupofthematerial,
its subsequent durability, insulation value and hence ongoing energy consumption of the building during its
lifecycle.
Thesecomplexvariablesinassessingabuildingsimpactongreenhousegasemissionsoveritslifecyclemay
be simplified by adopting an Adam Smith approach and letting market forces take their course with little
prescriptivegovernmentinput.
By way of example, if a mandatory system required walls to meet an R3 rating, an aluminiumclad
polystyrenepanelmaybeconsideredasasuitablesystembasedonseveraloperationalfactorseaseofassembly,
durabilityetc.However,theessentialgovernmentalrequirementforthisexercisewouldbemeetingtheR3rating.
Basedonmeetingthehighinsulationvalue,athinlayerofaluminiumexternalskinpossessesbenefitsoflow
maintenancedurabilityandprovidesaUV barrierforthehighinsulatingUVsensitivepolystyrenebackingwhich
providestherigidity forthepanel.Itisaveryfast,simplepanelsystemtoerect,andthissystemmayproveto be
attractive if the material can be sourced at a reasonable price, which depends on energy efficiency in mining,
productionanddistribution.
Thesupplyanddemandcurveandtransportwillaffectpanelpreferences.Forexamplethecostof building
withaluminiumsandwichpanelinSydneymaybeacceptable,whereastransportingthepaneltoTownsvillemaybe
cost prohibitive. Therefore in Townsville another system may be considered based on economics of sourcing
materialsanddistributioneconomics,whicharethemselvesGERenergyconsiderations.(Thisisinfactanexample
ofhowtheAdamSmithapproachoperates.)
By way of explanation, if a compulsory energy consumption target is prescribed that a building must be
designed to use a minimum MJ/m2 or kWhr level and it can be shown that this building has used
renewable/recycledresourceswherepossible,andwithdueconsiderationthatacompetitiveenvironmentwillreduce
coststoconsumers.
Bytheassociationofcostandenergy consumedintheconstructioncycle,havingthecheapestconstruction
thus lower energy to produce a building to meet stipulated government performance standards, may be a
sufficientsustainability ratingscheme.
Aratingsystemthatisoverregulatedandneedstohaveaccreditedprofessionalstooverseethesystemwill
introduceanothercostfactorintothetotalbuildingcostequation.Asimpleselfregulatingapproachthatcompares
assembledproductsbackedbymanufacturerscertifiedproductperformance(thermalinsulation)valuesforexample
maybeamorecostandtimeefficientapproach.
Tosomedegreethegreenbuildingproductlabellingmightnotberequiredandwemightbeabletofollowthe
AdamSmithapproach applyingtheinvisiblehandprinciple.
If the product is cheaper to installand offers ongoing energy savings in operation and its overalllifecycle
analysis is better, then this methodology maybe all that is required to satisfactorily assess the green potential of
materialsorbuiltuppanels whilstalso allowingforrenewable,recyclablecontent, and toxicityandsafetyissues.
Lowestcostbuildingdesignratedagainstminimumstandardenergyperformanceratingsmay wellproduce
themostsustainablebuildings.
Hightech infraredreflecting glassrather than simple shading meanshigh cost, andhighcost buildingsare
noteconomicallyfeasiblefordevelopingcountrieswheretherealsustainableenergyfocusneedstobeemployed.
Itisessentialtoeconomicallyscrutinisematerialsovertheirlifecycletoincluderecycling.Considerthecase
ofpolystyrene.Polystyreneisafossilfuelderivedproductandthereforebyassociationnotsustainableasithasa
limitedlife.However,bothbricksandconcretefallintothesamecategorybutaregenerallyacceptedasbeingmore
sustainable.
Evenifpolystyrene(petrolbased)hasalimitedlife,itcanberecycledeasily,providesexcellentinsulation
andhas many other benefits. (It should be acknowledged that almost all building products apart from timber are
nonrenewable.)
Developmentsinfutureproductadvancesmayseeavastarrayoffuturerenewables.Itshouldberemembered
that styrene, a byproduct of crude oil extraction, is also found naturally in foods such as strawberries, nuts and
beans andsyntheticplasticsfromsoyabeanhavebeenrecentlydeveloped(FutureMaterials2004).
If styreneisclassifiedasabyproductorcoproductofpetrolrefiningthenitismakingausefulproductfrom
adownstreamneedforfuel,whichwillcontinue,astransportisstillfossilfueldependent.CO2 ratiosof allproducts
dependingoncoalfiredpowerstationstosupplyenergytomanufacture,petroltomineandforendplacetransport
distribution, allneedtobefullyevaluatedthesameasstyrene.

96

Establishing
that
styrene
is
a
product
made
from
petrol,
then
its
energy
consumption/insulation/recyclability/lifecycle compared to other products total energy consumption needs to be
evaluated.Biofuelswillagainaddanotherdimensiontobeconsideredintheequationofsustainabilityandfurther
work in this area needs encouragement. Work is now unfolding, with rising crude oil prices, to make biofuels
potentiallyeconomical.
All products need to have their total energy components examined to appropriately compare with one
another. Takingintoaccounttheenergytomineresources,fabricate andtransport,itshouldalsobeacknowledged
thatoutofsteel,gyprock,glass,concrete,bricksandtimbertheonlyproductthatisrenewableistimber.
Thedifficultyofdefiningsustainableproductsisclearlyillustratedintheexamplesandconjecturepresented
byWest(2005)wherecost,buildabilityandsafetyareelaboratedon.
Timberhasthefantasticattributesofbeingrenewable,givingoffoxygenandlockingincarbon.However,in
theUS,somearchitectsarewinningawardsforenvironmentallysustainablehousesthattrytoreducetimberuseas
theyfeelitprotectshabitat.Eventheuseoftimberisapointofconjectureinsomequarters,andappropriatelyso
whendealingwithecologicalissuesofoldgrowthforestsandhabitatloss.
Habitatandecologyarevalidconcernshowever,withrenewableplantationforeststhenegativeimpactof
usingtimber because of habitatloss argumentlacks credibility, as all construction processes musthave resource
impactsaspreviouslydiscussed.
Settling on the benefits of using a timber structural frame, the cladding system employed on the frame
presentsfurtherdifficultiesindefiningwhichacceptablesustainablepropertiesaremoreappropriateorofahigher
sustainability orderoveranother.
Brick veneer with an insulated timber frame has similar embodied energy figures to both the polystyrene
system and aerated concrete panel system. So why would a house with a brick veneer be any more sustainable
comparedtoapolystyreneveneerpanelhouseiftheyusethesametimberframe?
Claddingsystemsthathavesimilarembodiedenergymustembedavastrangeofotherfactorsinacradleto
cradle analysis. For example, polystyrene or aerated concrete would be cheaper, have better buildability (light
weightandfastertobuild)andhavebetterongoing insulationenergysavingsoverabrickskinnedveneer.
FromLawson(1996),theembodiedenergyofclaybricksis2.6MJ/kg.Apanelofbrickwork2400x600x
110 (0.158m3) would weigh 316kg (allowing a density of 2000kg/m3), compared to 6kg of acrylic
paint/polystyrenepanelaweightfactorof52times(West2005).Theinherentsafetyandtimeissuesalongwith
socialandculturalappropriatenessneedalsotobeconsidered.
Insomecountriestimbermaynot bereadilyavailableandbrickworkmay beamorecosteffective option.
Thejustificationofprojectsfortheirsustainability needstobeelaboratedonwithdefinedmethodologysuchasthe
economicsustainabilityCEfactorpreviouslydescribedandopentointernationalappraisalofthevalidationofthe
claimofbeingsustainable.

CONCLUSION
A volumetric, applied inuse methodology of measuring products sustainabilityis a more appropriate measure of
sustainabilitythanusingasimpleperkgofmaterialapproachinisolation.
Asystemthatdefinesproductsassustainable,basedonasimpleweightmeasureofembodiedenergywithout
comparisontomeasuringatotal(insitu)asusedsystemsapproach,willnotprovideanaccuratemeasurethatcanbe
appliedtodefineaproductassustainable.
All renewable resources such as plantation timbers should be given priority in assessment schemes. New
productssuchassyntheticplasticsfromsoyabeanneedtobeencouraged,furtherresearchedanddeveloped.
Evaluatingandacknowledginggooddesignswithbonusesandrewardsthroughreducedgovernmentfeesand
banklendingrateswouldencouragedesignsthatincluderenewableandrecyclablecontentetc.
Apartfromabuildingsdesignandongoingenergyconsumptionasusedinexistingratingschemes,acost
efficiency (CE) building factor (cost/m2/No. of occupants) needs to be measured along with: (a)
renewability/recyclable content (b) occupational health and safety (OHS) issues related to manufacture and use,
suchastoxicity,easeofhandlingsafetyergonomics.Health,productivity,andcommunitywellbeingaremajor
societalandeconomicfactorsthatarenowbeingevaluatedassignificantimpactsonGNP.
Certainlyinthedevelopingworld,costofconstructionisasustainability factorthatmustbeincorporatedinto
thematrixofmeasuringsustainability.Evenfortheresourceandcapitalintensivedevelopednations,byadopting
aselfregulatingenergyratingscheme,itmaybethat,inthefuture,costefficientprojecthomebuilderswillbethe
driving force behind sustainable housing when economic sustainability is correctly factored into the equation of
definingsustainableproducts.

97

REFERENCES
ClarkeR.2000. MudWallsGivePoorInsulation:CSIRO.
http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2000/RammedEarth.htm (accessed2May 2006).
Greenland,J.1991.FoundationsofArchitecturalScience.Sydney:FacultyofDesign,ArchitectureandBuilding,
UniversityofTechnologySydney.
Lawson,B.1996. BuildingMaterialsEnergyandtheEnvironment.AustralianCapitalTerritory:RoyalAustralian
InstituteofArchitects.
Evans,D.andS.Ross.1998.Theroleoflifecycle assessmentinAustralia. AustralianJournalofEnvironmental
Management,5(3):137145.
West,S.2005.Developingmethodologytomeasuresustainableconstructiononaglobalscale. WorldSustainable
BuildingConference (SB05).Tokyo,2723September.
FutureMaterials.2004. KnowYourMaterial:Expandedpolystyrene isallair.
http://www.future.org.au/news_2005/may/expanded.html (accessed2May 2006).

98

CHAPTER12

DevelopingaMethodologyforEffecting
SustainedBuildingDesignInnovationin
theConstructionProcurementProcess
MartinaMurphy
GeorgeHeaney
SrinathPerera
INTRODUCTION
The overwhelming opinion is that construction is considered a lumbering giantamongst the mainstream profit
generatingindustriesofthenationaleconomy(Gann2000Pries& Janszen1995),brimmingwithcreativepotential
to innovate, but unable to sustain this momentum, from project to project. The products of construction are a
combinationofcreativeinception,inthedesignprocess,andstandardisedproductiontechniques,intheconstruction
phase.Thisparadoxshouldproduceaninternaldynamic,whichcangenerateandsustaininnovation(Groak1992).
However,ithasbeenshownthatthedivisionsbetweentheconceptualstagesofdesign,andthepracticalstagesof
construction, can also give rise to long project times, poor quality control and slow piecemeal innovation (Gann
2000).Itistheclientasprimarystakeholderwhoultimatelybearstheeffectsofthisdeficiencyand,subsequently,is
reluctanttoadvanceinnovationwithinfutureprojects.Hence,itiscontendedthatinnovationisnotonly failingto
sustainthelifetimeofprojectsbutalsofromprojecttoproject.Therefore,asustainedinnovationisillusive.

Sustainableinnovation
Manytheoristsspeakofachievingsuccessfulinnovation.However,thedefinitionofinnovationsuccesshasnot
been clearly considered and has been advanced in terms of increased economic growth and productivity
(Schmookler 1952 Schumpeter 1934), social and competitive benefits (Seaden 1996), as well as improved
reputationandeaseof work(Slaughter1998).Thisstudydefinessuccessfulinnovationastheabilitytosustainin
formandfunctionthedurationoftheprocurementprocess.Manynewtechnologiesmaybesuccessfullyintroduced
intothedesignofaproject but,duetothepressureof constraints,they failtobe fullyimplementedintothefinal
building. Dulaimi et al. (2002) found that, in order for an innovation to be successful, there must be minimal
constraints present during the contract (Dulaimi et al. 2002). Similarly, according to Goldratts Theory of
Constraints (Goldratt et al. 2000, 12), the weakest link defines the maximum performance of the process.
Therefore, if the complexity of a building design innovation were a programdefining issue, then the innovation
wouldbeconsideredaweaklink,andstepswouldneedtobetakentostrengthenthelinkorbreaktheconstraint
(Goldratt et al. 2000, 12). The authors of this study argue that adequate consideration has not been given in the
literaturetothemanagementofinnovationatvariousstagesoftheprocurementprocess.Theprimaryobjectiveof
thischapteristoproposeamethodologytoinvestigatetheimpactofprocurementconstraintsonthedeliveryofa
projectbased, consultantled building design innovation. The study attempts to ascertain at which stages in the
procurementprocessdoessuchaninnovationneedtobe strengthened inordertosustainit.Apilotstudyiscarried
outtotestthevalidityofthemethodologyandinformtheongoingresearch.

INNOVATION
New technology is a product, process or system that a company has not previously used in their construction
operations(Laborde&Sanvido1994)andaninventionistheideaforthatnewtechnology(Rogers1983).Whilst
inventionisthenecessaryprerequisitetodevelopnewtechnologies,innovationisthefirstcommercialtransaction
involvingthetechnology(Freeman1974Myers& Marquis1969).Innovationistheactofseeking,recognisingand
implementinganewtechnologyasopposedtothecreativeimpetusalone.Slaughter(1998)hasdescribedinvention
as the detailed design of a new technology therefore it is the implementation of the invention that brings the
innovationintobeing.Itisproposedthatthe architecturaldesignofabuildingprojectincorporatestheseedofmany
innovations.Itistheseinnovationsthatarethefocusofthisstudy,aswellastheirsubsequentimpactonthedesign
ofthecompletedbuilding.SomeexamplesofthistypeofinnovationareDichroicfilm,apolyesterfilmoriginally
usedasanattractivepackagingmaterialforthecosmeticsindustry,whichcreatespsychedeliccoloureffectswhen
applied onto glass facades. Others are Litracon, the recently devised adaptation to the concrete block, which

99

incorporates optic fibres and renders the block transparent, and the magnetic floor tile, by Dalsouple, which
considerablyreducesonsitelabour,andcutsmaintenancecosts.Adversely,therehavebeenaseriesofrecenthigh
profile failures of such innovations. The collapse of the glass roof at the Swiss Re building, London (Building
Design 2005) andtheswaying failure of the London Millennium bridge (Guardian Unlimited 2000)have been
citedasprimedissuadersoftheadoptionofnewtechnologiesbyconsultants.

PROJECTBASEDINNOVATION
Projectbased innovation takes place within the parametersof a construction project. It may be a new technology
which has been adopted into the project to suit the project requirements adoptive innovation (Gann 1997
Quigley1982),oritmaybeinnovationgeneratedfromwithintheprojectoftenreferredto aspractitionerresearch
(Groak1992Slaughter1993Winch1998).Winch(1998)considersbothtypesaprioriandofequalvalidity.The
context of building projects is temporal asare itsalliances(Slaughter 1998). Thismay be part of thereason why
projectbasedinnovationhasnotbeenwidelyresearchedthereisasmallwindowof opportunityto carry outlive
researchandpostproject evaluationsareuncommon(Tatum1987LingYeanYng2003).Inresearchingproject
based innovationitisnecessary to capture boththe lessons of retrospective projects as well as the results of live
projects.Thisstudywillattempttodoboth.

Theinnovationprocess
Marquiss (1968) study is still viewed by many researchers as a seminal piece of work into the process of
innovation.Hisworkwasdrawnfrominvestigationinto500incrementalinnovationsfromarangeofindustries.
Hesetoutasixstageprocessinthesearchtodeterminethecharacteristicsofsuccessfulinnovations:recognition,
idea formulation, problem solving, solution, development and, utilisation and diffusion (Marquis 1968). Whilst
Marquis(1968)impliedalinearprocessinhisdiagramheacceptedthatinnovationisnotsequentialbynature.This
is also true for the process of design in which the stages are often overlapping, interconnected and even cyclical
(Lawson 1997). In this respect, the process of innovation and design are similar and therefore the process of
architecturaldesignwouldappeartolenditselftotheincorporationofaninnovation.However,architecturaldesign
isalsofusedwiththerigidprocessofconstructionthatistheanthesisofthisfreeflowing,chaoticprocess(Quinn
1985).Thisisthecoreof thecontradictioninintroducinganinnovationintotheprocurement process.
Following Marquis (1968), a number of studies were carried out to adapt this process to construction and
developframeworksformanagingsuccessfulinnovation(Slaughter2000Tatum1987Winch1998).Winch(1998)
outlinedthecontextualprocessesthatneedtobemanagedforsuccessfulinnovation,andTatums(1987)processof
innovationwasareactivemodelforuseonconstructionprojects.Slaughters(2000)cyclicalmodeldrewfromthese
previousmodelsaswellasfromgeneralliteraturestudies.Indoingsoshesoughttohighlighttheaspectsrelevant
forconstructioninnovations,andtheirimplementationintotheconstructionproject.
Whilst all of these studies have expanded our understanding of the management of innovation within the
project,theyhavenotattemptedtoidentifytheeffectoftheprocurementprocessonthemanagementofinnovation.
Procurementofbuildingshastraditionallyfollowedaserial,sequentialmodelfrominceptionthroughtocompletion
(Cooperetal.2005).ThePlanofWorkstages,formulatedbytheRoyalInstituteofBritishArchitects(RIBA1980)
is a widely recognised framework of procurement which sets out the activities of the procurement process from
appraisaloftheclientrequirementsthroughtopostconstructionevaluation.
This form of procurement is often referred to as a separated system due to the separation of the
responsibility forthedesignoftheproject fromthatofitsconstruction(Masterman2002).However,morerecent
methods of procurement have sought to integrate the stages of design and construction to facilitate better client
participation, and contractor integration. Such forms of procurement are known as integrated systems, one
example being design and build (D&B). For the purposes of this chapter it is intended to devise a generic
procurement process incorporating both separated and integrated forms of procurement. It is conjectured that the
final model could be flexible for adaptation to otherprocurementtypes and that with additionalresources further
researchcouldbecarriedouttospecialisetheinnovationmanagementmodelforonespecifictypeofprocurement
(Figure12.1).

100

Figure12.1:FutureFormulationandSpecialisationoftheInnovationManagementModel

DesignandBuild
procurement

Traditional
procurement

Partnering
methods

PrimeContracting
procurement

Others

CaseStudyGroup(B)
Prime
Contracting

Partnering

Innovation
ManagementModel
forPrivateFinance
Initative(PFI)

specialisation
CaseStudy(D)

GenericModel
forInnovation
Management

FutureResearch
DesignandBuild

Traditional

Management
Contracting

RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY
This chapter forms part of a wider piece of case study research into sustaining innovation in the procurement
process.Inthischapterthemethodologyforthisresearchisset out,andapilotstudyiscarriedouttotestthevalidity
ofthemethodologyandtoinformthewiderresearch.

Background
Innovationresearchfavoursacasestudyapproachwhichwillallowtheorybuilding(Eisenhardt1989Yin1994).
However,previousstudieshavehighlightedalackofconsistencyintheconclusionsproduced.Thismaybedueto
thevarietyofdifferentmethodologiesemployedindifferentstudiesandallstudiesmaynothavebeenmeasuringthe
samethingsinthesameways.Thisisasignificantproblemincarryingoutthistypeofresearchandforqualitative
research in general. On the other hand, considering the complexity of innovation research, simplistic numerical
solutionsderivedfromquantitativeresearchwouldbeuninformativeandcursory.Hence,thecomplexcasual(Yin
1994)relationshipsininnovationneedtobeexposedandanalysedinamannerthatdoesnotdilutetheirimportance.
The means to generating such research is in developing a rich tapestry of interrelated theory from a variety of
sources, which can be developed to evolve a theory. Grounded theory is the name given to the development of
theory out of the data. Eisenhardt (1989) proposed an extended roadmap for building theories from case study
research based on previous literature. Her conclusions were that theory development from case study research is
likelytohaveimportantstrengthslikenovelty,testabilityandempiricalvalidity.ItisintendedtouseEisenhardts
(1989)modelasameansofvalidatingtheroadmapofthismethodology.TheprinciplestepssetoutbyEisenhardt
(1989)inhermethodologymodelareasfollows:gettingstarted,selectingcases,craftinginstrumentsandprotocols,
enteringthefield,analysingdata,shapinghypotheses,enfoldingtheory,andreachingclosure.

101

Figure12.2:DevelopmentofanInnovationManagementModelfortheConstructionProcurement
Process:ResearchMethodology

TheoryBuilding

Literature

FailureMode
andEffect
AnalysisFMEA

Conceptual
Model

ModificationandValidation

PilotStudy
CaseStudyGroup(A)

Filtering
Tracking
Reporting

Generic
DetailedModel

CaseStudy
Group(B)
(Retrospect)

Statistical
Analysis

Filtering
Tracking
Reporting

Test
Model

CaseStudy
Group(C)
(Current)

ActionResearch
Prime
Contracting

Testing

Partnering

ModelforPrivate
FinanceInitative
(PFI)

specialisation

DesignandBuild

Casestudy
GroupD

GenericModel
forInnovation
Management

Traditional

Management
Contracting

Bydrawingparallelswithexistingestablishedmethodologyitisintendedtovalidatetheproposedmethodologyset
outinthischapter.Thisisimportantinsecuringrigourtotheprocess.Theoverviewoftheproposedmethodologyis
setoutinFigure12.2.ThiswillbedetailedintheforthcomingsectionsandcorrelatedwithEisenhardtsmodel.The
resultantproposalshouldbeaconcisemethodologyconsideredagainstestablishedmethodology.

102

DESIGNOFTHERESEARCHMETHODOLOGY
The methodology proposed represents a triplication model in that it is a threestage process, encompassing three
casestudygroups,producingthreemodels.Thethreestageprocessistheorybuilding,modificationandvalidation.
Thethree casestudygroups,eachmodifyingandvalidatingthenextare:casestudygroupAPrimary case
studyanalysis,Casestudygroup B Secondarycasestudyanalysis,andcasestudygroupC Testanalysis.
These casestudygroupsareinformedby,andinform,theformulationofthreeresultantmodeltypes:Concept
model,Detailed model, andTestmodel.
Hence, the research overview involves an interactive flow of resultant analysis informing, validating and
modifyingthenextmodel.Astrikingfeatureofresearchtobuildtheoryfromcasestudiesisthefrequentoverlapof
dataanalysis withdatacollection(Eisenhardt1989).Thisisborneoutinthedesignofthismethodology whereby
onelayerofanalysisbuildsonanotherandsoon,untilthereisacompleteevolutionoftheoryintheformofafinal
model.Theprocessisinducedbyaphaseofactionresearch,whichwillresultinthefinalinnovationmanagement
model (IMM). To outline the methodology in more detail, as set out in Figure 12.3, the following areas are
reviewed:literaturereview,conceptmodel,casestudygroups,pilotstudy,detailedmodel,methodsofdataanalysis,
testmodel, andactionresearch.

Literaturereview
Aliteraturereviewiscarriedoutontheareasofinnovation,innovationmanagementandprocurement.Theresearch
is exploring the relationships and linkages between the introduction of an innovation into the stages of the
procurementprocess.Thereareanumberofquestions,whichareposedbyreviewingthesesareas.Inbeginningto
exploretheseissuesasetofcasestudyquestionswasdevised:
Whatarethekeyprocurementstagesinaconstructionproject?
Whatistheimpactoftheintroductionofaninnovationonthesestages?
Whatarethekeyconstraintsactiveineachstage?
Whatisthemostappropriatemethodofcontrollingtheseconstraints?
Eisenhardt(1989)contendsthatbydefinitionofclearresearchquestionsaprioriconstructsmaybeevolvedwhich
can better focus efforts towards a theory. In order to address these issues of theory a concept model is compiled
from the literature. The conceptmodel enables an initial theory to be developed which can then be validatedand
modifiedthroughinvestigation.

Conceptmodel
Theconceptmodelisgeneratedbythecombinationofliteraturebasedresearchandaselectedriskassessmenttool.
ThetoolselectedisFMEA failuremodeandeffectanalysis andtheconceptmodelisbuiltupinthreestages:
1. formulationofgenericprocurement stages
2. correlationofgenericprocurementstageswiththeprocessofinnovation
3. correlationoftheprocessofinnovationwiththeoccurrenceofrisk FMEA.
Genericprocurementstages
Toinvestigatetheimpactofprocurementstagesweneedtodefinethosestages.Incurrentconstructiontherearea
numberofvariationsonthestagesdependingontheprocurementtypebeingemployed.Forexample,theorderand
priority ofstagesinaD&Bproject willbedifferenttothatofatraditionalbuild.Sotoaddressthesevariationsa
genericprocurementprocesswillbedevised.Thisgenericprocesscombinesformatsfrombothaseparatedformof
procurement,thatis,RIBAStagesof WorkforTraditionalworks,andanintegratedformofprocurement,thatis,
CD81forD&Bworks.Fromthis,the genericprocurementstagesareformulated:
StageI Developmentofbrief
StageII Formulationofconceptdesign
StageIII Resolutionofdetaileddesign
StageIV Formulationofproductioninformation
StageV Mobilisationofsiteworks
StageVI Buildingconstruction
StageVII Completedbuilding.
Correlationofgenericprocurementstageswiththeprocessofinnovation
The second stage inthe formulation of the concept modelis to correlate the generic procurement stages with the
process ofinnovation.Todothiswe selected fromtheliteratureMarquissseminal1968modeloftheprocess of
innovation, and Slaughters (2000) model of theimplementation of construction innovations. These models were
correlatedwiththegenericprocurementstages(Figure12.3).Thisproducesasequenceandaprocess.Inorderto

103

assess risk inthis process the third stagein the formulation of the concept model involves the adoption of a risk
assessmenttoolfromtheliterature.

Mobilisationandproject
planning

Operationsonsiteand
completion

MobilisationandProject
planning

DetailedDesign

Feedback

ProductionInformation

Tenderdocuments
andTenderaction

FinalProposalsand
ProductionInformation

OutlineandDetailed
proposals
Appraisaland
StrategicBriefing

IdeaFormulation
Evaluation

STAGEIII

Problem
solving

Solution

Commitment

STAGEIV

STAGEV

Development

Preparation

STAGEVI

StageM
CompletedBuilding

StageKL
Implementationof
BuildingDesign

StageJ
Mobilisationforsite
works

StageGH
Formulationof
Production
Information

StageEF
Resolutionof
detailedDesign

Developmentof
Brief

Formulationof
DesignConcept

StageCD

STAGEII

Recognition

STAGEI

Identification

Slaughter,2000

Marquis,
1968

GenericProcurement
Process

StageAB

INNOVATIONPROCESS

Operationsonsiteand
completion

TenderProceduresand
Initialdesignproposal

EmployersRequirements

IdentificationofNeed

SeperatedprocurementRIBA,1999&
IntegratedprocurementCD81

PROCUREMENTPROCESS

Figure12.3:CorrelationofGenericProcurementStageswiththeProcessofInnovation

STAGEVII

UtilisationandDiffusion

Use

Postuse
Evaluation

(Source:AdaptedfromMarquis1968andSlaughters2000)
CorrelationoftheprocessofinnovationwiththeoccurrenceofriskFMEA
Failuremodelandeffectanalysis(FMEA)isachartingtechniquefordesignriskassessment,whichwasoriginally
devisedbytheUSmilitary(USMilitarySTD1980)andisnowusedextensivelyinmechanicalengineering.There
has been very limited application of the technique within the construction industry (Andery et al. 1998 Nielsen
2002).FMEArecognisesandevaluatespotentialcausesandeffectsoffailureinaprocessorsystem.Thebenefitof
this technique is that it can be applied during the design process (functional FMEA) to enable the designer to
manage the potential risk of future failures as well as in retrospect (hardware FMEA) to ascertain why a failure
occurred(ManchesterUniversity1999).Evaluationoftheresultscanbereadilyobtainedthroughsimplecalculation
procedures.AnFMEAiscalculatedbymultiplyingtheoccurrence(O),severity(S)anddetectionvalues(D)ofa

104

potentialriskoccurring.Theresultantvalue(theRPN)enablesactionstobeprioritisedaccordingtotheirpotential
risk.ThisistheprimarypurposeofanFMEA.However,inthisresearchwehavetakenthisanalysisastagefurther
by correlatingtheresultsofanFMEAwiththegenericprocurementstages.Theresultisthatconstraintactivitycan
betrackedthroughthe genericprocurementstagesandprovideuswithamapoftheconstructionprocessshowing
typicalriskfactorsidentifiableateachstage.Asatype of constructtheconceptmodelfocuseseffortsatanearly
stage on the primary areas of investigation, as well as retaining theoretical flexibility. According to Eisenhardt
(1989) this is a rigorous means of securing a focused investigation and should reduce the risk of the research
divergingfromthecorequestions.

Casestudygroups
Contraryto commonperceptionsithasbeenarguedthatcasestudyresearchisnotaboutrandomsampling.Tellis
(1997) contends that researchers need to be focused in their selection of case studies to maximise learning.
Similarly,Eisenhardt(1989)emphasisthatinselectingcaseseffortsshouldbefocusedontheoretically usefulcases
or those thatreplicate or extend theory. Hence, in selecting case study material for thisresearchtheresearcher is
concernednotwithquantity butratherwiththepotentialqualityperceivedinaselectnumberoffocused cases.
Rigourofdetailandscopeoftriangulationisconsideredmoreimportantthannumericalscope(Tellis1997).Itwas
consideredessentialtocollectrelevantdatafromsomearchivalsource(literature),aswellasfromcurrentpractice.
Theselectioncriteriawereas follows:
aprojectbuiltwithinthelastfiveyears, 20002005
aUKcommercialconstructionproject
aproductinnovation
sourcingbyconsultantsi.e.architects/engineers
adoptionintothebuilding/architecturaldesign
successfulimplementationintothecompletedbuilding(currentpractice)
unsuccessfulimplementationintothecompletedbuilding(archivalsources).
Therearethreecasestudygroupsinthisresearch:
Case study group A: The Primary study group involves a rigorous process of analysis carried out on four
sustainedinnovationsandfourunsustainedinnovations
Case study group B: The Secondary study group attempts to validate the findings of the previous group by
carryingoutanalysesof15sustainedinnovations
CasestudygroupC:InvolvestheintroductionofaTestModel,formulatedfromthepreviousgroupsanalysis,
intoaliveconstructionproject(Table12.1).
Sixsourcesofevidencefordatacollectioninthecasestudyprotocolhavebeenidentified(Stake1995Yin1994).
These are documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation, and physical
artefacts. He advocates that no single source is considered best. They are complementary and should be used in
tandem.Forthisresearchit isproposedtouseinterviews,participant observation,documentsandarchivalrecords.
Table12.1:TheInterrelationofDataExtractionandFieldAnalysisWithintheThreeCaseStudy
Groups
Casestudy
group
A
Primary
B
Secondary
C
Test

4sustainedinnovations
4unsustainedinnovations

Dataextraction
procedures
Filtering
Tracking

15sustainedinnovations

Filtering

1potentialinnovation

Filtering
Tracking

Nos.ofcases

Fieldanalysis
FMEA
Nvivo
FMEA
Nvivo
SPSS
Action
Research

Resultant
model
Detailed
model
Testmodel

Final
innovation
model

Interviews and participant observation notes are all recorded and manually transcribed. A collection protocol is
established for collection of documents and archival records. The protocol sets out an extensive labelling and
identificationsystemforalldocumentsaswellasacomprehensivesystemofformsandevaluationsheetsfordata
extraction.Thisprocessofcraftinginstrumentsandprotocolsisanattempttostrengthenthegroundingoftheoryby
the triangulation of evidence (Eisenhardt 1989). It is intended that by usingmultiple data collectionmethods this

105

shouldinturnsharpenexternalvalidity.Thedatafromeachofthesecasestudygroupsisextractedviaathreestage
process:filtering,trackingandreporting.
Filtering
The process of filtering involves selection of a valid case study. Information about prospective case studies was
obtainedfromanumberofsources:
informants aninformantmightnothavebeendirectlyinvolvedwiththeprojectsbutcouldsupplyuseful
backgroundinformationbaseduponawarenessoftheproject
webbasedquestionnaire advertisedinanationalarchitecturaljournal
literaturereview followupresearchonprojectsfromliteratureortradejournalreviews.
Anintroductoryinterviewiscarriedoutwiththeconsultantwhoadoptedtheinnovation.Anassessmentismadeon
thesuitability ofaprojectascasestudymaterialandanoverviewreportsetsouttheprojectstatistics.Therethen
follows a series of structured interviews, with the wider project team, to gain further insights and participant
observation. Interviews typically last about one hour.In some cases, with the key consultant,multiple interviews
occurfollowingdatacollection.
Trackingandreporting
Theprocessof tracking involvesareviewofallapplicableprojectdocumentation,whichwillidentifythe passage
oftheinnovationthroughtheproject.Afterinitialcontactwiththefirmandapprovaltoconductthestudy,project
documentationisobtainedandstratifiedinachronologicalorder.Duringthisprocessbackgroundinformationabout
the company and the project was recorded and project histories were developed. The results of the filtering and
trackingprocessesare reported.Areportiscompiled,tosetoutthecasestudyinwrittenform.

Pilotstudy
The pilot study affords the opportunity to test the literaturebased research already undertaken and inform the
ongoing research. The pilot study is a precursor to entering the field (Eisenhardt 1989) and initiates the
commencementofcasestudygroupAanalysis,followingtheestablishedcasestudyprotocol.Itpermitsadjustments
tobemadetothedesignofthedatacollectionandanalysisprotocol(Eisenhardt1989).Thepilotstudyisselected
from case study group A and involves the use of Okacolor glazed walling system a doubleleafed external
glazingsystemthathasuniquelightdiffusionandinsulationpropertiesaswellasexhibitingaesthetic,multitonal
colour changes. It was adapted for use in a swimming pool in Belfast primarily for its ability to diffuse sunlight
reflected off the pool water. This use of Okacolor is its firstever use in the UK and, globally, the first time the
producthasbeenusedinaswimmingpoolenvironment,uniquewithitsvariablehumidity,temperaturechangesand
airmovementrequirements.Suchtechnicalconstraintsallimposedaheighteneddegreeofrisktothedesignandthe
clients decision to use Okacolor. Another factor, which carried substantiative risk, was that of maintenance and
vandalism. Okacolor was used in a socially disadvantaged area with the potential for vandalism and community
rejection.Suchfearsdidnotmaterialiseandthebuildingishighlyregardedbyitsusers.
Analysisofthepilotstudy
Theconceptmodelwasappliedtothepilotstudy.Thiscorrelatedtheprojectwiththegenericprocurementstages
andtheprocessofinnovation.
TocompletetheapplicationoftheconceptmodelanFMEAassessmentwascarriedoutonthepilotstudy.In
thisinstanceahardwareFMEA(inretrospect)wasapplied.TheFMEAchart(Table12.2)givesabriefdescription
oftheinnovationunderanalysis(1)andliststhemainfunctionsoftheinnovation(2).Incolumn(3)eachpotential
failure of the innovation is listed. Since the FMEA is carried out in retrospect the potential failures have not yet
occurred.Ifoneofthesefailuresdidoccurthecauseofthefailurecouldbetrackedusingthismethod.Column(4)
lists the causes for failure. It is these causes or constraints on the process that are collated against the generic
stagesofprocurement(11)inwhichtheyoccurredbycalculationofthe riskprioritynumber(RPN)(occurrence(O)
xseverity(S)xdetection(D).Theaspect,whichisnotaddressedwithintheanalysis,isthatof clientrejectionofthe
innovation.Thiscanoccuratanystageintheprocurementprocess.Theclient,askeystakeholder,championand
paymasteroftheprojecthastheultimateroleinthesustainabilityoftheinnovation.Therefore,whilstthisresearch
willdeviseamanagementmodelforinnovationitistheclientwhomustultimately be convincedoftheneedand
validityoftheinnovationattheconceptdesign.InthecaseofOkacolorthearchitectcitedthatitwastheclientwho
wasattheheartoftheapprovalsprocess,andwho fullysupportedandadvancedtheadoptionoftheinnovation.
TheconclusionsoftheFMEAanalysisarecorrelatedbacktotheconceptmodeltoascertaintheprocurementstages
atwhichconstraintshadthemostperceptibleeffect.Fromthisthepassageoftheinnovationwastracedontoagraph
(Figure12.4).

106

Table12.2:FMEAAssessmentofOkacolorasusedintheFallsRoadSwimmingPool,Belfast
Item(1)

Function(2)

Failure
mode(3)

Cause(4)

Effects(5)

(O)
(6)

(S)
(7)

(D)
(8)

(RPN)
(9)

Action
(10)

Providean
effective
building
envelope

Water
ingressto
thebuilding

Poordetailingof
junctionsat
designstage

Potentialfor
internaldamp
andassociated
safetyissues
Reissueof
production
drawings
Poorstandardof
detailing
Potentialforpoor
future
maintenance
Delaytoenable
respecification
Delaytoallow
forreplacement

280

Mosturgent
preventative
action
required

Okacolorinsulatingglass

Poorselectionof
subcontractor

Failureof
glazingunit

Providea
strong
aesthetic
statement

Providehigh
Insulationand
lightdiffusion
qualities

Incorrect
specification
Faultyglazing
unit

63

108

4
4

48

144
VI

Unbalanced
facade
appearance

Colour
selection

Poordesign
selectionby
designteam

Pooroverall
building
appearance

Vandalism

Poorsocial
acceptanceby
localcommunity

High
maintenance
costsand
closuredelays
Unpleasant
internalbuilding
environmentfor
users
Healthand
safety risksfor
users

Poor
internal
visibilityfor
users

105
IV

Leasturgent
butnecessary
action
required

II

270
VII

144
III

Key

(1)
Innovationunderanalysis

(2)
Contributionoftheinnovation

III

Noncoordinated
drawings

Poordesignand
coordinationwith
mechanicaland
ventilationworks
Poordesignof
glazedareawith
surfacewater
area

IV

Nonaligned
fenestration

Internal
temperature
rises

Generic
procurement
stage(11)

120
III

(3)
Potentialfailures
(4)
Causeforfailure
(5)
Theeffectsofthefailure
(6)
Thelikelihoodofoccurrenceof
eachpotentialfailureona110
scale
(7)
Rankedseverityona110scale

(8)
Abilityofthecurrentdesign
controlstodetectapotentialcause
offailureona110scale
(9)
Theriskprioritynumber(RPN)for
theitem
(10)
Actiontobetakenandranked
priority
(11)
Stageinthegenericprocurement
processatwhichtheconstraint(3)
occurred

107

Figure12.4: TheOccurrenceofConstraintsontheImplementationofOkalux,
DuringtheProcurementProcess

Occurrenceof
Constraints(RPN)

PlotforPilotStudyCaseStudyA(01)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

290
193

Series1

144
108

104
8
I

II

III

IV

VI

VII

GenericStagesofProcurement

ThegraphplotstheconstraintvaluetheRPN fromtheFMEAagainstthegenericprocurementstages.The
resultsidentifyatwhichstagesconstraintsoccurredduringtheprocurementprocess.Byreferringbacktothedata
thegraphcanalsoidentifythestagesatwhichthe effectsofconstraintsweremostacuteandthestagesatwhichthe
constraints werecaused.The graph confirms data findingsthat the construction stage of the procurement process
had a high level of constraint activity, with the potential to adversely affect the sustainability of the innovation.
However,itwasevidentfromthedatathatsuchconstraintswereprimarilydesignrelatedissues.Thiscouldimply
that if the constraints had been managed at an earlier stage in the procurement process, for example, concept or
detailed design stage, they would not be constraining factors in the construction stage. Such conjectures pose the
question:towhatextentcouldmorefocusedmanagementoftheinnovationduringthedesignstagehaveavertedthe
level of constraintimpacting on theinnovationduring theconstruction stage? Such suppositions will be fed back
intotheongoingresearch.

Detailedmodel
Fromtheresultsofthepilotstudyanearlymanagementprocesscannow becorrelatedwiththeconceptmodelto
producethe detailedmodel.Thisoverlappingofdataanalysiswithdatacollectionallowstheresearchersfreedomto
make adjustments during the data collection process. Thisis supported by Eisenhardt (1989) asa validmeans of
extracting theory from case studies. The detailed model produced by this means will present a clear innovation
managementmapcorrelatingthefollowingprocesses:constructionprocess,innovationprocessandoccurrenceof
risk.
This map willthen be subject to a process of validation and modificationthrough itsapplication into case
studygroupB.ThestudiesincasestudygroupBrepresent15projects, whichhavesuccessfullybeen adoptedas
innovations.Thedataextractedfromthisgroupislessrigorousthanthatforthepreviousgroupasitspurposeisto
validatepreviousresultsratherthangeneratenewones.However,theresultsofgroupBwillbesubjecttostatistical
analysis, unlike group A. By this stage 23 projects will be available to provide data for statistical analysis (eight
studies from group A plus 15 from group B) and in construction innovation research terms this is considered a
substantialsample.
Methodsofdataanalysis
In order to progress from one model to the next, analysis of data is carried out. The data analysis consists of
examining,categorising,tabulatingandtestingdatainordertoaddresstheinitialcasestudyquestions(Yin1994).
Themes,conceptsandrelationshipsareidentifiedandcommonqualitativeanalyticaltechniquesareused:pattern
matching,explanationbuilding,timeseriesanalysisandcrosscasesynthesis.
These techniques are intended to address internal and external validity. For example patternmatching is a
technique which compares an empirically based pattern with a predicted one. If the patterns match, the internal
reliability ofthestudyisenhanced.Thiscrosscasepatternsearchingforcestheresearcherstolook beyondinitial
impressionsandseekmoresignificanttheories(Eisenhardt1989).Followingidentificationofthemes,conceptsand
relationshipsitisintendedtosystematically comparetheemergingtheory backtotheoverallevidencefromeach
case study. This is a form of control in that proceding theory is compared back to the original data to take
advantage of any new insights that may have emerged. It is hoped that an understanding will emerge as to
theoreticalreasonsforwhyrelationshipsexist.Analysingdatainqualitativeresearchtendstobedifficultduetothe
lackofwelldefinedtechniquesandstrategies.Therefore,itisdeemedimportanttohaveasounddatabaseofcase

108

study information from the outset, which attends to all the evidence (Yin 1994). Also, for the purposes of this
research, the analysis of data is carried out using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. This is
encouraged by a number of theorists as a sure means of increasing validity and rigor in qualitative research
(Eisenhardt 1989 Tellis 1997). Therefore to complement the manual manipulation of data it is intended to use a
combinationoftwoprovendataanalysissoftwareprograms:NVIVOTM and SPSSTM.
NVIVOTM is qualitative data evaluation software. It assists in coding and categorising large amounts of
narrative text from the interviews or the archival documents. This will assist in building explanations for the
linkages. However, the tool has its limitations in that it does not devise or refine theoretical propositions or
explanationsanditcannotmanipulateanalysis.SPSSTM isquantitativedataevaluationsoftware.Itisusedto analyse
large numbers of investigations and facilitates infinite linking of themes, crosstabulation and reorganisation of
data.Whilsttheusermuststilldefine categoriesandinputrawdata,theadvantageofbothsoftwaresisinprocessing
large amounts of information in a shorter time than could be done manually. In effect, the programs have the
capacitytogenerateahugeamountofdata,butnotallofthisdatamay beuseful.Whendatasaturationhasbeen
reachedornonewpatternsarebeginningtoemergefromtheinputofdata,itwillinitiateclosuretotheanalysis.

Testmodel
When practicable saturation has been reached with the available data from case study group B a hypothesis is
shaped from the emergent theory. This is carried out by a search of the evidence and emergent relationships
(Eisenhardt 1989). In addition the resultant theory is subject to a final review from existing literature. This will
involvereviewingcurrentstudiesandassessingwhatissimilartotheresearch,whatmaycontradictitandwhy.In
general, tying the emergent theory back to existing literature will enhance the internal validity and quality of
researchandraiseitstheoreticalsignificance(Eisenhardt1989).Fromthisprocessthefinaltestmodelisproduced.
Thetestmodelrepresentstheuntestedfinalmodel.ClosurewillbereachedbyitsintroductionintoaphaseofAction
research.

Actionresearch
CasestudygroupCandrepresentsaliveconstructionprojectintowhichapotentialinnovationistobeadopted.The
test model is introduced into this project for final testing. Action research induces closure to the process of data
analysis in that theoretical saturation has been reached and no new theories will be introduced. Theoretical
saturationis the point at which incrementallearningisminimal because the same phenomenaare being observed
(Eisenhardt1989Glaser&Strauss1967).Ineffect,nonewpatternsarebeginningtoemergeandtheimpacttothe
model is minimal. In the live project a champion from within the project team is selected to manage the test
model. This is a person of technical competence who has the influence to implement the model throughout the
durationoftheproject.Asupportiveatmosphereforinnovationisimportant.Theresearcherispermittedtomonitor
the proceedings of selected meetings, and have access to revised drawings, cost variations sheets, architects
instructionsetc.Therewouldbeaseriesofintervalsduringthecourseoftheproject,atwhichtheprogressofthe
innovationwould beassessed.Thefindingsof eachoftheseintervalswould be fed backintothetestmodel.The
model is then withdrawn from the project at final handover of the completed building. It is intended that this
processofactionresearchwillenablerefinementofthemodel,resultinginthefinalinnovationmanagementmodel
(IMM)

CONCLUSIONS
Theobjectiveofthischapterwastodevelopamethodologyforeffectingsustainedbuildingdesigninnovationinthe
constructionprocurementprocess.Theproblemisthatbuildingdesigninnovationoftendoesnotsustainthelifetime
of the procurement process. It is considered that the management of an innovation at particular stages of the
procurement process mighthave adeterminant bearing ontheability of an innovationto sustainthe lifetime of a
project.Themethodologyset outtoexploretheseissues.ParallelsweredrawnwithEisenhardts(1989)modelin
ordertovalidatethemethodology.Themethodologypresentedwasatriplicationmodelencompassingathreestage
processoftheorydevelopment,modification/validation,andtestingofresults.Threecasestudygroupswereusedto
gather data from recent construction projects which sustained, and some that failed to sustain, a building design
innovation.Theanalysisofthedataproducedthreeconsecutivemodels:theconceptmodel,thedetailedmodeland
thetestmodel.Eachmodelmodifiedandvalidatedthenextuntiltherewasacompleteevolutionoftheoryinthe
formofa finalinnovationmanagementmodel(IMM).Themethodology wastestedusingapilotstudy.Thepilot
studywassubjecttoanalysisusingtheconceptmodel,whichcombinedliteraturebasedresearchwitharecognised
riskassessmenttool,FMEA.Theresultsofthepilotstudyindicatedthattheconstructionstageoftheprocurement
process had a higher level of constraint activity with the potential to adversely affect the sustainability of the
innovation.However,uponcloseranalysisitwouldseemthatsuchconstraintswereprimarilydesignrelatedissues.
Thiswouldimplythatiftheseconstraintshadbeenmanagedatanearlierstageintheprocurementprocess,say,the
conceptordetaileddesignstage,theywouldnotbeconstrainingfactorsintheconstructionstage.Suchconjectures

109

willbefedintotheongoingresearch.Inaddition,furtherquestionsforresearchwerehighlightedbythepilotstudy,
suchas:
TowhatextentshouldtheIMMbeadaptedtorecognisemutualstakeholderbenefits?
TowhatextentshouldtheIMMbeadaptedtoconsidertheimpactofnewgovernmentlegislation, suchas
buildingregulations?
TowhatextentshouldtheIMMbeadaptedaccordingtotechnologytype?
TowhatextentshouldtheIMMbeadaptedtomeettherequirementsofnewprocurement strategies?
Itisproposedthatindustryprofessionalsandclients,aspartofvalueengineeringprocedures,couldeasilyusethis
resultantmodel.Themodelcouldalsobeusedaspartofeconomicappraisalsasameanstoreducetheweightings
forinclusionofnewtechnologiesorcomplexdesignsinbuildingsubmissions.Whilstthefinalmodelisageneric
solutionformostprocurementtypesitisproposedthatwithadditionalresourcesfurtherresearchcouldbe carried
outtospecialisethemodelforonespecifictypeofprocurementtherebyaffordinggreaterspecialisationtotheIMM.

REFERENCES
AnderyP.,A.Carvalho,andAandH.Helman.1998.Lookingforwhatcouldbewrong:anapproachtolean
thinking.SixthAnnualConferenceoftheInternationalGroupforLeanConstruction.Guaruja,Brazil,1315
August.
BuildingDesign.2005. WindowsShutatBuildingoftheYearasSafety isTradedforSustainability.
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp(accessed19July2005).
Cooper,R.,G.Aouad,A.Lee,S.WuandA.Fleming.2005. ProcessManagementinDesign andConstruction.
London:BlackwellPublishingLtd.
Dulaimi,M.F.Ling,G.OforiandN.DeSilva.2002.Enhancingintegrationandinnovationinconstruction. Building
ResearchandInformation, 30(34):237247.
Eisenhardt,K.1989.Buildingtheoriesfromcasestudyresearch. AcademyofManagementReview,14(4):532550.
Freeman,C.1974. TheEconomicsofIndustrialInnovation. London:Pinter.
Gann,D.1997.Shouldgovernmentsfundconstructionresearch? BuildingResearchandInformation, 25(5):257
267.
Gann,D.2000. BuildingInnovation:Complexconstructsinachangingworld.London:ThomasTelford.
Glaser,B.andA.Strauss.1967. TheDiscoveryofGroundedTheory:Strategiesofqualitativeresearch. London:
WiedenfeldandNicholson.
Goldratt,E.,E.SchragenheimandC.Ptak.2000. NecessarybutnotSufficient:Atheoryofconstraintsbusiness
novel. USA:GreatBarrington.
Groak,S.1992. TheIdeaofBuilding.London:E&F.N.
GuardianUnlimited.2000.SwayingMillenniumBridgetocloseaftertwodays.June12,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,331214,00.html (accessed19July2005).
Laborde,M. andV.Sanvido.1994.Introducingnewprocesstechnologiesintoconstructioncompanies. Journalof
ConstructionEngineeringandManagement, 120(3):488508.
Lawson,B.1997. HowDesignersThink:Thedesignprocess demystified.London:ArchitecturalPress.
ManchesterUniversity.1999. ExploringFailureConsequences:FMEA:Techniqueandapplications.Manchester:
DivisionofMechanicalEngineering,UniversityofManchester.
Marquis,D.1968.Theanatomyofsuccessfulinnovations. ReadingsintheManagementofInnovation,2ndedn,
1988,eds.M.Tushmanand&W.L.Moore,7987.Cambridge:BallingerPublishingCo.
Masterman,J.2002. IntroductiontoBuildingProcurementSystems,2ndedn.London:SponPress.
Myers,S.andD.Marquis.1969. SuccessfulIndustrialInnovations:Astudyoffactorsunderlyinginnovation in
selectedfirms.Washington:GovernmentPrintingOffice.
Nielsen,A.2002.UseofFMEA:failuremodeseffectsanalysisonmoistureproblemsinbuildings.6thSymposium
onBuildingPhysicsintheNordicCountries. Trondheim,Norway,17June.
Pries,F.andF.Janszen.1995.Innovationintheconstructionindustry:thedominantroleoftheenvironment.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 13:4351.
Quigley,J.1982.Residentialconstruction.GovernmentandTechnicalProgress:Acrossindustryanalysis,ed.R
Nelson,361410.NewYork:PergamonPress.
Quinn,J.1985.Managinginnovation:controlledchaos.HarvardBusinessReview,MayJune:7384.
RoyalInstituteofBritishArchitects.1980. HandbookofArchitecturalPracticeandManagement,4thedn.London:
RIBAPublicationsLtd.
Rogers,E.1983. DiffusionofInnovations, 3rdedn.NewYork:Macmillan.
Schmookler,J.1952.ThechangingdeficiencyoftheAmericaneconomy18691938. ReviewofEconomicsand
Statistics, 34(214):214231.
Schumpeter,J.1934. TheTheoryofEconomicDevelopment. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

110

Seaden,G.1996.Economicsofinnovationintheconstructionindustry.JournalofInfrastructure Systems, 2(3):


103107.
Slaughter,E.2000,Implementationofconstructioninnovations. BuildingResearchandInformation,28(1):217.
Slaughter,E.1998.Modelsofconstructioninnovation. JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement, 124
(3):226231.
Slaughter,E.1993,Builders assourcesofconstructioninnovation. JournalofConstructionEngineering and
Management,119(3):532549.
Stake,R.1995. TheArtofCaseStudyResearch. ThousandOaks:SagePublications.
Tatum,C.1987.Innovationontheconstructionproject:aprocessview.ProjectManagement Journal,18(5):57
68.
Tellis,W.1997.Applicationofacasestudymethodology.TheQualitativeReport,3(3):online.
USMilitarySTD.1980. ProcedureforPerformingaFailureModeEffectsandCriticalAnalysis:Method102.US:
USMilitary.
Winch,G.1998.Zephyrsofcreative destruction:understandingthemanagementofinnovation. BuildingResearch
andInformation,26(4):268279.
Ling YeanYng,F.2003.Managingtheimplementationofconstructioninnovations. ConstructionManagementand
Economics 21(1):635649.
Yin,R.1994. CaseStudyResearch:Design andmethods, 2ndedn.ThousandOaks:SagePublications.

111

Part4
InformationandCommunication
TechnologiesImprovingEfficiencies

112

CHAPTER13

AutomatingCodeCheckingfor
BuildingDesigns:DesignCheck
LanDing
RobinDrogemuller
MikeRosenman
DavidMarchant
JohnGero
INTRODUCTION
Legislationrequirestheconstructionindustrytocheckbuildingdesignsforcomplianceagainstnumerousbuilding
codes.Thistaskiscomplexandfailuretocorrectlyassessdesignsforcompliancecanresultinhigh,longtermcosts.
Forexample,inalargescalehousingprojectinsouthLondon,thewheelchairrampswerefoundtobetoosteepand
narrow and cost 800,000 in construction and design changes (Building 2003). To enable designers to identify
potentialproblemsearlier,anautomatedcodecheckingsoftwaretoolisneededbythe constructionindustry.
Thestudyofcodecompliancecheckinghashadalonghistoryofdevelopment(Gero1982Rosenmanetal.
1986Balachandranetal.1991Fenvesetal.1995Drogemulleretal.2000Woodbury etal.2000Maissaetal.
2002Dingetal.2004).However,therearefewerapplicationsforuseintheconstructionindustry.Barrierstomore
widespreaduseinindustrylieinthelackof commonmodelstointegratebuildingcodes withvariousapplication
environments, objectbased representations of building codes to support sophisticated computation and reasoning
andsupportforuseofdesignstandardsduringthedesignprocess(Fenvesetal.1995).
Industryfoundationclasses(IFCs)provideacommonstandardfordatainteroperabilityandhavebeenused
as a common model in architecture, engineering and construction domains. Major CAD vendors have provided
interfaces to IFCs, which make it easier to integrate CAD systems with external analysis tools. Express Data
ManagerTM (EDM) is a software integration platform that supports interoperability of models defined byIFCs. It
provides objectbased rule bases and is therefore an idealplatform for encoding building codes and linking them
withbuildingmodels.
TheePlanChecksystem(Solihin2004),developedinSingapore,usestheIFCmodelandEDM.Itprovides
code compliance assessment and acts as an internetbased application or standalone application. However, in e
PlanCheck, support for use of design standards at different stages of design during the design process is not
provided. Solibri Model Checker (Solibri Inc. 2006), developed in Finland, uses the IFC model and focuses on
designspellcheck. Solibri Model Checker isrestricted inits application to code compliance checking dueto a
restrictedrangeofobjectsandparametersforencodingbuildingcodesanddomainknowledge.
This chapter presents an advanced automated code checking system DesignCheck, developed by a
researchteamofCRCforConstructionInnovationandcurrentlyontrialbytheconstructionindustryinAustralia.
TheDesignChecksystemdevelopsanobjectbasedrulesystemusingEDMforencodingdesignrequirementsfrom
buildingcodes.ItdefinesaDesignCheckinternalmodelbasedonIFCsformodellingextendeddesigninformation.
The advantages in the DesignCheck system beyond existing tools provide an automated codechecking process,
flexibilitybyallowingadesigntobecheckedbyselectedclausesorobjecttypes,andsupportforcheckingvarious
stages of design during the design process, such as at the early stage of design, detailed stage of design and
specificationstageofdesign.TheDesignChecksystemistargetedmorebroadly.Itisnotonlyforusebycertifiers
butalsobyarchitectsanddesigners.

BUILDINGINFORMATIONMODELLINGANDDESIGNCHECK
INTERNALMODEL
Theprocessofautomatingcodecheckingrequiresanadequatebuildingmodeltobeginwith.Informationcurrently
provided within the objectbased CAD model and the IFC model is inadequate for many building code
requirements.Thissectionillustratestherequirementandmethodofconstructingbetterbuildingmodelsinobject
basedCADsystemsusingIFCs andthedevelopmentofaDesignCheckinternalmodel.

113

ObjectbasedCADmodelandIFCmodel
The DesignCheck system uses ArchiCAD as the exemplar objectbased CAD system since ArchiCAD supports
buildinginformationmodellinganddistinguishesitselfasaninformationricharchitecturalCADtoolratherthana
draftingtool.Figure13.1showsa3DobjectbasedmodelproducedinArchiCADbyWoodsBagotthatistestedfor
DesignCheck.
Figure13.1:A3DBuildingModelProducedinArchiCADbyWoodsBagot

Customising GDL object properties and IFCTreeView aretwo existing approaches available in ArchiCAD 9 that
allowextendeddesigninformationassociatedwithbuildingcodestobeinputtedandmodelled.IFCTreeViewlists
theelementmappingsbetweentheCADmodelandtheIFCmodelanddisplaystheIFCattributesandpropertysets
of selected objects. Designers can select an element and then define the attributes and properties associated with
building codes in the IFCTreeView, Figure 13.2. IFCTreeView is particularly useful since it allows designers to
easilyspecifyadditionalpropertiescompatiblewiththeIFCmodel.
Figure13.2:IFCTreeView:DefinesExtendedPropertiesRequiredbyBuildingCodes
Defining properties associated with building codes

Element
mappings
between CAD
and IFC

Property sets
compatible with
IFC

Elements, properties and relationships of elements are the distinguishing features in the IFC model. Rich
relationships of elements enable meanings between elements to be identified. For example, IfcRelSpaceBoundary
provides the boundsrelationship between aspace and a building element such asadoor.This enables the spatial
relationshipbetweenanentrancespaceandanexteriordoortobeidentifiedinorderto checkanaccessibleentrance
fordisabledpeople.

114

Examples of the relationship mappings, supported by ArchiCAD and mostly needed by the code compliance
checking,arelistedasfollows:
IfcRelAggregates aggregaterelationshipofabuildingandstoreys,astoreyandspaces,etc.
IfcRelSpaceBoundary boundsrelationshipofaspaceandabuildingelementsuchasawall,adoor.
IfcRelContainedInSpatialStructure containment relationship of a space and objects contained in the space
suchastoiletobjects.
IfcRelDefinesByProperties relationshipofpropertysetsandobjects.
However, the existing IFCTreeView in ArchiCAD is restricted in customising enriched element and relationship
mappings onto the IFC model.The existing elementmappings cover building, building storey, space, wall, door,
stair, etc., butmappings onto stair flightandramp flight are not available.Table 13.1liststhenecessary element
mappings required by Australian Standard 1428.1 (AS1428.1) and Building Code Australia D3 (BCA D3) while
Table13.2listsasummaryoftherelationshipmappings.
Table13.1:ElementMappingsBetweenAS1428.1/BCAD3,theCADModelandtheIFCModel,as
SupportedbyArchiCAD9.
AS1428.1/BCAD3
ELEMENT
Building
Storey
Space,circulationspace
Wall
Window
Door
Column
Floor
Stair

ArchiCAD9
ELEMENT
Building
Storey
Zone
Wall
Window
Door
Column
Slab
Stair
Libraryobjectsubtypestair

Ramp

Libraryobjectsubtyperamp

Walkway

Libraryobjectsubtypeslab

Landing

Libraryobjectsubtypeslab

Handrail,balustrade,grabrail

Libraryobjectsubtyperailing
GDLobjectsubtypeflow
terminal
(Basin,bath,bidet,shower,sink,
toilet,urinal)

Washbasin,bidet,shower,
sink,toilet,urinal

IFC2x2
ELEMENT
IfcBuilding
IfcBuildingStorey
IfcSpace
IfcWallStandardCase
IfcWindow
IfcDoor
IfcColumn
IfcSlab
IfcStair
IfcStairFlightExpected(N/A)
IfcRamp
IfcRampFlightExpected(N/A)
IfcSlab/
IfcBuildingElementProxy
IfcSlab/
IfcBuildingElementProxy
IfcRailing
IfcFlowTerminal
IfcSanitaryTerminalExpected
(N/A)

Wheelchairseating,fixed
seating

Libraryobjectsubtypeseating

IfcFunishingElement

Light,outlet,switch

Libraryobjectsubtype
electricalelements
(light,outlet,switch)

IfcElectricalElement

Note:elementmappingsinItalicsarenotyetimplementedbyArchiCAD9IFC2x2Exporting.
(Source:Adaptedfrom:AustralianStandard1428.1(AS1428.1)andBuildingCodeAustraliaD3(BCA
D3))

115

Table13.2:ASummaryoftheRelationshipMappingsRequiredbytheCodeComplianceChecking
forAS1428.1/BCAD3
RELATIONSHIPREQUIREDBYAS1428.1/BCAD3

IFC2x2SUPPORT

Bounds_relation(space,door)

IfcRelSpaceBoundary

Bounds_relation(space,wall)

IfcRelSpaceBoundary

Containment_relation(space,object)

IfcRelContainedInSpatialStructure
IfcRelContainedInSpatialStructure
IfcRelSpaceBoundary
IfcRelSpaceBoundary
IfcRelVoidsElements
IfcRelFillsElements
IfcRelCoversBldgElements
IfcRelCoversBldgElements
IfcRelSpaceBoundary

Containment_relation(space,column)
Adjacency_relation(space,space,door)
Wall_door_relation(wall,openingelement,door)
Element_covering_relation(element,covering)
Space_covering_relation(space,covering)
Decomposition/Assembly_relation(ramp,landing,
handrail)
Decomposition/Assembly_relation(stair,landing,
handrail)

NotprovidedintheexistingArchiCADIFC
exporting

Connectivity_relation(ramp,doorway,space)

NotprovidedintheexistingArchiCADIFC
exporting
(Source:Adaptedfrom:AS1428.1andBCAD3)

Whentherequiredrelationshipmappingsarenotavailable,theDesignChecksystemderivesthesemanticsfromthe
geometry ofelements.However,to fundamentallysupportcodecompliancechecking,itrequirestheobjectbased
CAD systems to deliver adequate semantics of elements and map a number of elements and relationships of
elementsprovidedbytheIFCmodeltoenabletoinferhighlevelbuildingperformance.

DesignCheckinternalmodel
TheIFCmodelprovidesapredefinedstandardthatcoversalargescopeofinteroperabilityincludingarchitecture,
structure,fireengineeringandbuildingservicedomains,henceitiscomplicated.Foradomainspecificapplication
suchascodecompliancechecking,detailedapplicationspecificinformationmaybemissingintheIFCmodel.
An internal model is developed for DesignCheck to solve this problem. The DesignCheck internal model
extendstheIFCmodeltocoverenrichedapplicationspecificinformation,i.e.theinformationrequiredbybuilding
codes.
For example, the Building Code Australia Part D Access and Egress (BCA D3) clauses require checking
buildingclassestodeterminespecificaccessrequirementsfordisabledpeople.Anewtypedefinitionmappingonto
buildingclassesisdefinedintheDesignCheck internalmodelasshownbelow:
TYPEBUILDING_TYPE_ENUM
CLASS_1A_SINGLE_DWELLING
CLASS_1B_BOARDING_HOUSE
CLASS_2_SOLE_OCCUPANCY_UNITS
CLASS_3_RESIDENTIAL_BUILDING
CLASS_4_A_DWELLING_IN_A_BUILDING
CLASS_5_OFFICE_BUILDING
CLASS_6_SHOP_BUILDING
CLASS_7A_CARPARK
CLASS_7B_STORAGE
CLASS_8_LABORATORY
CLASS_9A_PUBLIC_HEALTH_CARE_BUILDING
CLASS_9B_PUBLIC_ASSEMBLY_BUILDING
CLASS_9C_PUBLIC_AGED_CARE_BUILDING
CLASS_10A_NON_HABITABLE_BUILDING
CLASS_10B_NON_HABITABLE_STRUCTURE

116

TheentitiesintheDesignCheckinternalmodelarestructuredtoincludenewattributesmappingontobuildingcodes
and the properties transferred from IFC property sets thatare associated with building codes. An example of the
doorentitywithnewattributesintheDesignCheckinternalmodelisshownbelow:
ENTITYDOOR_CRC
OVERALLHTIGHT
OVERALLWIDTH
DOOR_TYPE
DOOR_STYLE
IS_EXTERNAL
SELFCLOSING
FIREEXIT
AS1428_COMPLIANCE
DC_LEVEL_HANDLE_CLEARANCE
DC_DOOR_RECESS_DEPTH
DC_SURFACE_MOUNTED
DC_DOOR_HANDLE_OPERATION
TheDesignCheckinternalmodelfocusesondefiningapplicationspecificinformation,i.e.definingcomprehensive
designinformationassociatedwithbuildingcodes.AfuturedevelopmenttotheDesignCheckinternalmodelliesin
integratingitwithasemanticmodel.

MappingsbetweenIFCmodelandDesignCheckinternalmodel
ThebuildingmodelproducedinobjectbasedCADsystemsisexportedtotheIFCmodelandthenmappedontothe
DesignCheck internal model for compliance assessment. A mapping schema is required to facilitate automated
translationfromtheIFCmodeltotheinternalmodel,Figure13.3.
Figure13.3:AProcessofMappingfromtheCADModeltotheIFC2x2Modelandthentothe
DesignCheckInternalModel
CADModel
ExportedfromCADsystems
byanIFCaddon

IFC2x2
Addendum1
Model

Mappingschemaconverts
IFCmodeltointernalmodel

DesignCheck
InternalModel

ThemappingschemaisimplementedusingtheExpressXlanguage.ExpressXcontainsmappingspecificfunctions
whichallowuserstoefficientlyconvertmodels.ThemappingschemafortheDesignCheck systemiswellstructured
andcanbereadilymodifiedandextendedinfuture.

OBJECTBASEDINTERPRETATIONFORBUILDINGCODES
Buildingcodeinterpretation
Buildingcodescomprisespecificdefinitionsoftermsandimplydomainspecificknowledge.Researchershavebeen
attemptingtodeveloptheinterpretationofbuildingcodesintoacomputationalrepresentationinordertofacilitate
computationandreasoning.Ageneralapproachtotheinterpretationofbuildingcodesconsideredbythisresearchis
summarisedasfollows:
Developanobjectbasedinterpretationforbuildingcodestofacilitatetheirintegrationwithobjectbased
applications.
Incorporatespecificdefinitionsofitemsintheobjectbasedinterpretationofbuildingcodesanddevelop
strategiesforencoding.

117

Developthebuildingcodeinterpretationforuseatdifferentstagesofdesign.
Consultindustryexpertssuchasstandardswritingorganisations,architectsandcertifiersforthebuildingcode
interpretationandbuildingstrategies.
Enablethebuildingcodeinterpretationfromdifferentresourcestobeconsistent.

Objectbasedinterpretation
TheDesignChecksystemrepresentsbuildingcodesusinganobjectbasedinterpretationandthenencodestheminto
theEDMrulebases.Aprocessofencodingabuildingcodeclausetoanobjectbasedinterpretationandthentothe
EDM rulesisillustratedinFigure13.4.
Figure13.4:AnIllustrationoftheProcessofEncodingaBuildingCodeClausetoanObjectBased
InterpretationandthentotheEDMRules

BuildingCodes
ObjectbasedInterpretation

Designforaccessandmobility
Part1:Generalrequirementsfor
accessNewbuildingwork
7.1PROVISIONOFENTRANCES

Accessibleentrancesshallbe
incorporatedinanaccessible
pathoftravel
EDMRules EncodingAS1428.1

The objectbasedinterpretation presents building codes with elements, properties and relationships and
domainspecific knowledge embedded in building codes with functions and procedures. Figure 13.5
illustratesanexampleoftheobjectbasedinterpretationofasubclauseinAS1428.1.Thesubclause,from
Clause7.1ProvisionofEntrances,isdescribedas:
Clause7.1(a)Accessibleentrancesshallbeincorporatedinanaccessiblepathoftravel.
Compliancecheckingagainstthisclauserequiresanobjectbasedinterpretationonaccessibleentrances and
an accessible path of travel. The DesignCheck system extracts required elements, properties and relationships
from this clause, e.g. Space, Door, Door_external, Door_type, Door_width, Space_accessible,
Space_identification, Space_area, Containment relationship between space and door and Adjacency
relationship between two spaces. Accessible entrances are determined by Door, Door_external,
Door_type,Door_width and Containmentrelationshipbetweenspaceanddoor.

118

Figure13.5:AnExampleofanObjectBasedInterpretationforaBuildingCodeClause

CLAUSE7: DOORWAYS,DOORSANDCIRCULATIONSPACEAT
DOORWAYS
Clause7.1ProvisionofEntrances
Description:
Therequirementsforentrancestobuildingsareasfollows:
(a) Accessibleentrancesshallbeincorporatedinanaccessiblepathoftravel.
PerformanceRequirements:
Thereisanuninterruptedpathoftravelfromanaccessibleentrancetoan
accessiblespacerequired.
Objects:
{Space,Door}
ObjectProperties:
{Door_external,Door_accessible,Door_type,Door_width,Space_accessible,
Space_identification,Space_area}
ObjectRelationship:
{Contain(Space,Door)}{Adjacent(Space,Space)}
DomainspecificknowledgeforInterpretation:
(tobeimplementedwithfunctions,procedures,etc.)
AssessibleExteriorDoor(Doors)
{IFDoor_exteriorandDoor_accessiblearefound,THENreturn
AccessibleExteriorDoors}
AccessibleEntranceSpace(AccessibleExteriorDoors)
{IFAccessibleExteriorDoorsarecontainedbySpaces,THENreturn
AccessibleEntranceSpaces}
AccessibleSpaceRequired(Spaces)
{IFSpace_assessibleisfound,THENreturnAccessibleSpacesRequired}
A_Path_from_AccessibleEntranceSpace_to_AccessibleSpaceRequired
(Spaces,Doors)
{IFSpacesandDoorsarelocatedinthepathfrom
AccessibleEntranceSpacetoAccessibleSpaceRequired,THENreturna
setoftheSpacesandasetoftheDoors}
Criteria_for_anUninterruptedPath
{IFSpacesandDoorslocatedinthepathsatisfytherequirementof
Door_width,Door_type,Space_area,etc.THENreturnTRUE}

OBJECTBASEDRULEBASE
Rulebasestructure
Different interests and concerns by designers are clarified in the DesignCheck system. This provides a basis for
structuringrulebasesinEDMforuseatdifferentstagesofdesign.
At the early stage of design, designers are concerned with accessible paths to/within a proposed building,
circulation space at doorway, circulation space at disabled toilet, and so on. Associated clauses are mainly from
BCAD3andpartlyfromAS1428.1.ArulebasefortheearlystageofdesignisconstructedinEDM,whichinvolves
functions and procedures that interpret performances at the early stage of design. Semantic interpretations for
verificationof highlevelperformancesarerequired.
At the detailed stage of design, designers may be concerned with door widths, handrail heights, etc.
AssociatedclausesaremainlyfromAS1428.1.ArulebaseforthedetailedstageofdesignisconstructedinEDM,
which involves functions and procedures that interpret performances such as door widths, handrail heights, etc.
Semanticinterpretationsderivedfromgeometricaldescriptionsofobjectsarerequired.
Atthespecificationstageofdesign,designersareinterestedinspecificationrequirementsforcertainobjects
suchasfloorsurfaces,handrailmaterials,andsigns.AssociatedclausesarefrombothAS1428.1andBCAD3.A
rulebaseforthespecificationstageofdesignisconstructedinEDMtoencodespecificationrequirementsofobjects
fordesignerstocheck.
TherulebasestructurefortheDesignChecksystemispresentedinFigure13.6.Itconsistsoftheearlystage
designrulebase,detailedstagedesignrulebaseandspecificationstagedesignrulebase,whicharedevelopedusing

119

EDMruleschema.EachEDM ruleschemacomprisesanumberofglobalrules,whichenablebuildingmodelstobe
validated against the selected rules. The check results are stored in the results model in EDM. The intermediate
results model is used to store interim data from validation of rules when necessary. For example, the data from
validationofaruleforanearly stageofdesignmaybeofusebyaruleforadetailedstageofdesign.
Figure13.6:TheRuleBaseStructureinEDMfortheDesignCheckSystem

Intermediate
Results

EarlyStageDesignRules

DetailedStageDesignRules

Final
Final
Results
Final
Results
Final
Results
Final
Results
Results

SpecificationStageDesignRules

EncodingofEDMrules
The rules of encoding building codes are built in the Express language. This section illustrates the strategy and
methodologyofencodingbuildingcodeswithanexample,Figure13.7.
Figure13.7:AnExampleofCheckinganAccessibleEntrancetobeIncorporatedinanAccessible
PathofTravel

Clause7.1inAS1428.1referstotherequirementsforentrancestobuildings,wherethesubclause7.1(a)saysthat:
Clause7.1ProvisionofEntrancesa)Accessibleentrancesshallbeincorporatedinanaccessiblepathoftravel.
The DesignCheck system allows designers to check a design against the entire clause, or alternatively by
objecttypesofinterest,e.g:
checkinganaccessiblepathbetweendisabledtoiletsandaccessibleentrances
checkinganaccessiblepathbetweenliftsandaccessibleentrances
checkinganaccessiblepathbetweenpublicspaces(e.g.conferenceroom)andaccessibleentrances.
Strategies for this clause lie in finding all space and door objects on the path and checking for satisfaction of
accessibility.Verificationforthecontainmentrelationshipbetweenspaceanddoorandtheadjacencyrelationshipof
accessiblespacesaretwocriticalpartsfordeterminingapath.Agraphdevelopedforinferringadjacentaccessible
spacesispresentedinFigure13.8anddescribedasfollows.

120

The nodes in the graph in Figure 13.8represent spaces, the line between two nodes indicates that the spaces are
adjacent and accessible, and the dashed line indicates that the spaces are adjacent but not accessible by disabled
people.Forexample,Office1andOffice2inFigure8areadjacentbutfailtocomplywithasubclauseforopening
atdoorways,hence,theyarenotadjacentaccessiblespacesandthereisnoaccessiblepathbetweenthem.
Figure13.8:AnIllustrationoftheAdjacencyGraph

Note:FmeansfalseandTmeanstrue.
(Source:Boulaire2005,46)
If searching foranaccessible path between disabled toilets and accessible entrances as shown in Figure13.8,the
algorithmstartswithfindinganodeofinterest,e.g.WC_Disabledandthenidentifiesadjacentspacesandchecksfor
accessibility.SinceCorridor2istheonlyaccessibleadjacentspacetoWC_Disabled,itsearchesfromCorridor2and
finds Corridor1. From Corridor 1, it finds four accessible adjacent spaces and one of them is identified as an
accessibleentrance.AnaccessiblepathisthendeterminedbetweenWC_DisabledandEntrance.

DESIGNCHECKSYSTEM
Systemarchitecture
ThearchitectureoftheDesignChecksystemisillustratedinFigure13.9.Itconsistsofthreemaincomponents:main
userinterface,EDM databaseandthereportsystem.
Figure13.9:ArchitectureoftheDesignCheckSystem

ReportSystem

EDMDatabase
Mapping
IFC2x2
DesignCheck
Model
InternalModel

Results
Model

Validation

Check results

Rule
Rule
Rule
Bases
Bases
Bases

Intermediate
ResultsModel

Interimdata

Readresultsto
report page
Writespecifications
andcommentsto
resultsmodel

Interactive
ReportPage

PrintFriendly
ReportPage

Import
IFC2x2model

Future3DViewer

MainUserInterface

CAD

ConvertCADmodeltoIFC2x2
modelandimporttoDesignCheck

121

The main user interface allows designers to monitor the checking of designs at various stages, select a specific
clauseorobjecttype,viewcheckresults,andinputspecificationsandcomments.TheDesignChecksystemrunsas
standalonesoftware.ThebuildingmodelcreatedinobjectorientedCADsystemsisexportedasanIFC2x2model
andthenimportedtotheDesignChecksystemforcompliancechecking.Ifitisrequired,adirectinterfacetoobject
orientedCADsystemscouldbedevelopedinfuture.
The EDM database is the core component of the DesignCheck system. The EDM database has been
developedtocontainbuildingmodels,rulesbasesandthecheckresults.Twobuildingmodelschemas aredefinedin
the EDM database: the IFC2x2 model schema and the DesignCheck internal model schema. The Ifc2x2 model
schemaallowsthebuildingmodeltobeimportedtotheEDMdatabaseinIFC2x2format.TheDesignCheckinternal
modelschemaenablesapplicationspecificinformation,i.e.theinformationrequiredbybuildingcodes.Amapping
schemaisdevelopedtoallowtheIFC2x2modeltobemappedontotheDesignCheckinternalmodelautomatically.
The DesignCheck internal model is validated against rules in the rule bases. The rules encode objectbased
interpretations and performance requirements from building codes. The results model is defined in the EDM
databasetostorethecheckresults.
ThereportsystemhasadirectinterfacetotheEDMdatabase.Itreadsthecheckresultsfrom,andwritesthe
specifications/commentstotheresultsmodelintheEDMdatabase.Thereportsystemprovidesbothaninteractive
reportpageandaprintfriendlyreportpage.Oncethecheckingiscompletedaninteractivereportpageappearsto
the user, which offers a variety of viewing options and enables the user to view results byAll, Compliance,
Noncompliance, Specification required, and input the required specifications of objects and comments. The
interactivereportpagelinkstoaprintfriendlyreportpagethatallowsdesignerstolistalldetailsinthereportand
printitout.
A3Dmodelviewer,showninFigure13.9bydashedlines,willbeintegratedwiththeDesignChecksystemin
future.Itwillprovidea3Dvisualisationofthebuildingmodelandallowproblemelementstobehighlighted.

Systemimplementation
The implementation of the DesignCheck system is illustrated in Figure 13.10. The main user interface is a Java
application. It allows users to monitor the information flow commencing from importing building models to
reportingcheckresults.TheinteractivereportpageandprintfriendlyreportpageareimplementedinJavaandhtml.
Themainuserinterfaceallowsuserstoselectabuildingcode forchecking.Thefollowingtwobuildingcodes
areavailableforuserstochooseinthecurrentimplementationoftheDesignChecksystem:
1. AustralianStandard
Designforaccessandmobility
Part1:Generalrequirementsforaccess newbuildingwork(i.e.AS1428.1).
2. BuildingCodeAustralia
Newdraftaccesscodeforbuildings(currentlyreleasedforpubliccomments)
PartD Accessandegress(D3).
Figure13.10:ImplementationoftheDesignCheckSystem
DesignCheckUserInterfaceandReport

CADIFCModel

DesignCheckMain
UserInterface

InteractiveReport

PrintFriendlyReport

EDMDatabase

IFC2x2Model

InternalModel

RuleBase

ResultsModel

Intermediate
ResultsModel

RuleBase
RuleBase RuleBase

122

The option of checking design by clauses provides a selection tree of all clauses and subclauses, Figure 13.11.
SelectingamainclausetriggersEDMtovalidatearuleschemacorrespondingtotheselectedclause,whereasthe
selectionofasetofsubclausestriggersEDMtovalidateindividualglobalruleswithinaruleschema.
Figure13.11:CheckingDesignbySelectedClauses

The option of checking design by object types provides a selection tree of object types, Figure 13.12. Users are
allowed to select an object type of interest for checking at the early stage of design, detailed stage of design or
specificationstageofdesign.

123

Figure13.12:CheckingDesignbySelectedObjectTypes

Theresults of rule validationare stored in theresultsmodel inthe EDMdatabase. Once validation is completed,
graphicdisplayoftheresultsisprovidedforeachclauseorobjecttypeselected.The reportkeypanelshowsdetails
ofmeaningsoftheresulticon,Figure13.13.
Figure13.13:TheGraphicDisplayoftheCheckResults

Thereportpageisdesignedasaninteractiveuserinterface,sothatuserscanselectaresulttypethattheyintendto
view and update the result model by adding specifications of objects and comments. The interactive report page
consistsof fourmajorareas:thetoppaneltodisplayprojectinformation,theselectionpaneltoprovideoptionof
viewing results, the table panel to display detailed check results including object name, object type, space name
wheretheobjectislocated,failedfeatureoftheobject,clausenameandcheckresult,andthebottomtabbedpanel
thatallowsusersto inputspecificationsandcomments,Figure13.14.

124

Figure13.14:AnExampleoftheInteractiveReportPage

Aprintfriendly versionofthereportislinkedtotheinteractivereportpage.ItopensMicrosoftInternetExplorer,
showingaformattedprintfriendlyreportreadyforpreviewingandprinting,Figure13.15.Thisreportpagecanalso
besavedintoarchivesforlaterbackupandfurtherreferenceorcomparison.
Figure13.15:AnExampleofthePrintFriendlyReportPage

125

CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREDEVELOPMENT
The development of the DesignCheck system uses an efficient platform and provides functionalities towards
industryneeds.Asanadvancedsoftwaretool,theDesignChecksystemwillreducetheriskofnoncompliancewith
its associated rectification costs and significantly improve the efficiency in the building code checking process.
Direct benefits to architects,designers, building consultants and engineers can be gained from DesignCheck. The
benefitsinclude:
automatingthe designcheckingprocessforcompliancewithbuildingcodes
providingmorereliableassessmentwithfewererrors
theabilitytointerrogate3DobjectbasedCADsystems
allowingthecheckingatvariousstages sketchdesign,detaileddesignand specification
allowingthecheckingofadesignbyselectedbuildingcodeclauses
allowingthecheckingofadesignbyselectedbuildingobjecttypes
providingafriendlyandinteractivereportingsystem
theabilitytocheckontheflythecomplianceof thedesigntobuildingcodesandtoreducetheleadtimeofa
designprocess.
DesignCheck iscurrentlybeingtestedbyprivateandpublicdesignorganisationsforvalidationandfeedback.
Future development of the DesignCheck system relating to the interest areas in both research and practice
includes:thedevelopmentofaconsistentmannerforbuildingcodeinterpretationsuchasusingdecisiontables,the
development of semantic models and expert knowledge, and system improvement including the development of
structuredspecificationtoallowuserstoinputspecificationeasilyandtheintegrationwitha3Dmodelviewer.
Collaboration with CAD vendors is required to enable the CADIFC interface to be improved to support
automatedcodecheckingapplication.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TheauthorsacknowledgeMosheGilovitz(BuildingCommission)forhisvaluableadviceandcoordinationofinput
from others, Cheryl McNamara, Kevin McDonald, Dr. John Mashford and Fanny Boulaire of CSIRO, and Julie
Jupp, Wei Peng, Ji Soo Yoon and Nicholas Preema of University of Sydney for significant contributions to the
DesignChecksystem.

REFERENCES
BalachandranM.,M.A.RosenmanandJ.S.Gero.1991.Aknowledgebasedapproachtotheautomaticverification
ofdesignsfromCAD databases. ArtificialIntelligenceinDesign91, ed.J.S.Gero,757781.Oxford:
ButterworthHeinemann.
BoulaireB.2005. CodeCheckingPhase2InternalReport.Brisbane:CRCforConstructionInnovation,Icon.Net
PtyLtd.
Building.2003.LaingSuesOverDisabledAccess. http://www.building.co.uk/magazine/html/2003_issue_20.html
(accessed11May2006).
DingL.,R.Drogemuller,J.Jupp,M.A.RosenmanandJ.S.Gero.2004.Automatedcodechecking. ClientsDriving
InnovationInternationalConference. SurfersParadise,2527October.
DrogemullerR.,R.WoodburyandJ.Crawford.2000. ExtractingRepresentationfromStructuredText:Initialsteps.
http://itc.scix.net/cgibin/works/Show?w782000302 (accessed11May2006).
FenvesS.J.,J.H.Garrett,H.Kiliccote,K.H.LawandK.A.Reed.1995.Computerrepresentationsofdesign
standardsandbuildingcodes:U.S.perspective.TheInternationalJournalofConstructionInformation
Technology,3(1):1334.
GeroJ.S.1982. ASelfcheckingDatabasefortheAustralianBuildingCode:CAD82.Guildford: Butterworths.
MaissaS.,J.P.Frachet,J.C.Lombardo,M.BourdeauandS.Soubra.2002.Regulationcheckinginavirtual
building. CIBw78conference.Denmark,1214June.
RosenmanM.A.,J.S.GeroandR.Oxman.1986.Anexpertsystemfordesigncodesanddesignrules. Applications
ofArtificialIntelligencetoEngineeringProblems,eds.D.SriramandR.Adey,745758.Berlin:SpringerVerlag.
Solibri,Inc.2006. SolibriModelCheckerNewVersion4:AcceleratingBIM Benefits.
http://www.solibri.com/data/uploads/products/leaflets/5_leaflet11.pdf (accessed11May2006).
SolihinW.2004. AchievingAutomatedCodeCheckingwithEase:Awhitepaper.Singapore:NovaCITYNETSPte
Ltd.
WoodburyR.,A.Burrow,R.DrogemullerandS.Datta.2000.Codecheckingbyrepresentationcomparison.
CAADRIA:Proceedingsofthe5thConferenceonComputerAided ArchitecturalDesign ResearchinAsia.
Singapore,30March 2April.

126

CHAPTER14

EarlyDesignStageParametricBuilding
Development
JohnCrawford
RobinDrogemuller
GerardoTrinidad
INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarises, in a descriptive manner, a 20042005 Cooperative Research Centre for Construction
Innovation(CRCCI)projectwhichhadtwoobjectivestoassess:
howeasilycurrentarchitecturalCADandsimilarsystemssupportparametricdescriptionsindefiningbuilding
shape,engineeringsystemperformanceandcostattheearlystagesofdesign
the feasibility of a software decision support system allowing designers to tradeoff the characteristics of
variousengineeringsystemsinseekinganoptimum ratherthanconsideringeachsysteminisolation.
The first phase used four leading computeraided design (CAD) systems ArchiCAD (Graphisoft 2004),
Architectural Desktop (Autodesk 2004), Microstation Triforma (Bentley2004)andCATIA (Dassault 2004) to
definebuildingshells(envelopes) withdifferentusages.Thesemodels wereexportedintoashareddatabaseusing
the industry foundation classes (IFC) information exchange specifications an important standard for
interoperability developed by the International Alliance for Interoperability (International Alliance for
Interoperability(IAI)2004).
The second phase used small computer programs that estimated system parameters based on performance
requirementsandtheconstraintsimposedbytheothersystems.Thesewerepresentedinaunifieduserinterfacethat
extractsbuildingshapeparametersfromtheshareddatabase.Thereaderisreferredtotheprojectsfinalreport(CRC
CI2005)formoredetaileddiscussionofthetechnicaldetailsoftheseinvestigationsandprograms.

PARAMETRICAPPROACH
Thisresearchinvestigatedthepotentialforeasilyevaluatingalternativearchitecturallayoutsandstructuresatearly
design stage, by assessing how architectural and engineering CAD systems can support parametric modelling. In
thiscontext,parametricrefersnotjusttovalueslikethedepthofasteelbeam,butalsototheassociationsspecified
amongst all aspects of the model which helps ensure the coordination and productivity benefits of parametric
software.
Forinstance,iftheoutsideofadoorframeisasetdistance,say100mm,fromapartitionatrightangles,and
thepartitionismoved,butthedoorpartitionassociationisretained,thentheparameterisavalue,100mm.Compare
thiswitharequirementthatwindowsbeequallyspacedinanelevation.Ifthelengthoftheelevationisthenchanged
buttheequalspacingisrequiredtobemaintained,theparameterthenisnotavalue,butaproportionalityattribute.
Thevariablesthatdefinetheserelationshipsarecalledparametersinmechanicaldesignandmathematics
(ONeil 1983), and so the software operation is parametric. An alternative term sometimes used in the design
domain is constraintdriven since the parameters are not necessarily geometric, but relate to solutions
constrainedbyrelationshipsbetweenbuildingsubsystems.

KEYTOPICS
Whatisearlydesignstage?
Earlydesign is that stage in which the designers work with a proposal for a selected site, using key factors, but
perhapswithonlylimitedadditionalinformation.Thekeyfactorsarethingssuchastheproposedoccupancytypes
(residential,office,commercial,orretailandcarparking)andthearearequiredforeachtype,aswelltheshape,size
andorientationofthesite.Thedesignersaimistorecommendthebestkeybuildingsystem,anddecidehowtoget
betterinformationabouttheprojectwithoutproducingunnecessarilydetaileddesignsanddocumentsataveryearly
stage. Feedback from industry partnersindicated that current modes of operationat earlysketch stage resulted in
eachdesignprofessionaltendingtooptimisewithintheirownspecialisation,butindustryspecialistsbelievedthatan
overall balance was critical. A system that allows architects and engineers to work together to achieve a good

127

balanced or satisfying (Simon 1975) outcome is seen as preferable to a design system that tries to specify the
optimalorabsolute bestdesign.
Abalancedoutcomeusually doesoccur,butthisprojectaimsatafasterandeasierassessmentofalternatives,
retaining design information that takes various factors into account each may be given different weighting in
different projects resulting in different design outcomes. Early design is usually undertaken with massing
models,inwhichblocksorprismswithfewdetailsotherthansizeandshapeareusedtorepresenttheenvelopeor
partsofthebuilding.

Massingmodels
Indesign,amassingmodelisadimensionallyaccuratesummary ofthefundamentalexteriorformsofabuilding,
generallymadeofsolidblocks.Conceptualmassmodelsusesolidshapestoverifytheuseofavailablespace,taking
theclientsrequirementsintoconsideration(seeFigure14.1).Windowopeningsaregenerallynotshown,anddetail
isleftoutorsummarisedsuccinctly.

Samplebuildingtype
At the projects initiation, there was a general discussion between experienced researchers and industry partners
about a wide range of parameters and issues across all types of buildings. The result was an agreement that the
projectshouldfocusonatypicalmediumrise,mixedusebuilding.
Figure14.1:EnvelopeofSampleMultistoreyMixedUseBuilding

Figure14.2:BuildingCoreGeneratedParametricallyUsingGeometricDescriptionLanguage
(GDL)

TeammemberschoseatypicallyAustralianprojectanewmultistoreybuildingofmixedcommercialresidential
use.Atearlydesignstagethisprojectmayberepresentedbyamassingmodelofthewholebuildingcomplexasan
envelopeorseriesofprisms(seeFigure14.1),giventheexpectedusageandoccupancytypes,andtheareaforeach
usage(commercial,residential,carparking),andthebuildingcorerequiredforservices.

128

Thebuildingusedasanexamplecontainedaservicecore,severalfloorsofcarparking,retailandofficespace,and
residentialunits.Theoffices,residentialspaceandbuildingcorecanbethoughtofasprisms,andthecoreprismcan
beautomaticallygeneratedfromthedefinitionoftheofficeandresidentialprisms(seeFigure14.2).

Givensimpledata,canwesuggestthedesignsystem?
At the earlydesign stage, given the buildings shape and expected usages, can the designer advise on the best
optionsforthebuildingsubsystems?Inthestructuralfield,forexample,cananearlydesignanalysisdeterminethat
for given criteria, a system of, say, shear walls for the top section, should be recommended for a multistorey
residentialdevelopment?

WHICHSUBSYSTEMS?
Within the scope of the parametric project, major systems which were investigated included architectural,
structural, mechanical, cost, hydraulic, electrical, environmental factors, and in particular: architectural spatial
layout, structural, fire protection, water supply, electrical, environmental/LCA (lifecycle assessment), mechanical
(vertical transport, HVAC), and cost, where small computer programs were written (see Figure 14.3) that
encapsulatedthoseareasofexpertise(Parlour1994).
Figure14.3:UserInterfaceforSettingColumnSpacingforEachTypeofBuildingOccupancy

Keystructuralfactorsconsideredincluded:
loadingplanningandcolumngrid(seeFigure14.4)
deflections,tolerancesandvibration
frametypeandmaterials.
Figure14.4:CATIA:CombinedEffectsofaHeightIncrease,AlteredColumnLayoutand
OrientationandaRescalingAppliedtoIndividualFloorLevels

129

Inaddition,criticalHVACfactorsconsideredandprogrammedintheresearchincluded:
AC(airconditioning)zoningandACloadsandairflow(seeFigure14.5)
systemselection
plantroomspace
ductingandpipework.
Figure14.5:PanelwithTabsforInputofHVACFactors

The range of simple hydraulic factors takeninto account and coded were fire protection, and cold andhot water
requirementswhereasthekeymechanicalissuesanalysedandprogrammedincludedliftdriveselection,numberof
requiredlifts,andliftshafts.
Thisrangeofsmallprogramsprovidesavaluablesetoftoolsthatencapsulateknowledgeandkeyparameters
inspecificareas,andfurthertechnicaldetailsareavailableintheprojectsfinalreport(CRCCI2005).Toformalise
thedescriptionoftheinputsandoutputsforthebuildingsubsystemsbeinginvestigated,aspectsofamoreprescribed
conceptcalledperspectorsinitiallydevelopedatStanfordUniversity(Haymakeretal.2003)wereused(see
Figure14.6).
Figure14.6:(TopLevel)PerspectorsforBuildingSubsystems

130

SYSTEMSANDDATA
Initiallyusingasimplebuilding,andwitharchitecturalandengineeringrulesofthumbalreadyinuse,theresearch
teamworkedwithparametricdescriptionsofprojectsduringtheearlysketchdesignstagetodeterminehowarange
ofusersrequirementscanbeassessed.Usingthepopularcategoryofmixedusecommercialresidentialmultistorey
developmentsasdata,theteamexaminedapproachesfordefiningparametricmodels(seeFigure14.7)withinthe
three major architecture, engineering and construction CAD systems of Architectural Desktop (Autodesk 2004),
Microstation Triforma (Bentley 2004) and ArchiCAD (Graphisoft 2004), plus a leading mechanical modelling
systemCATIA(Dassault2004).
Figure14.7:OverallSystemSoftwareArchitecture

Autodesk
ADT

customisation

Bentley
Triforma
customisation

Dassault
CATIA
customisation

Graphisoft
ArchiCAD
customisation

quantities
agent

spatial
layout

cost/
budget

structural
EDMServer
Database
environm
ental

HVAC

fire
protection

vertical
transport
hydraulics

electrical

EarlierprojectsundertakenwithintheCRCCIrelatingto informationflows,andautomatedcodechecking,usedthe
industry foundation classes (IFCs) to define building elements during the detailed documentation stage, and to
checkthatthedesigninfactmeetsrequirements.Itisanevidentextensionofthispreviousworktostartapplyingthe
IFCmodelstotheearlydesignprocess,astheIFCrepository(EPMTechnology2004)providesacatalogueofthe
buildingelementswithintheproject.
WhilsttechnicalinformationabouttheIFCbuildingmodelisdocumentedindetailandisreadilyavailablefor
softwaredeveloperswhoneedto workwithit(IAI2004),unfortunatelythereislesspracticalinformationforthe
averageAECpractitionerwhowantstohaveabetterunderstandingoftheIFCmodel(Khemlani2004).

CONCLUSIONS
The parametric project investigated a range of parameters that might characterise the earlystage design, and a
numberwereidentifiedascriticalsincethey oftensupportindividualbuildingsubsystemsthatarefundamentalto
theearlydesign.However,evenattheearlystagesofdesign,eachofthebuildingsystemsdependsonothers,and
theprojectteamcouldnotidentifyanyoneviewthatcouldbemodelledindependentlyoftheothers,oronesystem
onwhichtherewerenodependentsystems.
Eachofthedesignadvisorsinthesoftwarehasitsown viewofthesharedinformationinthedatabase,
anddevelopingtheadvisorshelpeddefinethesespecialistviewsatthe earlydesignstage.
The occupancy type (residential, office/retail, carparking) floortofloor heights floor space for each
occupancytype(andimportantly,standardofaccommodation)expectednumberofpeopleperunitoffloorspace
columnandbeamspacingsairconditioningandwatersupplyrequirementsnumberofliftsetc.wereallidentified
askeyparameters.Evenso,anoverarchingparameterthatappliestoallbuildingservicessystemsisthe qualityof
occupancy or level of service that the building will provide, since the rental return will generally be linked to
quality.InAustralia,thereisalistofrequirementsforthevariousgradesofofficeaccommodationthatmakesthe
requirementsquiteexplicit.
The research demonstrated that, as expected, some commercially available design software is more suited
thanotherstoparametricmodellingattheearlydesignstage.SystemssuchasArchitecturalDesktop,Microstation

131

Triforma, ArchiCAD, and CATIA were studied in some detail. Each of the four major design software systems
consideredhad its own strengthsand weaknesses, andthecost of the software, the availability of staff trainedin
using it, and the availability of libraries of suitable (nonproprietary) objects (able to embody and retain spatial
intelligenceandparametricassociations)willallplayasignificantroleinchoosingtherightsoftwareforthejob.In
addition, the naturalness for the user of manipulating parametric objects with the software influences the
willingnessofdesignerstousethesystem.Theresearchalsohighlightstheviability ofusingcommercialoffthe
shelf(COTS) softwaretogetherwithcustomsoftwarecomponents.
Somenewersoftwareapproacheswereseentohavemorepotentialforimmediateuseinanearlydesignstage
parametric modelling exercise, but these systems still had the drawbacks of inadequate dedicated spaceplanning
tools,easeofuse,andcost(inoneparticularcase).Tosupportatrueparametricmodellingapproachtoearlydesign,
the ideal system would need the ease of use and speed of intuitive, thirdparty, lowcost 3D designtools such as
Rhino or SketchUp the documenting, visualising, and reporting abilities of Microstation the trained user base,
speed,andmarketpresenceofAutodeskADTthepower,spatial/geometrictoolsanddatamanagementofCATIA,
andthe3Dmodellingflexibility,supportforneutraldataformats,andpricepointofArchiCAD.
TheresearchalsoshowedthatIFCdataisaprospectivesourceofinformationintheimplementationofan
integrateddigitalbuildingmodelthatunderpinsaparametricmodellingapproach.UsingIFCdataensuresthatdata
andmodelsderivedattheearlydesignstagecanberetainedandrefinedastheprojectproceedsandmoredatathus
becomes available. In addition, the project illustrated the feasibility of using a range of quite straightforward
parameterstocharacterisethebuildingmodelattheearlydesignstage.

FUTUREDIRECTIONS
Theresultsofthisprojectwillproveusefulindevelopingpracticaltoolsforearlydesignmodelling,sincethetools
wouldthenretainthekeydesigninformationwhichcouldbe exploitedwithinany3DCADmodelsusedlaterfor
detaileddesignanddocumentation.
Aspectsofamoreprescribedconceptknownasperspectorswereusedtoformalisethedescriptionofthe
inputs and outputs for the building subsystems being investigated. The authors believe an opportunity exists for
researchersorindustryinthedevelopmentofatoolkitforthistheme,whichwouldgreatlyassistinadvancingthe
knowledgemanagementresearch.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank and gratefully acknowledge the extensive contributions to the project outcomes made by other
members of the research team including Mark Burry, Julian Canterbury, Alison Fairley Peter Bowtell David
Marchant, Fanny Boulaire and Cheryl McNamara, of RMIT, Arup Australasia, Woods Bagot and CSIRO
respectively,aswellasJohnHaymakerofStanfordUniversity.

REFERENCES
Autodesk.2004. ArchitecturalDesktop.
http://southapac.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/home?siteID=1157326&id=1990848 (accessed5November2005).
BentleySystems.2004.MicrostationTriforma.
http://www.bentley.com/enUS/Products/MicroStation/MicroStation+TriForma.htm (accessed5November2005).
Collaborative ResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation.2005. FinalResearchReport forProject2002060B:
Parametricbuildingdevelopmentduringearlydesignstage.Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentrefor
ConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
DassaultSystmes.2004. CATIA.http://www.3ds.com/productssolutions/brands/CATIA/ (accessed5November
2005).
EPMTechnology.2004. IndustrialDataManagementforGlobalInteroperability. http://www.jotne.com/epmtech/
(accessed5November2005).
Graphisoft.2004. ArchiCAD. http://www.graphisoft.com(accessed5November5,2005).
Haymaker,J.,J.Kunz,B.SuterandM.Fischer.2003. Perspectors:Composable,reusablereasoningmodulesto
automaticallyconstructageometricengineeringviewfromothergeometricengineeringviews:CIFEWorking
Paper#WP082.Stanford:StanfordUniversity.
InternationalAlliance forInteroperability.2004.Ifc2x2 Final Online Documentation. http://www.iai
international.org/Model/R2x2_add1/index.html (accessed5November2005).
Khemlani,L.2004.TheIFCBuildingModel:Alookunderthehood
http://www.aecbytes.com/feature/2004/IFCmodel.html (accessed5November2005).
ONeil,P.1983. AdvancedEngineeringMathematics.Belmont,California: WadsworthPublishing.
Parlour,R.1994. BuildingServices:Engineeringforarchitects. Sydney:IntegralPublishing.
Simon,H.A.1975.Styleindesign.SpatialSynthesisinComputerAidedBuildingDesign,ed.C.M.Eastman.,287
309.London:AppliedScience.

132

CHAPTER15

ComparingDistanceCollaborative
DesigningUsingDigitalInkSketching
and3DModelsinVirtualEnvironments
MaryLouMaher
ZaferBilda
FigenGul
YinghsiuHuang
DavidMarchant
INTRODUCTION
Recent developments in networked 3D virtual worlds and the proliferation of high bandwidth communications
technologyhavethepotentialtotransformthenatureofdistancecollaboration inprofessionaldesign.Therehave
been numerous developments in systems that support collaboration that have resulted in system architectures to
supportinformationsharingandremotecommunication.Whilsttheseinitiativeshaveledtoimportantadvancesin
the enabling technologies required to support changes in global economic practices, there remains a gap in our
understandingoftheimpactofthetechnologiesontheworkingpracticesofthepeoplewhoaretheprimaryusersof
suchsystems.
Research into the characteristics of collaborative work can assist in our understanding of how the
collaborativedesignprocesscanbesupportedandhownewtechnologiescanbeintroducedintotheworkplace.An
understandingofcollaborativedesignincludessuchfactorsastherolethatcommunicationmediaplay,theuseof
physical materials and computer tools, and the way people communicate verbally and nonverbally (Munkvold
2003). Protocol analysis has been accepted as a prevailing research technique allowing elucidation of design
processesindesigning(Crossetal.1996).Andwhilsttheearlierstudiesdealtmainlywithprotocolsverbalaspects
(Akin 1986),later studies acknowledge the importance of design drawing (Akin &Lin 1995),associatingit with
design thinking which can be interpreted through verbal descriptions (Suwa & Tversky 1997 Suwa et al. 1998
Stempfle&Schaub2002).Bygatheringinformationabouttherichandcomplexpictureofcollaborativedesignwe
can understand the characteristics and needs of the practitioners as well as the factors which contribute to their
professionaleffectiveness.

Studyingteamcollaboration
Inordertounderstandthepotentialimpactofhighbandwidthenvironmentsoncollaborativedesign,wefirstneedto
havedatathatcharacterisescollaborativedesignactivity withoutthehighbandwidthenvironment,thatis,faceto
facedesigning.Weconsideredthatthechangeincollaborativetechnologiesshouldbeincrementalmovingfromthe
technology already in use (usually sharing the drawings over the internet) to the use of a high bandwidth virtual
environment.Withtheseideasinmind,anexperimentalstudywiththreedesignsettingswasdevelopedinorderto
studytheimpactofhighbandwidthenvironmentsondesigncollaboration.Thesettingswerecollaborativedesign
processesinwhich:
1. designersworkfacetofacewithpenandpaper
2. designersusearemotesketchingsystemwithsynchronousvoiceandvideoconference
3. a3Dvirtualworldisusedwithsynchronousvoiceandvideoconference.
Wecollectedvideoandverbalprotocoldatainthesethreephases.Thenwecodedthebehavioursweobservedinthe
videosaswellastheverbalcommunication.Weanalysedthecodesandfinallyaimedatcomparingthecollaborative
activity in the three different settings, so that we could determine the impact of the change in collaborative
technology.Thischapterpresentstheanalysisofthedata,comparingthreepairsofarchitectscollaborativedesign
processes in the three design environments: facetoface sketching,remote sketching, and 3D virtual worlds. The
firstcollaborativeenvironmentrepresentsthetraditionalwayofdesigning,sketchingthesecondenvironmentwas
selectedasrepresentativeofthecurrentlowbandwidthtechnology(GroupBoard)andthethirdenvironmentisa
prototype of highbandwidth technology (extended Active Worlds). The chapter begins with a summary of the
experiment design and then data collection methods. Finally, video and verbal protocol analysis of the design
sessionsandtheresultsarepresented.

133

EXPERIMENT
Inourexperiment,westudiedpairsofdesignerscollaboratingonthreedifferentdesigntasksofsimilarcomplexity
using a different setting for each task. We expected that the comparison of the same designers in three different
environmentswouldprovideabetterindicationoftheimpactoftheenvironmentthanusingdifferentdesignersand
thesamedesigntask.Ourdesignersarearchitects,sothedesigntaskisthedesignofasmallbuildingonagiven
site.Weusedthesamesiteforeachtask,butspecifiedadifferenttypeofbuilding(gallery,library,andhostel)for
each design task. This allowed the designers to become familiar with the site and to focus on the design of the
building.

Experimentalsetup
Figure 15.1 shows thefacetoface session of the experiment where the designers are provided drawing materials
(penandpaper),abrief,andacollageofthephotosshowingtheexistingbuildingonthesiteandtheneighbouring
buildings.
Figure15.1:FacetofaceSession

Figure15.2showsthesetupfortheshareddrawingboardenvironment.Inordertosimulatehighbandwidthaudio
andvideo,bothdesignersareinthesameroomandcantalktoeachother,butcanonlyseeeachotherviawebcam.
The setup for designer 1 is shown in Figure 15.2a and the setup for designer 2 is shown in Figure 15.2b. The
location of the cameras was an important issue, since we wanted to monitor the designers movements,
verbalisations,gesturesanddrawingactions.Cameras1and2capturethegestures,generalactionssuchaswalking,
lookingat,movingtotheside,whilethedirectconnectionstothecomputers/screenscapturethedrawingprocess.
Onedesignerusedapeninterface(Mimio)onaprojectiontable,showninFigure15.2a.Theotherdesigneruseda
peninterfaceonaSmartBoard,showninFigure15.2b.Inthissettingoftheexperiment,thedesignersusedremote
sketchingsoftwarecalledGroupBoard,asshowninFigure15.3.
Figure15.2:SharedDrawingBoardEnvironmentSetup
a)

Camera1,DesktopScreen1and
MimioonWorkbench

b)

Camera2,DesktopScreen2
andSmartBoard

134

Inthethirdsettingoftheexperiment,thedesignersusedanextended3DvirtualworldapplicationinActiveWorlds,
shown in Figure 15.4. The 3D world includes a multiuser 3D building environment, video contact, a shared
whiteboard,andanobjectviewer/insertfeature.Again,thedesignersareinthesameroomwithasimilarcameraset
up. While the shared whiteboard was available in the third setting, thedesigners were only trainedto use the 3D
worldandthewebcam.
Figure15.3:GroupBoardInterface

Figure15.4:ExtendedVirtualWorld

Videoconference
andshared
drawing

3D
Modeller

Multiuser3D
VirtualWorld

Chat

135

Experimentalprocedure
Theexperimentalprocedurewas:
1. Thedesignersweregivenadesignbriefandshownacollageofthephotosofthesitetheyarerequiredtobuild
on.They were given time toread throughthe design brief andinspect the site layout andphotos. They were
givenpaperandpencilsandwereaskedtocompletetheirdesignsessionin30minutes.
2. ThedesignerswerepresentedashortdescriptionofhowtheycoulduseSmartBoardorMimioTool.Theseare
both pen and digital ink interfaces to a standard Windows environment. The Smart Board is attached to a
verticalplasmadisplayandtheMimioisplacedonahorizontalprojectiondisplay.
3. The designers were given a 15minute training session on the use of Group Board. In the training session
participants were engaged in doing a tutorial in order to review and/or build their skills in using specific
featuresofthesoftwareapplicationprovidedforcollaboration.
4. The designers were given anew design brief and shownacollage of the photos of the same site. They were
giventimetoreadthroughthedesignbriefandinspectthesitelayoutandphotos.Thesitelayoutwassetinthe
share whiteboard application as a background image on several pages so that the designers could sketch on
them.Theywereaskedtocompletetheirdesignsessionin30minutes.
5. After a 5minute break,the designers were given a15minute training session on the use of 3D world.They
wereaskedtodoatutorialinordertoreviewand/orbuildtheirskillsinusingspecificfeaturesofthesoftware
application.
6. The designers were given anew design brief and shownacollage of the photos of the same site. They were
giventimetoreadthroughthedesignbriefandinspectthesitelayoutandphotos.Thistimethedesignersused
the extended virtual world to end up with a design solution for the given design brief. They were asked to
completetheirdesignsessionin30minutes.

Videoandverbaldatacoding
Thedatafromtheexperimentscomprised 3continuousstreamsofvideoandaudiodataforeachpairofdesigners.In
thischapterwereportontheanalysisandinterpretationofthreepairsofdesigners,eachpaircompletingthedesign
tasks in all three settings. The stream of data for each session is segmented for coding and analysis. We used a
softwarecalledINTERACTforourcodingandanalysisprocess.Moreinformationonthereasonsforchoosingthis
softwareandhowitimprovedourcodingprocesscanbefoundinCandyetal.(2004).
Eachsegmentiscodedaccordingtoamappingfromtheactivitiesandutterancestoasetofcodingschemes.
Our segmentation is based on an interpretation of an event. In the study done by Dwarakanath and Blessing
(1996),aneventwasdefinedasatimeintervalwhichbeginswhenanewportionofinformationismentionedor
discussed,andendswhenanothernewportionofinformationisraised.Thiseventdefinitionisanoptimalonefor
our study as well, since the occurrences of actions and intentions change spontaneously as architects draw and
communicateinteractively.
Aneventcanchangewhenadifferentpersonstartsspeakinginacollaborativeactivityifs/heisintroducinga
newportionofinformation.Insomecasestheconversationgoesonbetweentheactors,buttheintentionorsubject
ofinterestremainsthesame.InthischapterwerefertothedesignersasAlexandCasey.Forexample,insegment
48, bothCaseyandAlextaketurnsinonesegment,but theirsubjectofinterestisstillthe ramptoacarpark.
Segment48:
Casey:Thisis...thereisaphotoofthere.Thatisactuallyaramptoacarpark.Andthenthereis
abuildingandalittle
Alex: Andthatistheramp?
Casey:Thatistheramp.
Eachsegmentisthencodedaccordingtoacodingscheme.Thecodingschemeallowsustocompareandmeasure
the differences in the three design sessions. We present the results of four coding categories: communication
content,designprocess,operationsonexternalrepresentations,andworkingmodes.
Communicationcontent
Thecommunicationcontentcategoryisappliedtothetranscribedconversationbetweenthetwodesigners,andone
codeisassignedtoeachsegment.ThiscodecategoryhasfivecodesasshowninTable15.1.

136

Table15.1:CommunicationContent
Softwarefeatures
Designprocess
Awareness
Reps
Contextfree

Software/applicationfeaturesorhowtousethatfeature
Conversationsonconceptdevelopment,designexploration,analysissynthesis
evaluation.
Awarenessofpresenceoractionsoftheother
Communicatingadrawing/objecttotheotherperson
Conversationsnotrelatedtothetask

Communicationonsoftwarefeaturesinvolvesthequestionsabouthowtodospecifictaskswiththesoftware,talking
aboutindividualexperienceofhowtodothings,problemsfacedduringtheuseofthesoftware,anyfeedbackabout
theinterfaceoruseofsoftware,and statementsoffrustrationaboutnotgettingsomethingrightetc.
Designprocess
Thedesignprocesscategorycharacterisesthekindsofdesigntasksthedesignersareengagedinforeachsegment.
Assigningadesignprocesscategorytakesintoconsiderationthewordsspokenduringeachsegmentaswellasthe
actions observed inthe videos. The codes in the designprocess category are anadaptation of the coding scheme
developedbyGeroandMcNeill(1998).ThecodesinthiscategoryareshowninTable15.2.
Table15.2:DesigningProcess
Propose
Clarify
AnSoln
AnReps
AnProb
Identify
Evaluate
SetUpGoal
Question

Proposeanewidea/concept/designsolution
Clarifymeaningoradesignsolution,expandonaconcept
Analyseaproposeddesignsolution
Analyse/understandadesignrepresentation
Analysetheproblemspace
Identifyordescribeconstraints/violations
Evaluatea(design)solution
Settingupagoal,planningthedesignactions.
Question/mentionadesignissue(for,e.g.howtogetthisdone?Intermsofareaswehave
nothingtoscale)

Operationsonexternalrepresentations
The external representations category looks specifically at the actions the designers perform while using the
software.Eachsegmentisinterpretedusingthevideoofthedesignersbehaviourincludingmovementsorgestures,
andthevideostreamofthecomputerdisplayshowinghowthesoftwarewasbeingused.Table15.3showsthecodes
intheexternalrepresentationscategory.
Table 15.3:ExternalRepresentation
Create
Modify
Move
Erase
InspectBrief
InspectReps

Createadesignelement
Changeobjectpropertiesortransform
Orientate/rotate/moveelement
Eraseordeleteadesignelement
Lookingat,referringtothedesignbrief
Lookingat,attendingto,referringtotherepresentation

Workingmodes
The working modes category focuses on how individuals collaborate towards the design product: are they
developing a product/solution together or are they doing this alone for a while and then working together again
along the time line of designing? Similarly Kvan (2000) defined collaborative designing as a closely coupled
processoralooselycoupledprocess.Inacloselycoupledprocess,designersworktogetheronthesameartefacts
simultaneously while in a loosely coupled process, design participants work with different artefacts at different
timesorthe sametime.
In this category meeting code refers to designers working together on the same design/artefact, and
individual codereferstodesignersworkingindividuallyonadifferentpart/aspectofthedesign.

137

ANALYSISANDINTERPRETATIONSOFTHERESULTS
Aftercodingeachsegment,thecodingsoftwareINTERACTprovidesus withthetotaldurationofeachactionin
eachcategory.Thisdatashowshowmuchtimeeachparticipantspentoneachaction.Thedurationofeachactionis
dividedbythetotaltimeelapsedforeachsession(whichis30minutesforeachsession).Thisgivesustheduration
percentagesforeachactionoractioncategory.Table15.4showsdurationpercentagesofthethreeactioncategories
form the coding scheme. These are the averaged values of the three architect pairs collaborating in the three
different design environments. Table 15.4 shows that around 72% of the total time is spent on collaborative
communicationinfacetofacesketching,GroupBoardand3Dworldsession.Thustheamountofcommunicationis
nearly the same in the three environments. The architect pairs spent 9297% of the total design session time on
operationsrelatedtoexternalrepresentations.Againthetimespentondealingwithexternalrepresentationsdoesnot
seem to be significantly different over the three different design environments. However, there is a significant
differencebetweendurationpercentagesofthedesignprocessactionscategory.Inthefacetofacesketching(FTF)
sessions,architectsspent70%oftheirtimeondesignprocessactions,butin3Dworldsessiontheyspentonly40%
of the total time on design process actions. In Group Board session, 50% of the time is spent on design process
actions,whichissignificantlylowerthantheamountspentinFTFsession.
Table15.4:DurationPercentagesofAction Categories
FTF

GroupBoard

3Dworld

Communicationcontent
Operationsrelatedtoexternal
representations

72%

73%

72%

94%

92%

97%

Designprocess

69%

50%

41%

We tested if there are significantdifferences between the pairs in terms of their design behaviour(coded activity
categories).TheANOVAtest(ANOVAwithreplication,P<0.05)resultsshowthatthereisnosignificantdifference
between the pairs communication content, their operations related to external representations and their working
mode.Notethatonlydesignprocessactivityissignificantlydifferent(P=0.0015)betweenthepairs.Wealsotested
if there are significant differences between the three design sessions in terms of activities of pairs. The ANOVA
results(ANOVAwithreplication,P<0.05)showthat theactivityinallcategorieswassignificantlydifferentoverthe
threesessions.
Itwasobservedthattheamountoftimespentoncommunicationinthethreedesignsessionsisverysimilar
(Table 15.4), but the content of communication varies between them. Figure 15.5 summarises the coded
communicationcontentofthethreepairsoverthethreedesignsessions.Averageofthethreepairscommunication
durationpercentagesisshowninFigure15.5.Theaveragevalueswoulddemonstratethecorrectbehaviourtrends
sincethereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthecommunicationcontentofthepairsineachsession.IntheFTF
sessions,thearchitectpairstalkmoreaboutdesigning(65%),andthenthedurationpercentageofcommunicationon
design process steps down significantly in Group Board (48%) and 3D world (28%) sessions (Figure 15.5). This
decrease is compensated by communication on awareness and communication on the features of the design
representation. The percentage values of awareness (0.3%, 3%, and 12%) and representation (4%, 7%, and
18%) step up consecutively in FTF, Group Board and the 3D world sessions (Figure 15.5). The percentage of
communication on software features is zero in FTF session, highest in Group Board session (13%) and that is
followedbythe3D worldsession(7%).

138

Figure15.5:BarChartsforCommunicationContent
Communicationcontentdurationpercentages(average)
80.00%

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00%
awareness

contextfree

FTF

designing

GBoard

reps

software
features

3DWorld

Note:Averageofthreepairsoverthethreedesignphases
The analysis shows that the communication contentin facetoface sketching sessions is predominantly about the
designratherthanaboutthetoolstheyareusing,theexternalrepresentation,orwheretheotherpersonislocated.
During the FTF sessions, we observed that designers were intensively engaged in exploring and creating design
concepts interactively while drawing on paper. This is explained by the familiarity of this environment for the
designersandthephysicalaccesstheyhavetoeachother.Wenoticedasimilarphenomenonintheremotesketching
environment, where the designers primarily talked about the design rather than the software features or the
awarenessofactionsofeachother.Inthe3Dvirtualworldwefoundthatarchitectsconversationwasaboutfeatures
ofthedesignrepresentationandawarenessofeachotherslocationandactionasmuchastheirconversationabout
designprocess.Thediscussiononawarenessofothersisduetothesignificanceoftheinformationabouttheother
designerslocationinthe3Dvirtualworldandtheiractionswithrespecttothedesignmodeltheyarecreating.Ina
2Dsketch,bothdesignershavethesameview.Ina3Dworld,theviewofthedesignerdependsontheirlocationin
theworld.However,inall three sessions,thedesignersspentmostofthecommunicationtimeondesigntasks.
Whenwecomparethecommunicationcontentinthethreeenvironments,onesignificantdifferencewasthat
thearchitectsspentmoretimeontherepresentationrelatedcontextinthe3Dvirtualworld.Thisinvolvestalking
about which elements they could use to represent their design ideas or how the representation looked in the
environment. The architects focused on the representation more in the 3D virtual world because they had to
concretisetheirdesignideasimmediately.However,inthesketchingenvironmenttherepresentationcouldremain
abstract.
Theanalysis oftheoperationsonexternalrepresentationsaveragedforthreepairsisshowninFigure15.6.
The average activity percentages of three pairs would represent common behaviour since there is no significant
differencebetweenthepairsactivityineachsession(seeANOVAtestresults).Thisanalysisisinterestingbecause
thethreesessionslookverysimilarintermsofinspectionactivity.Theoperationsofinspectiononthebriefandon
the representation of the design dominated, with the otheroperations being comparatively small in percentage of
time. It can be observed that move and modify actions are significantly higher, while create action is
significantlylowerinthe3Dvirtualworlddesignenvironment.In3Dmodellingtasks,designersusuallymovedor
modifiedobjectsaftertheycreatedthem,andthissequenceformedapatternwhichdemonstratedtheirbehaviourof
constructingarepresentationinavirtualworld(Maheretal.2005).Thisactivitypatternshowsthatthearchitects
focusedonrelationshipsinthe3Dworld.Insummary,the three architectpairsaverageresultsshowthattheratioof
theactionsinconstructinganexternalrepresentationaresimilarinsketchingenvironmentsbutquitedifferentinthe
3Dvirtualworld.

139

Figure15.6:BarChartsforOperationRelatedtoExternalRepresentations
DurationpercentagesofOperationsonexternalrepresentations
60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00%
create

erase

FTF

inspectbrief inspectreps

GBoard

modify

move

3DWorld

Note:Averageofthreepairsoverthethreedesignphases
Figure 15.7 shows the duration percentages of some design process actions of the three pairs separately over the
threedesignphases.Thegraphdemonstrateswhethertherearesignificantpercentagedifferencesbetweenthepairs
inoccurrenceofthedifferentactioncodes.Thereisadropindurationofthedesignprocessactions(exceptforpair
1)overthethreedesignphases,FTFshowingthehighestpercentages.Forexample,thediagonalstripes(propose)
andtheverticalstripes(analysesolution)inbarchartsshowthatproposingadesignideaandanalysingaproposed
designsolutionishigherinFTFandGBsessions,comparedtothe3Dvirtualworldenvironment.Settingupgoals
during the 3D world session is highest for Pair 1 but not for the others. Thus, there is no common tendency in
occurrenceofdesignprocessactiontypes,becausethepercentageproportionsofthedesignactionsforeachpairis
quitedifferentinthesametypeofdesignenvironment(Figure15.7).Eachpairsdesignprocesscouldbeinterpreted
asacasestudy,wherethereasonsforthedifferencesmightbeexploredthroughtheprofilesoftheparticipants,and
thedynamicsofthespecificcollaborativeactivity.
Figure15.7:BarChartsforDesignProcessActions
Durationpercentagesofdesignprocessactions
60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%
FTF

GB

3D

Pair1
propose

FTF

GB

Pair2
anprob

ansoln

3D

FTF

GB

3D

Pair3
evaluate

setupgoal

Note:Threepairsoverthethreedesignphases

140

Figure15.7showsthatthe designbehaviourofPair1isquitedifferentfromtheothertwopairs,wheretheyspenta
similaramountoftimeintotalfordesigningactions.However,theproportionsofdesignactionsarequitedifferent
inFTF,GroupBoardand3Dworldsessions.OneofthearchitectsinPair1hasbeenusingtheremotecollaboration
technologiesandthevirtualenvironmentforasignificantlylongerperiod.Thisacquaintancemighthaveimproved
theamountoftimetheyspentonthedesignprocess.
Asummary of ouranalysis ofthe workingmodescategoryisshowninFigure15.8.Whenthedesigners
wereworkingfacetoface,theywerealwaysengagedinmeetingmode,duringwhichtheywerecommunicating
and acting on the same aspect of the design. When the designers were working remotely, there was a small
percentageofthetimeduringwhichthey were workingontheirown,focusingondifferentaspectsofthedesign.
For the three architect pairs sessions analysed, the percentage of meeting working mode is highest for FTF and
remotesketchingsessions,whilethepercentageofindividualworkingmodeisnegligible.However,in3Dworld,
architectsworkedlessinmeetingmode(72%)andrelativelymoreinindividualmode(28%).Thisdifferencecould
beduetothenatureofthe3Dmodellingenvironment,whereparticipantshavetheopportunitytodotaskdivision
andworkseparately(individualmode)ondifferentaspects/partsofthedesigntobebuilt.Thisresultalsoshowsthat
the3Dvirtualworldcouldsupportteamstoworkcollaborativelybutatthesametimecouldsupportindividualsto
workseparatelyinthedifferentpart/aspectofthedesign.
Figure15.8:BarChartsforWorkingModeofDesigners
Workingmodedurationpercentages
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%

meeting
FTF

individual
GroupBoard

3DWorld

Note:Averageofthreepairsoverthreedesignphases

CONCLUSIONS
We have studied a small set of designers using high bandwidth environments while designing collaboratively,
allowingustomakecommentsonthesimilarities,ratherthanthesignificance,ofthedifferencesintheirbehaviours.
Our main goal in this study was to look at the impact of high bandwidth virtual environments on collaborative
design,andourfindingsfallintotwocategories:
1. theabilityofdesignerstocommunicateandcollaborateinremotevirtualenvironments
2. thedifferenceindesignersfocusandbehaviourindifferentkindsofvirtualenvironments.
Ourstudieshaveshownthatdesignersareabletoadapttodifferentenvironments,fromthetraditionalfacetoface
environmenttoavarietyofvirtualenvironments,andstillbeabletoeffectivelycommunicateandcollaborate.This
result is substantiated by the finding that the designers spent the largest percentage of their time focused on
communicating about the design task and on actions to produce an external representation in all environments
studied. That is, there was no significant difference in the designers overall collaborative behaviour in high
bandwidth virtual environments when compared to facetoface environments. Strategically, this is an important
finding because it implies that the introduction of high bandwidth virtual environments into the design process
preservestheessentialaspectsofdesigning,andallowsdesignerstocommunicateandcollaboratewhileinremote
locationswithouttheuseofexcessivefinancialandtimeresources.
Thesecondcategoryofimpacthastodowiththedifferencesinthevirtualenvironmentswestudied.These
differences are basically whether the designers were able to represent their design ideas/solutions in a 2D sketch
representationora3Dvirtualworldenvironment.Wefoundthatthemajordifferencewasthatthedesignersfocused
onmoreabstractrepresentationsofthedesignandhadmoreiterationsonsynthesisandanalysiswhileusinga2D
sketch,andthattheyfocusedmoreonthevisualanalysisofadesignconceptinthe3Dvirtualworld.Thestrategic
decisionsthatcanfollowfromtheseresultsare thatthe:

141

initialcollaborationaboutdesignconceptsismoreefficientlydonefacetoface
additionalcollaborationthatisneededforgeneratingmoredesignideasisbetterdoneinaverbalonlyor
sketchingvirtualenvironmentthanina3Dvirtualworld
additionalcollaborationtoclarifythedesignortocollaborativelydevelopadesignconceptasa3Dmodelis
bestdoneina3Dvirtualworld.

REFERENCES
Akin, O.1986. PsychologyofArchitecturalDesign.London:Pion.
Akin,O.andC.C.Lin.1995.Designprotocoldataandnoveldesigndecision. DesignStudies,16:221236.
Candy,L.,Z.Bilda,M.L.MaherandJ.S.Gero.2004.Evaluatingsoftwaresupportforvideodatacaptureand
analysisincollaborativedesignstudies. ProceedingsofQualIT04Conference. Brisbane,2426November.
Cross,N.,H.ChristiaansandK.Dorst.1996, AnalyzingDesignActivity. Chichester:JohnWileyandSons.
Dwarakanath,S.andL.Blessing.1996. Ingredientsofthedesignprocess:acomparisonbetweengroupworkand
individualwork. AnalysingDesign Activity,eds.N.Cross,H.ChristiaansandK.Dorst, 93116.Chichester:John
WileyandSons.
Gero,J.S.andT.M.McNeill.1998.Anapproachtotheanalysisofdesignprotocols.DesignStudies, 19:2161.
Kvan,T:2000.Collaborative design:whatisit? AutomationinConstruction,9(4):409415.
Maher,M.L.,Z.BildaandD.Marchant.2005.Comparingcollaborativedesignbehaviorinremotesketchingand3D
virtualworlds. ProceedingsofInternationalWorkshoponHumanBehaviourinDesigning.Melbourne,Australia,
15August.
Munkvold,B.2003. ImplementingCollaboration TechnologiesinIndustry:Caseexamplesandlessonslearned.
London:SpringerVerlag.
Stempfle,J.andP.BadkeSchaub.2002.Thinkingindesignteams:ananalysisofteamcommunication. Design
Studies, 23:473496.
Suwa,MandB.Tversky.1997.Whatdoarchitectsandstudentsperceiveintheirdesignsketches?aprotocol
analysis.Design Studies, 18(4):385403.
Suwa,M,T.PurcellandJ.S.Gero.1998.Macroscopicanalysisofdesignprocessesbasedonaschemeforcoding
designerscognitiveactions.Design Studies, 19(4):455483.

142

CHAPTER16

TowardsaLooselyWiredDesign
OptimisationTool
WeiPeng
JohnGero
INTRODUCTION
ThedevelopmentofCAD(ComputerAidedDesign)toolstosupportdesigningcanbetracedbackto1950swhen
the APT (Automatically Programmed Tool) was first launched at MIT. Computeraided design tools, which
emerged to assist designers in preparing drawings, specifications, and other designrelated elements, now extend
their dimensions to accommodate a vast variety of functionalities. Recently mathematical programming and
optimisation theory began to have a major impact on design. An optimal design can be obtained by solving an
optimisation problem. The design optimisation process involves a number of tasks that are both knowledge
intensive and errorprone. Most optimisation tools focus on gathering a range of mathematical programming
algorithmsandprovidingthemeansfortheusertosolvedesignproblems.Thesedesigntoolshaveinvariablybeen
built based on a paradigm that is founded on the notion that the tool is unchanged by its use (Gero 2003). The
knowledge and functions are encoded in what we call a hardwired manner during the development stage.
Designersrelyheavilyontheirexperiencetoobtainoptimaldesignsolutions.Thismanualprocessmayresultina
suboptimaldesignsolutionandhenceinefficientdesign.
To improve the efficacy of a design optimisation process, knowledgebased design optimisation systems
have been applied to provide knowledge support for tasks which require human expertise. These knowledge
intensive programs are hardcoded computer instructions that are not able to adapt to a dynamic design process.
Motivated by a desire to build knowledgeable and personalised tools, a new research streamhas emerged in the
field of user modelling and interface agents. This includes work on the Lumiere project at Microsoft Research
Centre(Horvitzetal.1998),PBEsystems(Lieberman2001)andinterfaceagents(Maes1994)atMIT.Although
thesenewtoolstakemoreproactiverolesinassistingtheuserinsomeapplicationdomains,suchsystemsareunable
toadequatelydealwithdynamicsituationsthatoccurindesigning.
Design is a situated process in which designers interact with their design environments in developing the
design (Gero 1998). Interaction plays a criticalrole in shaping our design optimisation practice in which similar
designoptimisationproblemsmaybesolvedindifferentways.Inordertoassistdesigninginthisdynamicprocess,
itisnecessarytoaddresstheinteractionsbetweenthetool,theproblemitisbeingusedonandtheuse,inthesense
that the tool is able to learn and adapt based on its experience to facilitate interactions. This chapter describes
learningmechanismsthatallowdesignoptimisationtoolstolearnfromtheiruse commencingasloosely wired
systems and hardwiring themselves as they are used. A prototyped adaptive design optimisation tool and its
potentialimpactsarebrieflypresented.

SITUATEDLEARNINGPARADIGM
Ourapproachisto use asituatedagenttoextendanexistingdesigntooltomodelinteractions,fromwhichtheagent
isabletolearnfromitsexperience.Viatheagencyprovided,thetoolisabletoembodylearningandtodevelop
adaptivebehaviourtoassistdesigning.Theparadigmonwhichthesystemdependstobuildnewconceptsfromits
interactionswithitsenvironmentisfoundedontheideasof situatedness.
Situatedness involves both the context and the observers experiences and the interactions between them.
Situatednessisalsoexplainedaswhereyouarewhenyoudowhatyoudomatters(Gero1998).Itstatesthatan
agentsknowledgedependsonthecontextinwhichitissituated.Situatednessisinseparable frominteractionsin
whichknowledgeisdynamicallyconstructedasweconceiveof whatishappeningtous,talkandmove(Clancey
1995).Fromthissituatedperspective,conceptlearningcanberegardedasthewayanagentordersitsexperiencein
time, which is proposed by Clancey (1999) as conceptual coordination. Conceptual coordination is the process
where our everyday experience is ordered by an ongoing understanding of what we are doing, where we areand
whatroleweareplayinginalargersocialenterprise(Clancey1999),Figure16.1.

143

Figure16.1:ConceptualCoordination

context:
C
whatImdoing
now

C2

Perceptual
Categorizatio
n2

C1

Perceptual
Categorizatio
n1

time
t
time
t

(Source:AdaptedfromClancey1999)
A concept, which is a higherorder categorisation of a sequence, is generally formed by holding active a
categorisationthatpreviously occurred(C1)andrelatingittoacurrentlyactive categorisationC2,Figure16.1.A
concept is a function of previously organised perceptual categories and what subsequently occurs. Figure 16.2
illustratesascenarioofsuchasituatedconceptlearningprocessinwhichsensorydataisaugmentedintoaGestalt
whole. Perceptual category C1 groups sensory sequence S1 S2 and activates the agent experience to obtain
similarorganisations.E1,astheagentsexperientialresponse,representstheagentshypothesesaboutwhatwould
happeninthe environment at a latertime.The agent constructsE1 with environmental changes (S3) into current
perceptual category C2. This construction involves a validation process in which environmental changes are
matchedwiththeagentshypothesis.Validmeansthattheenvironmentalchangesareconsistentwiththeagents
projectionofsuchchangesfromaprevioustimeframe.Thegroundingprocessthenreinforcesa validexperience.
Forinvalidexpectations,theagentupdatesitsperceptualcategory(C2)withthelatestenvironmentalchanges.This
incremental reflective process allows an agent to construct new concepts based on its previously conceptual
coordination heldintheexperience.
Figure16.2:SituatedConceptLearningProcesses
C3
E2
C2

Experience

S4
S3

E1

C1
timet

S2
S1

timet

timet
S:Sensory
Data

C:Perceptual
Categories

E:Previous
Conceptual
Coordination

ASITUATEDAGENTBASEDDESIGNOPTIMISATIONTOOL
How can a design optimisation tool be developed as a situated agent? A wrapper entails a set of constructs that
enable atool to act as a computationalrational agent, exhibiting autonomy independently of the functionalities it
embodies (Gero 2003). From sensor units that are embedded in the wrapper, the agent is able to gather a users
actionswhicharepartofadesignoptimisationprocess.Theseactionsincludekeystrokesofobjectivefunctions,the

144

usersselectionsofdesignoptimisationalgorithms,aswellasgradientsofobjectivefunctions,etc.Theselowlevel
sensorydataareusedbythesituatedagenttoformconcepts.

Thearchitectureofasituatedagentbaseddesignoptimisationtool
Figure16.3showsthegeneralarchitectureofasituatedagentbaseddesignoptimisationtool.Theuseraccessesthe
designtool(MatlabOptimizationToolbox) viaawrapper,whereasituatedagentsensestheeventsperformedby
thatuser.Thesituatedagentusesitsexperienceandconceptformationenginetogenerateaconcept,whichchanges
the tools behaviour. The user can also directly communicate with the agent to obtain additional information.
Interface agents, which consist here of Callback agent and Mscripting agent, enable both users and the situated
agentto operate on optimisationalgorithms in the MatlabOptimization Toolbox. Such a framework provides the
meansthatallowtheagenttoincrementallylearnnewdesignexperiences.
Figure16.3:ASituatedAgentBasedDesignOptimisationToolThatUsesMatlabasthe
OptimisationTool
Matlab
(Optimization
Toolbox)

Callback
Agent

Wrapper

User

(ToolWrapper
class)

Mscripting
Agent
InterfaceAgent

Sensor
Effector

Concept
Formation

Experience

SituatedAgent

Thesituatedagentsexperience
Theagentsexperienceisstructuredastwoparts,thoseoforganisedconceptualinstancesandthoseofunstructured
perceptual instances. Perceptual instance (PIns) refers to the experience that partially describes the instance of a
design optimisation problem. Conceptual instance (CIns) contains all necessary information of how a design
optimisationproblemis solved.Itis composedofanumberofperceptualinstances.Theconceptualinstancesare
organised as a constructive interactive activation and competition (CIAC) neural network, in which we extend a
basicIACnetwork(McClelland19811995)toaccommodatetheconceptlearningprocess.AnIAChastheability
to generalise across exemplars and to provide plausible default values for unknown variables (Dennis 1998).
Knowledgeisextractedfromthenetworkbyactivatingoneormoreofthenodesandthenallowingthenetworkto
reachequilibrium(Medler1998).Thisorganisedexperiencechangesintermsofweightadaptationandconstructive
learningasaresultofinteractions.Weightadaptationadjuststheweightsofeachexcitatoryconnectionsothatthose
nodes that fired together become more strongly connected. Constructive learning incorporates new conceptual
instancesorreconfiguresexistingconceptualinstances.

THEPROTOTYPESYSTEM
The implemented prototype system is illustrated in Figure 16.4. The tool wrapper interface allows designers to
defineproblems.Embeddedsensorsgatherausersactionsthatcompriseadesignoptimisationprocessandactivate
aperceptortocreatepercepts.

145

Figure16.4:APrototypeDesignOptimisationSystemthatLearnsbyitsUse

Rootnode

OB JF_Ty pe
A conceptuallabel
isobtained fr om

trav er singfr om the


r ootnodetoaleafnode

= L ine ar

= N onl ine ar

= N onli nea rLeas t = Q uad rati c


S quare s

= Li nearL eastS qua res

L inP rog ra m mi ng
(12.0)

N onli nP rogra m mi ng
(6. 0)

Li nLea stS qu ares


(3. 0/ 1. 0)

No nlin Leas tS qu ares


(1 .0 )

P rovide_Hes sian

Leafnodes r epres entdesigndecisionsforselectingoptim iz ers

= T RUE

Qua dP rogra m mi ng
(10.0/ 2. 0)

ActivationDiagram

= FAL SE

No nlin P rogram m in g
(3. 0)

ConceptualLabels

GroundedExperience

Activation

Explanationbased
Hypotheses
C

A
cues

GroundedExperience
ConstructiveLearning
GroundingbyWeightAdaptation

InitialExperience
InductiveLearning

Wrapper
ActivatingExistingExperience

BackwardchainingHypothesizing

A percept cues the agents initial experience. Activation diagrams output theneurons winningat the equilibrium
state,whichrepresenttheactivatedmemory.BasedontheresponsesfromaCIACneuralnet,theagentconstructs
initialconceptsanddisplaystheconstructedknowledgeinthetoolwrapper.Experientialgroundingistheprocess
that verifies the usefulness of a related experience in the current situation (Liew 2004). The grounding process
initiatesavalidationfunctionwhichmatchestheinitiallyconstructedconceptswithenvironmentalchanges.Weight
adaptation increases connection weights of the valid concept and grounds experience A to experience B. The
explanationbasedlearnercanbeinvolvedtoformanewconceptifnovalidconcepthasbeenactivated.Apercept
atruntimecanalsobedevelopedasanewconceptbyaconstructivelearningprocess.ExperienceCislearnedfrom
constructivelearningandtherelatedselfconceptuallabelingprocess.Conceptuallabelsaregeneralisedknowledge
thatobtainedfromapplyinganinductivelearnertotheagentsexperience.
Figure 16.5 shows the learning results and performance of applying a decision tree learner to the agents
experience.Eachnonleafnodestandsforatestonanattribute.Edgesofthedecisiontreeoutofnodesarevaluesof
attributes for that node. Leaf nodes are used to represent design decisions for selecting optimisers. Numbers in
parenthesis illustrate an observation for the class defined in the leaf node. For example, 3.0/1.0 describes that
thereare3positiveobservationsand1negative observationforthatclass.Aconceptuallabelcanbeobtainedby
traversingfromtherootnode toaleafnode.

146

Figure16.5:ConceptualLabelsLearnedfromanInductiveLearner

Rootnode

OBJF_Type
Aconceptuallabel
isobtainedby
traversingfromthe
rootnodetoaleafnode

=Linear

=Nonlinear

=NonlinearLeast =Quadratic
Squares

=LinearLeastSquares

LinProgramming
(12.0)

NonlinProgramming
(6.0)

LinLeastSquares
(3.0/1.0)

NonlinLeastSquares
(1.0)

Provide_Hessian

Leafnodesrepresentdesigndecisionsforselectingoptimizers

=TRUE

QuadProgramming
(10.0/2.0)

=FALSE

NonlinProgramming
(3.0)

AsindicatedinFigure16.5,theagenthas83.3%(10outof12)confidencethataquadraticprogrammingoptimiser
is suitable as an objective function is quadratic,and a Hessian function is provided. A strongassociation is thus
identifiedbetweenquadraticobjectivefunctionandHessianmatrix.

CONCLUSION
In summary, this chapter introduced learning approaches that allow a design optimisation tool to construct new
concepts from interactions. The agent develops its structure and behaviour specific to what itis confronted with.
Based ontheconceptualknowledgelearned,theagentcanfurtherimprovethebehaviourofthetool.Asaresult,
designers can integrate their expertise with the knowledge learned from the agent to develop design solutions. A
situated agent thus plays a potential role in supporting interactions in the design optimisation process. Future
researchwillfocusontraining andtesting theimplementedsystem.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ThisworkissupportedbyaCooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation(CRCCI)Scholarshipanda
University of Sydney Sesqui R and Dgrant. Theresearchis carried outat Key Centre of Design Computingand
Cognition,UniversityofSydney,Australia.

REFERENCES
Clancey,W.1995.Atutorialonsituatedlearning.2nd InternationalConferenceonComputersandEducation.
Taiwan.
Clancey,W.1999. ConceptualCoordination:Howthemindordersexperienceintime.NewJersey:Lawrence
ErlbaumAssociates.
Dennis,S.1998. TheInteractiveActivationandCompetitionNetwork:Howneuralnetworksprocessinformation.
http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~cogs2010/cmc/chapters/IAC/ (accessed27April2006).
Gero,J.1998.Towardsamodelofdesigningwhichincludesitssituatedness. InternationalWorkshop on Universal
Design Theory.Germany,1213May.
Gero,J.2003.Designtoolsassituatedagentsthatadapttotheiruse.21stInternationaleCAADEConference.
Austria,1720September.
Horvitz,E.,J.Breese,D.Heckerman,D.HovelandK.Rommelse.1998.TheLumiereProject:Bayesianuser
modelingforinferringthegoalsandneedsofsoftwareusers. 14thConferenceonUncertaintyinArtificial
Intelligence.Madison,Wis.,2426July.
Lieberman,H.2001.Introduction. YourWishisMyCommand:Programmingbyexample,ed.H.Lieberman.17.
SanFrancisco:MorganKaufmann.

147

Liew,P.2004. AConstructiveMemorySystemforSituatedDesign Agents:PhDthesis.Sydney:Universityof


Sydney.
Maes,P.1994.Agentsthatreduceworkandinformationoverload. CommunicationsoftheACM, 37:3140.
McClelland,J.1981.Retrievinggeneralandspecificinformationfromstoredknowledgeofspecifics.Proceedings
oftheThirdAnnualMeetingoftheCognitiveScienceSociety,Erlbaum,Hillsdale,NJ:170172.
McClelland,J.1995.Constructivememoryandmemorydistortion:aparalleldistributedprocessing approach. D.
Schacter,ed. MemoryDistortion:Howminds,brains,andsocietiesreconstructthepast,Massachusetts:Harvard
UniversityPress:6990.
Medler,D.1998.Abriefhistoryofconnectionism.NeuralComputingSurveys, 1(1):61101.

148

CHAPTER17

OntologyBasedDemandSupport
SystemsforUrbanDevelopment
HansSchevers
DajonVeldman
FannyBoulaire
RobinDrogemuller
INTRODUCTION
Urbandevelopmentprojects oftenhaveaprominentappearanceandcanhaveagreatimpactontheenvironment.
Thetotalimpactandthevalueappreciationcaninvolvemanystakeholders,includingtheclient.Unlikeseveralother
industries, making a prototype in the building and construction industry is normally not feasible. Clients and
stakeholdersinurbandevelopmentprojectscannotinspectthephysicalendresultbeforetheybuyit.Obviously
thisissignificantlydifferentfrombuyingaproductinashop,whichyoucansee,feelandevenbringbackwhenyou
havechangedyourmind. Theclientisneverthelessinvolvedinthedynamicprocessinwhichanurbandevelopment
evolvesfromideatofinalproduct.Mostclientsarenotfamiliarwiththisprocessandthereforemaynotbeawareof
theriskstheyrun.Changingideasinlaterphases,likechangingideasintheconstructionphase,canbeverycostly.
Inotherwords,theinitialdecisionsmayhavealargeimpactontheproject.Itisthereforeimportantthattheclient
andotherstakeholdersformulate/formalisetheirrequirementscorrectly.Learningmoreaboutthedesignissuesand
characteristicsbyinspectingdifferentdesignsolutions,forexample,canincreasetheclientsinsight(Zeisel1981).
Thisincreasedinsightmaycausechangesintherequirements.Demandsupportsystems(DSSs)canhelpclientsby
presenting design solutions using virtual reality, and by offering relevant feedback such as costs, energy usage,
distancesanddensity(Schevers2004).

DEMANDSUPPORTSYSTEMS
ThegoalofaDSSistosupportclientswithaccesstothebody ofconstructionknowledge(Schevers2004).With
thisaccess,clientscanincreasetheirinsightandbecomewellinformed.UsingaDSS,clientscanexperimentwith
their requirements and see the consequences. Basically, they are able to run whatif scenarios to increase their
understanding of their own requirements (what is valuable to the client), and enable them to explore the design
space(explorewhatispossible).Thesekindsof virtualprototypingcapabilitiesareperceivedasimportantdrivers
forconstructioninnovation(CRCCI2005).
Nowadays,manydifferentmodelsareavailablethatdealwithlanduse,transportation,sustainability,costs,
energyusage(demandandsupply),urbanwater(demandandsupply),noise,airflows,shading,AustralianModel
Code for Residential Development (AMCORD 1992), accessibility (public transport), (fire) safety, aesthetics,
constructionplanningetc.IntegratingDSSswiththesekindsofmodelswouldsupportclientsevenfurther.Clients
couldexperimentwithdifferentdesignsolutionsandgetmultidisciplinaryfeedbackusingtheexistingmodels.

Developingdemandsupportsystems
Obviously,developingaDSS thatcanhandlealldifferentsituationsandpredictallaspectsofanurbandevelopment
projectwilltakeanenormouseffort,andarguablysuchaprojectwouldhavetotackleseveral(technical)problems.
However, with the increase in the reusability of software components, building a specific software application
dedicatedtooneproject becomesmore feasible.Thismeansthatthemodellingapproachisdirectlyrelatedtothe
urbandevelopmentproject,andusestheinformationandknowledgethatisathandwithinthatproject.Buildinga
softwaretool foraspecificprojectis,ofcourse,easierthanagenericonethatneedstobeusefulforallprojects.
However, building such an application from scratch can be costly and time consuming. Therefore, a modelling
environmentisnecessarywhereprojectspecificmodelscanbedevelopedwhilereusinggenericcomponents.Such
anenvironmentenablesthecreationofacustommadeDSSbydevelopingprojectspecificpartsusingamodelling
environment,andbyalsoreusingexistingcomponentsthatareapplicabletoaspecificproject.Basically,itislike
havingalibrary ofcomponentsandmodelsthatcanbechangedandreused.NewprojectspecificDSSs wouldbe
composedofthesealreadyavailablecomponentsbyreusingbitsandpiecesofotherurbandevelopmentmodelsthat
alsoapplytotheproject.

149

Ontologydrivensoftware
To enable software components to be reused, interoperability is necessary between the components, which
nowadayscanbeachievedbyontologies.Adefinitionofanontologyisaconceptualisationofthingsinacomputer
interpretable format (Klein 2002). By relating machineinterpretable information to each other, inference support
canhelpconsistencyandcansupportfurtherinteroperability(Gruber1995).Forexample,considerthata,bandc
are informationpieces that arenecessary for different applicationstorun. When a=bandb=c, then you could
inferthata=c.Thismeansthatapieceofinformationcanalsobeusedforanotherapplication.Ontologiestryto
describeinformationinsuchawaythatthesekindsofinferencescanbemade.Anopensourcetoolthatcandevelop
these ontologies is Stanford Medical Informatics (2000) Protg tool. Using Protg, classes, properties and
relationshipsbetweentheclassescanbeconstructedusinggraphicaluserinterfaces(Figure17.1).Forinstancesof
theseclasses,aformisconstructedautomatically,whichenablesvaluestobesetforeachproperty,orrelationships,
to be set between instances (Knublauch 2003). As the ontology is machineinterpretable and standardised, many
other applications can read from this ontology. For example, the ontology can be extended with behaviour by
knowledgerepresentationlanguagesandinferenceengines(Sowa2000).Theinferenceenginesenablerulestobe
executedontheontology.Astherule,engineshavedifferentcharacteristicsbutallusethesameontology,andsoa
rich set of features is available for developers. Different ontologies with different rules can be created and
exchangedwitheachother.Duetothemachineinterpretability,consistencycheckscanbeperformedautomatically
ornewclasshierarchiescanbedetermined,andsoforth.
Decisiontableplugin
Using the Protgs software, a decision table pluginhas been developed that operates directly on the ontology.
DecisiontablescanbedefinedforeachclassintheontologydefinedinProtg.Adecisiontableaccommodatesthe
developmentofsimple if then rulesinatabularformat(Figure17.2).Eachdecisiontablehasaconditionalpart
andanactionpart.Intheconditionpart,theconditionsareformulated.Whenaninstanceoftheclassmeetsthese
conditions,theactionsspecifiedinthesamecolumnofthedecisiontablewillbecarriedout.Figure17.2showsthe
followingexample:iftheheightis30orlowerthanthetype,thepropertyissetto lowrise.
Rulebasedsystem
Agraphicalruleeditorhasbeenmadetofacilitatethecreationofrules.Itallowsthecreationoftheconditionpartof
an if<condition>then <action>rule. The difference withthe decision table is that the conditionalpartmay
containseveralinterrelatedclasses.Theruleenginewillsearchforinstancesthatcomplywiththespecifiedpattern.
Propertiesareconnectedtoascriptusinginputandoutputrelations(Figure17.3).Thescriptcontainscodethatmay
contain formulas using the input properties to calculate the output properties. Furthermore, the script also allows
linkstootherprogramssuchasspreadsheets.Inthisexample,thescriptcaninserttheinputvaluesintoaspreadsheet
andretrievetheoutputvalues.

150

Figure17.1:ScreenshotoftheProtgOntologyDevelopmentEnvironment

Class
hierarchy

Propertiesandrelations
oftheselectedclass
Superclassesof
theselectedclass

Figure17.2:DecisionTablePlugin

Class
hierarchy

Propertiesof
selectedclass

Condition
part

Decisiontablesrelevant
toselectedclass

Actionpart

151

Figure17.3:ScreenshotoftheRuleEditor

Class
hierarchy

Relation
Class

Output
relation

Object
representing
ascript

Property
Input
relation

Classesdefinedintheontologycanberelatedtoeachothertoformaconditionalpattern.Theruleenginewill
searchforthepatternandexecutethescript.
Buildingademandsupportsystem
Severalontologies,rulesandapplicationshavebeencreatedthatcanbeusefulinmosturbandevelopmentprojects,
suchasageometryontologyanda2Dviewer.The2Dviewerisabletovisualisethegeometriesthatarestoredin
classes,suchaspolygonsandpolylines.Theseclassescanbeextendedeasily.Forexample,ahouseorstreetclass
canbeextendedfromapolygonclass.Thismeansthatthe2Dviewercanbeusedtovisualisehousesandstreets.In
addition,thedecisiontableplugin,thegraphicalruleeditorandtheotherrulelanguagescanallbeusedatthesame
time. This means that rules and decision tables can be developed using the classes in the ontology. Figure 17.4
showstheconceptualarchitectureofthedemandsupportprototype.Thelibrarycontainsontologies,decisiontables,
rulesandapplicationsthatcanbereusedeasily.Newclassescanbedefinedusingtheontologyeditorandcanbe
relatedtotheexisting(library)ontologies.Thebehaviourofthesenewclassescanbedefinedusingdecisiontables
andrulebasedsystems.
Figure17.4:ConceptualArchitectureforOntologyDrivenClientSupport
Library

Ontology
editor

Basesystem
Decision
tables

Rulebased
system
Ontology

Waterdemand
prediction

Applicationx

Waterontology

Ontologyx
2Dviewer
Geometry
ontology

ThefirststepindevelopingacustomisedDSSistodefineanappropriateontology.Thismeansthatalltheclasses
andtheirrelationshipsrelevanttotheprojectneedtobedefined.Thesenewclassescanberelatedtoexistingclasses
andcaneveninherittheirbehaviour.Forexample,definingahouseclassbyextendingapolygonclassmeansthat
the object house can be visualised using the 2D viewer.The second step is to define the necessary behaviour by
developing, for example, decision tables, rules and scripts. New properties such as house type and costs can be
attachedtothehouseclass.Viaadecisiontable,thehousetypepropertycanberelatedto,forexample,thecostby
insertingsimplecostformulas.ThisapproachenablestheDSStobecustomisedveryquickly.Obviously,thenewly
defined objects (decision tables, rules, scripts etc.) and their behaviour can become available to other projects,
supplementingthelibrary.

152

Demandsupportsystemsforurbandevelopment
TwodifferentDSSs havebeendevelopedbycreatinganontologyanddefiningbehavioursusingrulesanddecision
tables. ThefirstDSS dealswithmasterplans.ThesecondDSSdealswithneighbourhooddesigns.
Case1:Masterplan
Theontology
TheontologyofamasterplanDSScontainstheclasses,suchasprecinct,thatcanbedecomposedintozonesthat
contain zone functions such as infrastructure, residential or park. Each function has a property defining the
percentage of the zone thatis used for that function.The idea is thatthe user can select azone and insert which
function it needs to have. Further specifications of each function have been made: for example, the residential
functionhasapropertyhousetype,whichhasvalues(largedetacheddwelling,semidetacheddwelling,townhouse
etc.).
Thebehaviours
Thebehavioursareofcoursebasedontheontology.Thedecisiontablepluginisusedtosetnumbervaluesforthe
functionsbasedonchoices.Forexample,whentheuserchangesthehousetypeinaresidentialfunctionfromalarge
detacheddwellingtoatownhouse,thedecisiontablewillreactandchangethevaluefortheaveragelotsizefora
house, theaverage water demand,the cost etc. Rules are created that calculatehow many of these houses can be
builtinthezone.Similarly,ruleshavebeendevelopedfortheotherfunctions(infrastructurefunction,parketc.).In
addition,therulebasedsystemisusedtoaggregatevaluesofallzones,givingasummaryofthetotalprecinct.
ThemasterplanDSS
UsingpolygoninformationfromaCADorGISfile,zonescanbedefined.Eachzonecontainsfunctionsthathave
severalpropertiesthatcanbechangedbytheuser.Eachchangewillhaveaneffectonthezoneand,afterthat,onthe
precinctthatiscomprisedofthezones.Thevalueofthepropertiesoftheprecinctisdisplayedincharts.Sowhen
theusermakesachangesomewhereinazoneorinazonefunction,thechartsareupdatedautomatically(Figure
17.5).
Case2:Neighbourhoodlevel
Theontology
The neighbourhood DSS deals with urban development on a more detailed level compared with the master plan
DSS. A precinct (reused from the master plan ontology) contains elements such asregions, streets, parks, water,
shopping malls, commercial regions and public transport buildings. An element is a subtype of shape, and
consequently canholdgeometry. Regionshavemanypropertiessuchashousetype,andreusethedecisiontables
from the previous example containing knowledge relating to house type with lot size. Other properties are rent
prices,waterdemand,amountofparkingspaces,distancesbetweenpublictransportandhouses,distancesbetween
housesandshoppingmalls,parksetc.

153

Figure17.5:ScreenshotofanUrbanMasterPlanDesign

2Dviewer
showing
allzones

Projecthierarchy:a
precinctcontainsseveral
zonesthatcontainzone
elements,i.e.residential,
infrastructureetc.

Chartsgiving
overviewof
theprecinct

Thebehaviours
Severaldecisiontablesrelatequalitativestatementswithrealfigures.Forexample,thedecisiontableonhousetypes
resultinginalotsizeisreused.Otherexamplesarestreettypeinformationthatisrelatedtotheamountofparking
spaces and road capacity. The rules are mainly used to aggregate information. For example, calculation of the
amountofbuildings,parkingspaces,roads,shoppingmalls,waterdemand,areausageetc.,attheprecinctlevelare
derivedfromalltheelements(regions,streetsetc.).
TheneighbourhoodDSS
Allthesiteelements,suchasshoppingmalls,streets,commercialregionsandresidentialregions,arevisualisedin
the2Dviewer(Figure17.6).Byselectinganindividualobjectorselectingmultipleobjects,propertiessuchashouse
typecanbechanged.Changingthehousetypewillinfluencetheamountofhouses,theamountofpeople,thewater
demand, the density etc. These changes are directly reflected in the charts that provide an overview of the total
precinct.

154

Figure17.6:ScreenshotoftheDemandSupportSystemattheNeighbourhoodLevel

Projecthierarchy:aprecinct
containsroads,regions,lots
andhouses,shopping
centresetc.

Amountofpeople

Areausage

Averagewater
usage

Totalwater
usage
Amountof
housetypes

Totaldwelling
costs

CONCLUSIONS
Twodifferentdemandsupportsystemshave beencreatedbydevelopingtwodifferentontologiesandbehaviours.
Themasterplanandtheneighbourhooddemandsupportsystemsdemonstratehowontologydrivenapplicationscan
be used, andhow they can be customised for projectspecific needs. The ontology approach allows modelling of
whatisimportantatthestagetheprojectisin.Fromatechnicalperspective,itisclearthattheontologyapproach
supportssomesoftwarereuse.Individualelementsoftheontologycanbereusedinsimilarsituations.Conceptually,
theontologiesbecomeasortoftoolkitthatcanbeusedtodevelopanewprojectspecificontology.Obviouslyitis
hopedthatthistoolkitwillexpandsothatcustombuiltDSSsbecomepossible.Asademandsupportsystemcanbe
builtuponsite,thenextstepistogetinvolvedinarealprojectandbuildacustomisedDSS.

REFERENCES
AustralianModelCodeforResidentialDevelopment(AMCORD).1992.GuidelinesforUrbanHousing.Canberra:
AGPS.
CRCforConstructionInnovation.2005. Construction2020:AvisionforAustraliaspropertyandconstruction
industry. http://www.constructioninnovation.info (accessed12April2006).
Gruber,T.1995,Towardsprinciplesforthedesignofontologiesusedforknowledgesharing. InternationalJournal
ofHumanandComputerStudies,43(5/6):907928.
Klein,M.2002. CombiningandRelatingOntologies:Ananalysisofproblemsandsolutions.Amsterdam:Vrije
Universiteit.
Knublauch,H.2003.AnAItoolfortherealworld:knowledgemodelingwithProtg.JavaWorld,20June:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw062003/jw0620protege.html?(accessed29May2006).
Schevers,H.2004. DemandSupportSystems:PhDthesis.Netherlands:DelftUniversityofTechnology.
Sowa,J.2000. KnowledgeRepresentations.California:Brooks/Cole PublishingCompany.
StanfordMedicalInformatics(SMI).2000. TheProtgProject http://protege.stanford.edu (accessedApril2006).
Zeisel,J.1981.InquirybyDesign.California:Cole PublishingCompany.

155

CHAPTER18

WayfindingSwarmCreaturesFinding
PathsIndoors
JiSooYoon
MaryLouMaher
INTRODUCTION
Wayfinding in either physical or virtual environments is not an easy task, especially in the virtual environments
wheremanyofthesensorialstimulidonotexist.However,manyeffortshavebeenmadetoimprovethistaskby
providing aids to the users. For physical outdoor environments, Global Positioning System (GPS)based systems
have been developed and finetuned to aid people to navigate successfully. These systems typically produce
interactivemapsshowingtheuserscurrentlocationandaroutetoadesiredlocation.Themapdynamicallyreroutes
thepatheitherwhentheuserdoesnotfollowtheplannedrouteorwhenthetargetlocationischangedbytheuser.
Similarnavigationaidsareavailableinmanyvirtualworldsallowingtheiruserstonavigatetotheirintendedtarget
locationsbyproducingmapsshowingtrailstothedesireddestinationorbyproducingteleportswhichtheuserscan
usetosimplytransportthemselveswithouttraversingtheworld.
Currently, however, no such systems exist for indoor navigation as the GPSbased systems cannot
successfully be used indoors. The field robotics (Yahja et al. 2000) discipline solves this particular problem by
installing robots with sensors to continually sense the proximity of any obstructions that may hinder movement
whilefollowingplannedpaths.Priortophysicallynavigatingintheseenvironments,therobotsaresuppliedwitha
digital representation of the environment in which the starting location of the robot as well as the destination
locationiswellidentified.Furtherprocessingonthisinformationisperformedtotransformitintoarepresentation
suitabletoapplyapathfindingalgorithm.TheA*searchalgorithmisonesuchalgorithmthatisprevalentinthe
literatureforfindingpaths.However,fortheenvironmentswherepartialornoinformationisgiven,dynamicA*(or
D*) algorithm is used instead (Yahja et al. 2000). Once the path is generated, the robot simply follows it while
monitoring the environment for any changes. Modifications to the path are made when the path is no longer
traversable.
On the other hand, many buildings, especially public buildings such as museums and shopping centres,
provideinformationkiosksintheirbuildingsinwhichthepathstoeveryconceivabledestinationareprecalculated
and stored. This information is then acquired by a visitor by going to these kiosks and choosing a desired
destination.Visitorstosuchpublicplacesmaynotjustbeinterestedingoingtotheirdestinations.Hencetheymay
simplyignoretherouteshowntothemordeviatefromtheroute,inwhichcasethepreplannedpathsarenolonger
relevant.
Whenfacedwithobstaclesandchangestotheplan,robotscanreroutetheplannedpathsinaccordancewith
anychangesbeingmadetotheplan.However,thesamecannotbesaidofthepeoplevisitingunfamiliarbuildings
followingthepathsshowntothembytheinformationkiosks.Hencethereisaneedforawayfindingaidtobejust
as adaptable to the changes as outdoor navigation aids, and be able to reroute the paths according to the current
locationoftheuser.
Ourwayfindingaidisbasedonaswarmalgorithmtoprovidesuchwayfindinginformationasdescribed.The
wayfindingaidconsistsofaninterfaceagentandswarmbasedpathformingcreatures.Theinterfaceagentactsasa
mediator between the user and swarm creatures. It identifies the users requested target and sends out swarm
creaturestolocateit.Theenvironmentinwhichtheswarmcreaturessearchisadigitalrepresentationofabuilding
plan.Thisisgeneratedtypically fromfloorplanstosimulatethebuildingdesigninavirtualenvironment.Swarm
creaturesaresentoutintothissimulatedenvironmenttosearchfortherequestedtarget,and,oncefound,returnto
theuserwhilstcreatingapath.Thischapterfocusesontheuseofswarmcreaturestosearchforandgenerateapath
toatargetinadynamicallychangingenvironment.Theuseofswarmintelligenceintheconstructionindustryisalso
discussed.

SWARMINTELLIGENCE
Bonabeauetal.(1999)defineswarmintelligenceasanyattempttodesignalgorithmsordistributedproblemsolving
devices inspired by the collective behaviour of social insect colonies and other animal societies. As individuals,
these insects do not possess enough intelligence to survive. However, as a colony of insects they find food and
sheltertosustaintheirexistence.Socialinsectshavethreetraitsthatmakethemsuccessful:flexibility,robustness,

156

andselforganisation.Acolonyisflexibleinthatitcanadapttothechangingenvironment.Itisrobustinthateven
whenindividualsfail,itcancontinueperformingitstasks.Eachindividualactsautonomouslywithoutintervention
fromacontrollingbody.
There are many swarm models being used for various purposes (Kennedy & Ebergart 2001). For this
research,theantforagingmodelofswarmischosentobeabaseswarmmodelforwayfindingindynamicvirtual
environments.

Antforagingmodel
Ants perform complex tasks even though each ant is governed by only simple behavioural rules. For example,
harvesterantsillustratethiscomplexbehaviourinlocatingfood.Theyfindtheshortestpathtofoodsourceswhile
prioritisingfoodsourcesdependingonthedistanceandtheease ofaccess.Differentspecies ofantscommunicate
differently when foraging. Some species communicate directly to each other while others use the environment as
theircommunicationmedium.Wefocusonthelatterformofcommunicationwhichistermed stigmergy.
Stigmergyallowseachanttomodifytheenvironmenttocommunicatetoothersaboutthelocationofafood
sourcewhenforaging.Antsusechemicaldroppings,calledpheromones,toindicatetrailsbetweenthenestandfood
sources. Pheromones are chemical compositions which evaporate over time. Consequently a trail once laid will
dissipatewhenitisnotreinforcedbyfurtherpheromonemarkings.Whenatrailisusedfrequently,pheromoneswill
accumulate leading to a higher concentration. The following diagrams illustrate theantforaging model based on
stigmergiccommunication.
Initially the ants randomly search for food (Figure 18.1). An ant following a shorter path arrives
before another ant that followed a longer path (Figure 18.2), and returns sooner to the nest while dropping
pheromonesalongthetrail(Figures18.3and18.4).Antsareattractedtoapathwithastrongscentofpheromones
(Figure18.5).Pheromonesaccumulateonapathwelltravelledbyantswhilepheromonesonalesstravelledpath
willdissipate(Figure18.6).
Figure18.1:AntsStartLookingforFood

Figure18.2:FoodLocated

(Source:AdaptedfromKrink2004,26)

(Source:AdaptedfromKrink2004,27)

Figure18.3:ReturnWhileDroppingPheromones
Faster

(Source:AdaptedfromKrink2004,28)

Figure18.4:ShorterPathLeadstoFood

(Source:AdaptedfromKrink2004,29)

157

Figure18.5:AntsAttractedtoStronger
PheromoneScent

(Source:AdaptedfromKrink2004,30)

Figure18.6:FollowingtheSamePathtoFood

(Source:AdaptedfromKrink2004,31)

The antforaging model outlined above can be expressed by a simplified set of rules like Resnicks algorithms
(Resnick1995).Figure18.7showsResnicksantforagingbehaviouralgorithm.
Figure18.7:Rule1.ResnicksAnt
1.Lookingforfood
*ifpheromonetrailisweakthenwander
*else,movetowardsincreasingconcentration
2.Acquiringfood
*ifatfoodthen:
a.pickitup
b.turnaround
c.startlayingpheromonetrail
3.Returningtonest
*depositpheromone
4.Depositingfood
*ifatnestthen:
a.depositfood
b.stoplayingpheromonetrail
c.turnaround
5.Repeatforever
(Source:AdaptedfromResnick1995)
Resnick'sant,asshowninFigure18.7,exhibitsasimilarpatternofbehaviourasrealants.Theantswanderaround
randomly until either food or a pheromone trail is found.These ants will continue to travel until they find food.
Whentheyreturntothenestwithfood,theydropitandthengobacktowherethefoodwasfound.

ADAPTIVEBEHAVIOUROFANTFORAGINGMODEL
Theantforagingmodelallowstheantstoadapttothechangingenvironment.Apathisestablished(Figure18.8)as
showninFigures18.1to18.6.Onthispath,anobjectisintroducedcausingtheantstostop(Figure18.9).Initially
theantstrytomovearoundtheobjectrandomly(Figure18.10).Onceagainwiththeuseofpheromones,ashorter
patharoundtheobjectwillbemoreconcentratedencouragingmoreantstofollowthatpath(Figure18.11).
Figure18.8:ShortestFoodPath

(Source:AdaptedfromDorigo&Gambardella
1997,73)

Figure18.9:IntroducinganObstacleonthePath

(Source:AdaptedfromDorigo&Gambardella
1997,73)

158

Figure18.10:MovingAroundtheObstacle

(Source:AdaptedfromDorigo&Gambardella
1997,73)

Figure18.11:ANewPathFormed

(Source:AdaptedfromDorigo&Gambardella
1997,73)

SWARMBASEDWAYFINDINGAID
Theantforagingbehaviourmodelhascharacteristicswhichareidealforawayfindingapplication(Yoon&Maher
2005).Itnotonlyallowsapathtobegeneratedbutalsoallowstheestablishedpathtochangewhentheenvironment
changes.Aseachindividualmoves,itsensesitsimmediateenvironmentandisabletobehaveinaccordancewith
any changes made. The fact that each individual only senses its local environment, complete information of the
environmentbecomesunnecessary.
ThewayfindingswarmrulesarepresentedinFigures18.12to18.14.Theserulesdefinehoweachindividual
creaturemakes the decisionabout a localmove. Therulesalso define what each creature senses andhow itacts.
These rules have been successfully implemented and simulated in a 2D environment. The implementation
demonstratesthattheswarmcreaturesareabletolocateaparticulartargetinavirtualenvironment.Apathisformed
between the target and home once the target is located. The generated path then can be adapted to subsequent
changesmadeintheenvironment.

Wayfindingswarmrules
Figure18.12:OverallBehaviourRule
Rulewayfinding_creature_behavior
repeat
Explore_World
untilTarget_located
Return_Home
(Source:AdaptedfromResnick1995)
TheoverallrulefortheswarmcreaturesisshowninFigure18.12.Figures18.13and18.14mentionattractantsand
repellents.Boththeattractantsandtherepellentsareelectronicpheromonesdroppedbytheswarmcreaturesasthey
move about in the world.The attractants are dropped by creatures returninghome oncetheyfind the target. The
wayfindingcreaturesalsodroprepellentstomarkvisitedspaceswhileexploring.Hencewhentheysenserepellents
in adjacent locations, they are encouraged to move to unexplored spaces. Because the repellents evaporate, the
creaturesareencouragedtoexplorethespacespreviouslyvisitedinduetime.
Figure18.13describeshowawayfindingcreatureexplorestheworldwhilelookingforthetarget.Untilthe
target is located, every time the creature moves, it checks to see if the required target is located in the adjacent
locations.Ifthetargetisfound,thecreaturesimplymoves tothetargetandcreatesateleportgate.Otherwisethe
creaturesensestheadjacentlocationsfortracesofpheromones.Ifattractantsarefound,itmovestothelocationwith
the highest concentration of attractants. If not,it drops arepellent inits current location prior to moving onto an
emptyadjacentlocation.Theemptylocationmeansthatthelocationisfreeofothermovingcreatures,objects,and
repellentsofabovethresholdconcentration.

159

Figure18.13:ExploreWorldRule
RuleExplore_World
ifTargetfoundinadjacentlocations
SetTarget_locatedtotrue
MovetoTarget
else
ifattractantfoundinadjacentlocations
Movetolocationwithhighest
concentrationofattractant
else
Droprepellentincurrentlocation
Movetoemptyadjacentlocation
(Source:AdaptedfromResnick1995)
The wayfinding creatures follow Rule 4 (Figure 18.14) when returning home after locating the target. Prior to
relocation, the creature drops an attractant in the current location. It then senses whether home is found in the
adjacentlocations. If located, the creature moves to it then turns back againto explore the world. Otherwise, the
creaturemovestoanadjacentlocationclosertohomethanthecurrentlocation.Thisadjacentlocationmustnotbe
occupied by obstacles. If the location is occupied by an obstacle, the creature moves around the obstacle by
choosingsomeotheradjacentlocationtakingitclosertohomeeitherhorizontally orverticallycomparedwiththe
currentlocation.
Figure18.14:ReturnHomeRule
RuleReturn_Home
Dropattractantincurrentlocation
Repeat
ifHomefoundinadjacentlocations
MovetoHome
else
Movetoemptyadjacentlocation
closertoHome
untilHome
(Source:AdaptedfromResnick1995)

Dynamic2Denvironmentsimulation
Theswarmruleshavebeenimplementedandsimulatedina2Dworldtotestthevalidityofthealgorithm.Thesize
oftheworldusedinthesimulationsdoesnotproperlyreflectthesizeofacomplexindoorenvironmentforwhich
the creatures are being developed. However, theinitialresult indicates that the creatures are able to create atrail
establishingapathbetweenTargetandHome.Thesimulationalsoshowsthatthecreaturescanadaptastheworld
changes.Thisisshownasthetrailischangedaccordingtothechangesmadeintheworld.Thevarioussymbolsused
inthesimulationareidentifiedinFigure18.15.
Figure18.15:SymbolRepresentation

HomeandTargetarelocatedintheworld.ThecreatureshavetheknowledgeofthelocationofHomebutnotof the
locationofTarget.Hence thecreaturesbeginexploringfirst theimmediatevicinity.WhenthecreaturesfindTarget,
theyreturnwhiledroppingattractants,shownasgreysquaresinFigure18.16.Theseattractantsemergeasatrailto
whichthecreaturesinadjacentlocationsareattracted.They followthesametrailtilltheytoolocateTarget.They
return Home also depositing attractants, thus strengthening the trail. Other creatures which are not in adjacent
locationstothetrailareunaffectedbyit.

160

WhenTargetandHomechangetheirlocations,initiallythecreaturescontinueto followtheoldpathduetothehigh
concentration of the attractants thathave accumulated on it. At the end of the old path, the wayfinding creatures
randomly wander around due to therelocation ofTarget. This is shown in Figure 18.17 where a largenumber of
creaturesaregatheredaroundtheoldTargetlocation(bottomrighthandcornerofFigure18.17).Unabletolocate
Target in the vicinity of the old Target location, they eventually move away. The creatures reexplore the world
tryingtorelocate Target.Whenitisfound,anewtrailiscreated.The oldpathevaporatesintime asnewattractants
arenotdepositedonit.
Figure18.16:FormationofaTrain

Figure18.17:FindingaNewPath

Thesimulationshowsthatitispossibletodevelopawayfindingaidbasedonaswarmmodelthatcanreadilyadapt
to the environment. By having simple creatures exploring the world, the swarm tool generates wayfinding aids
whichadjusttochangingenvironments.

CONCLUSION
Inthischapter,wepresentedtheadaptedforagingalgorithmforawayfindingaidtobeusedinindoorenvironments.
Thewayfindingcreaturesareabletosearchforatargetinasimulated2DenvironmentandjustlikeD*algorithm
(Yahjaetal.2000)thecreaturescanreroutethepathlinkingHomeandTargetwhilecontinuouslymovingaboutthe
environmentwhilesensingtheimmediateproximities.
Thewayfindingcreaturescanbeusedintheconstructionindustryinavariety ofways.Thesecreaturescanbe
madetoexploreabuildingverifyingthataccessiblepathsexistbetweenanytwospaces.Theycanalsobemadeto
findpathsfromanylocationinabuildingtoanearestfireescape.Byallowingcreaturestomovemorelikepeople,
the creatures can then be used to simulate how people may behave in a complex building environment under
differentcircumstances.

REFERENCES
Bonabeau,E.,M.DorigoandG.Theraulaz.1999. SwarmIntelligence:Fromnaturaltoartificialsystems.London:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Kennedy,J.andR.Ebergart.2001.SwarmIntelligence.SanFrancisco:MorganKaufmannPublishers.
Resnick,M.1994. Turtles,Termites,andTrafficJams:Explorationsinmassivelyparallelmicroworlds.Cambridge:
MITPress.
Yahja,A.,S.Singh,S.andA.Stentz.2000.Anefficientonlinepathplannerforoutdoormobilerobots.Robotics
andAutonomousSystems,33(2/3):129143.
Yoon,J.andM.Maher.2005.Aswarmalgorithmforwayfindingindynamicvirtualworlds. ACMSymposiumon
VirtualRealitySoftwareandTechnology.Monterey,USA,79November.

161

Part5
PerformanceBasedBuilding

162

CHAPTER19

PerformanceBasedBuildingR&D
RoadmapTowardsEuropesVision2030
forConstruction
GregFoliente
INTRODUCTION
Performancebased building (PBB) is an approach to buildingrelated processes, products and services, that is
concernedpredominantlywiththerequiredoutcomes(theend)andnotwithhowtheseoutcomesareachieved(the
means). This is in contrast to the traditional prescriptive approach, which specifies the method or solution for
achievingtherequiredoutcomes.
Process requirements could include time, cost, profits, health and safety, and other process outcome
indicators. The attribute requirements for product which can be the whole building or any of its individual
componentswouldincludesafety,healthandamenity,maintainability,sustainability,etc.Servicerequirements
involverequirementstosupporttheusersorbusinessesofthebuiltfacilityduringtheoccupancystage(i.e.includes
allfacilitymanagementfunctions).TheconceptofPBBencompassesthewholeoflifeperformanceandvalueofa
builtfacility.
Performancebasedbuilding:
encouragesbetterunderstandingandcommunicationofclient/userrequirements,therebyreducingopportunities
fordisputesandproducingdelightedcustomers
allows the building practitioner considerable flexibility with regard to design solutions encouraging
innovationandprovidingtheopportunityforcostoptimisedsolutions
facilitatesinternationaltrade.
This chapter presents a brief overview of a global research and development (R&D) roadmap to establish a
comprehensiveapplicationoftheperformanceapproachinpracticeandmakeitoneofthekeyenablingprinciplesto
transition the building, construction and property industry into a clientfocused, knowledgebased and services
basedindustry,characterisedbysustainedinnovationandexcellence.Itcouldbearguedthatthistransitionwillbe
difficulttoachievewithoutembracingtheperformanceconcept.
AnR&Droadmapisneededtoassist:
researchers and research planning agencies in identifying topics of investigation that will make significant
contributionstoadvanceknowledgeandfacilitatepractice
practitionersandbuildingprofessionalsinbetterunderstandingthestateofdevelopmentandapplicationofthe
conceptandinsupportingpriorityR&Dareas
R&Dfundingagenciesindirectingorallocatingtheirresourceswisely.

FUTURECONSTRUCTION
There are a number of documents on medium to longterm vision for the building, construction and property
industry,forexample Evergen(Foliente & Boxhall2002)andConstruction2020inAustralia(Hampson& Brandon
2004), and the European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP)s 2030 vision (ECTP 2005). Other relevant
European references include the i2010 initiatives of the European Commission (EC), the European Union (EU)
policy objectivesofKnowledgeSociety by2010andSustainableUrbanDevelopment(SUD)by2030,theLisbon
Agenda, andtheThematicStrategyforUrbanDevelopments(TSUE).
ButsincethePerformanceBasedBuilding(PeBBu)NetworkwasfundedbytheEC,andtheECTPhaswide
stakeholderengagementinEuropeandrepresentsdiverseregionsandeconomies,itwaschosenastheprimarybasis
forPBB Vision2030.
Then, considering industry and market drivers, science and technology trends, and the current states of
knowledgeandpractice,strategiesthatwilllinkwhatis(thestateoftheartandstateofpractice)towhatcould
be (the vision) were mapped. Key information sources include the PeBBu Domains, Tasks and Platforms
publications(seewww.pebbu.nl)(Becker2005Szigeti & Davis2005Folienteetal.1998Huovila2005Bakenset
al.2005Preiser& Vischer2005).
AnR&DRoadmapsupportingPBBvision2030wasdevelopedconsideringthreetimehorizons(afterBaghai
etal.2000):

163

Horizon2010(short term,incremental)
Horizon2020(medium term)
Horizon2030(long term,transformational).

Projectedimpactsinthehorizonplanningperiodswerealsoidentified(Folienteetal.2005a).

PBB2030VISIONANDSTRATEGICPATHWAYS
Based on ECTPs 2030 Vision document and the collective knowledge of those named earlier, we propose the
followingPBB visionstatement:
Performance concept underpins (that is, is used routinely and applied comprehensively within) a
construction and property industry that: (1) delivers value to present and future stakeholders (2)
delivers sustainableoutcomesand (3)istransformed intoa knowledge and servicesbased industry,
characterisedbyinnovationandexcellence.
TheabovemapswiththeECTPVisionareoutlinedinTable19.1
Table19.1:PBBVision:MapswithECTPVision

ECTP2030Vision
Meetingclientsrequirements
Sustainableconstruction
Transformedindustrysector

PBB2030Vision
Performanceconceptunderpinsindustrythat:
deliversvaluetopresentandfuturestakeholders
deliverssustainableoutcomes(environmental,social,
culturalandeconomic)
istransformedintoaknowledgeandservicesbased
industry,characterisedbyinnovationandexcellence
(Source:Folienteetal.2005b,14)

Althoughtheremaybeotherfactorsandpathwaysthatcouldhelpbringtheseoutcomes,throughtheperformance
approach,therearereactiveandproactivestrategies(Folienteetal.2005a).Examplesofreactivestrategiesinclude
those related to setting minimum performance requirements via regulations. Examples of proactive strategies
includeperformanceconceptapplicationsinbuildingprocurement,productionandmanagement(Gross1996Ang
et al. 2005 Bakens et al. 2005). Whether one follows a reactive or proactive strategy, both product and process
innovations arepossible. When the concept isappliedinasustainedmanner, over anumber of projects and over
time, the attitude and practice of innovation and excellence can become systemic, not limited only to oneoff
projectsbutembeddedinorganisationalculture,andbecomingamajorinfluencethroughouttheindustry.

R&Droadmap
General
A summary diagram of the PBBR&D roadmap is shown in Figure 19.1.The current state of theart and state of
practice(e.g. thisreport)isthestartingblock,andachievingthePBBvisionistheultimateobjective.Threeplanning
horizonslinkthesetwo.Thefirsthorizoniswhatweaimtoachievein2010(i.e.Horizon2010).Someofthekey
elements (or R&D needs) at Horizon 2010 are related to each other, and they feed into the elements of Horizon
2020.Likewise,someoftheelementsatHorizon2020arerelatedtoeachother,andtheyfeedintoHorizon2030,
whichinturndirectly contributetoachievingthePBB vision.ThebasicthrustisforPBBto beubiquitousinthe
industryby2030,nolongerseenasaspecialconceptormethodbutpartofnormalindustryactivitiesanatural
basisforhowthingsaredoneintheindustry.

164

Figure19.1:SummaryDiagramofR&DRoadmapinThreePlanningHorizonstoAchievethePBB
Vision

(Source:Folienteetal.2005b,20)
ItshouldbenotedthatFigure19.1includessomeaspectsofdemonstration/delivery(rightside)and,thus,couldbe
more appropriately called an RD&D (research, developmentand demonstration/delivery) roadmap(towards the
right). Having said this, however, not all demonstration/delivery needs are identified and included other
demonstration/deliveryneedshavebeendiscussedbyBecker(2005),Folienteetal.(1998)andBakensetal.(2005).
TheexpansionorextensionoftheroadmaptoRD&DaspresentedinFigure19.1isneededtoachievethestated
PBB vision.
Each element of the roadmap is briefly explained in the following sections. Further details are given in
Folienteetal.(2005a).

Horizon2010
Comprehensivedatabaseofindicators,evaluationtoolsandsolutions
Performanceindicators,requirementsandtargets/criteriaareattheheartoftheperformanceconcept.PBBcurrently
lacksauniversalclassificationoftheperformancepropertiesofbuildingwhere buildingcouldmeanafinished
product(physicalasset), ora processandservice(financialassetorkeycomponentofbusinessdelivery)orboth.
Abuildingcode(orbuildingregulatorydocument)specifiestheminimumsetoflegalrequirements,interms
of both specific attributes to be considered and level of performance to be targeted. There are many other
performance attributes and requirements/measures qualitative and quantitative which are not covered by
building regulations and need to be considered from planning/briefing to facility management during occupancy
stage (Szigeti & Davis 2005). The appropriate set of additional requirements could change from one project to
another. Thus, a comprehensive and readily accessible national and/or international database of performance
indicatorsandmeasuresthatallowsmultipleviewsofcontentsandsimplewaysofextractingsetsofindicatorsby
project type, lifecycle phase, stakeholder view, and so on will provide tremendous assistance in getting the PBB
conceptandframeworkconsideredandadoptedattheveryoutset.
In the basic PBB application process illustrated in Figure 19.2 over a facilitys lifecycle, setting of
performance requirements could be greatly facilitated by a comprehensive performance indicators database. This
processistypicallyiterative(sometimesinvolvinganumberofdesigncycles),althoughchangesusuallydecrease

165

dramatically in successive cycles. The figure also shows the Generic AEC Reference Model (GARM), also
popularlyknownastheHamburgerModel,whichshowstherelationshipbetweenfunctionalconcept(shownin
the figure as setting performance requirements) and the solution concept (shown in the figure as defining
technicalsolution)intheshapeofahamburger(afterGielingh1988).Anydesignand/ortechnicalsolutioncanbe
checked against target requirements (either in prediction mode, before construction, or asbuilt or inservice
evaluationmode,afterconstruction)thisisshowninthefigureasvalidatingtheconformity.
AsdemonstratedinFigure19.2,two relateddatabasesareneededtocomplementtheindicatorsdatabase:
1. Performance models and assessment methods (or conformity validation tools) database used for design
(seekingsolutionstomeettarget)and/orevaluation(assessingwhethersupplieddesignoractualbuiltsystem
meetthetargetperformance).
2. Proven or accepted solutions (or technical solutions) database aregistry of products/technologies, designs
and solutions that have been shown to meet specified requirements (fit for purpose) in a specific
project/applicationortradezone(i.e.contextspecificsuchastheConstructionProductsDirectiveinEurope).
All the databases should be universally available, as a reference and guide, and should be easily updated and
populatedbyanyonefromanywhereintheworld
Clientrequirementscapturemethodsandmanagement
IntheproactiveapplicationmodeofPBBforexample,appliedtopromotebestpracticeinbuildingproduction,
onaprojectbyproject(orprojectgroup)basisthereisaglaringneedforsystematicanduserfriendlymethods
of capturing or setting user needs and client requirements. This includes guidance on process methodology and
technique, but also specialpurpose tools such as EcoProp (Huovila et al. 2004), that facilitate the process of
capturing requirements. Development of methods for the capture and assessment should also include capture of
subjective building performance such as image expected, perception, and cultural value. Then assuming the
requirements were captured properly, these should then be managed (maintained, referenced, updated etc.)
throughoutthelifeofthefacility.
Figure19.2:PBBApplicationfromSettingRequirementstoAssessingDesignsorTechnical
SolutionsontheBasisofTargetRequirements

GARM
Settingrequirements
(maybemovingtarget)

SETTINGTHE
PERFORMANCE
REQUIREMENTS
VALIDATINGTHE
CONFORMITY

Brief

DEFININGTHE
TECHNICAL
SOLUTION

Initiation
SettingRequirements
Design
Build
Occupancy

Demolish/
Disposal

PROCESS

Explicit efforts areneeded to develop methods of bridging the language gap between thedemandside (clients,
owners, investors) and the supplyside (building and construction professionals and companies), to improve
existingbriefingtoolsand/ordevelopnewtoolstobettermatchdemandandsupply.
(Source:Folienteetal.2005b,22)

166

Figure19.3:PerformanceLanguageasanIntermediateBetweenUserLanguageandTechnical
Language

Performancelanguage
translation

Userlanguage
relatedtousersown
operations
WHYisitrequired
(mission,purpose)
WHATisrequired
(intendeduse)

Functional
needs

Technical
specifications

facilityorproductrelated
WHAT:propertiesrequiredto
facilitatetheintendeduse
requiresspecialist
knowledge
Performance
requirements

Performance
specifications

Technicallanguage
relatedtotechnicalsolutions
HOWcantherequirements
translation
bemet
understoodbysupplychainparticipants

Compare&Match

Performance
language
predictedand/ormeasured
propertiesofthesolutionsoffered

(Source:Folienteetal.2005b,23)
Nextgenerationinteroperabledesignandevaluationtools
TheavailabilityofappropriatebuildingperformancemodelsiscriticalintheimplementationofPBB.Theyreferto
computationalproceduresorcomputerprogramsthatcanbeusedin:
developingquantifiedperformancecriteria forbuildingcodesandstandards
designing abuildingorpartofabuildingtoatargetperformance
evaluating the whole building or any of its parts as built, at commissioning, or at any time during building
occupancy,e.g.aspartofaperformancerevieworaudit.
Figure 19.2 illustrated the use of these models in validating the conformity of designs and technical solutions to
targetrequirements.
Nearly all PBB models currently available, some of which can be found in the Compendium at
www.auspebbu.org,weredevelopedandaretypicallyusedinpracticeasstandalonetools,andanalysesperformed
in series (one tool at a time). A few have some level of integration and/or interoperability with other tools
(especially CAD software). But there are increasing numbers of new tools with greater integration and
interoperability such as LCADesign (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
2005)andtheprototypenD modelsfromSalfordUniversity(Leeetal.2005Aouadetal.2005).
The next generation of tools should allow interoperability with a larger number of tools that deal with
different aspects of performance, and better integration of functions, even when they have been independently
developed.Thismeansgreateruseofinteroperabilitystandardsandprotocols.Thisalsomeansthatthedesignand
delivery disciplines (including contractors and subcontractors, in some cases) will have to cooperate closely to
create an integrated facility design. Designers have to deal with systematic interrelations between different
performancespecifications,whichoftenrelatetodifferentfieldsofexpertise.Thus,applicationandbenefitsofthe
performancebasedapproachwillbemaximisedwithintegrateddesign,andwithparallel,interrelatedcontributions
fromalldesigndisciplinesinvolved.Thenextgenerationofperformancetoolsshouldmakethispossibleandeasier
todo.
ValuesandbenefitsassessmentandTBLreporting
Theneedforaccountingforthebenefitsoftheperformanceapproachinrealorpracticalprojectshasconsistently
been identified as a critical RD&D need (Foliente et al. 1998 Bakens et al. 2005 Foliente 2005 Becker 2005).
Unlesstheeconomicvalue/performanceandbenefitscanbearticulatedandsupportedbyreliabledata,keydecision
makers(investors,ownersanddevelopers)willnotexplicitlyadoptorpromotetheconcept.

167

The process of defining and delivering stakeholder values (as in CIBs Proactive Program on Revaluing
ConstructionBarrett2005)isanaturalareaofapplicationoftheperformanceconcept.Whetherthevalueisdirect
orindirect,tangibleorintangible,theyhavetobeaccountedfor,systematicallycollectedandassessed.Casestudies
maybeusedtovalidatethem.Thevaluenetworkingandvaluecreationprocessneedstobestudiedfromdifferent
stakeholders points of view. A detailed statement of the value and benefits of performancebased building for
differentstakeholdergroupshasnotbeenproduced.Thisrequiressomeseriouseffortandshouldbecomeapriority.
The increasing interest on, and in some cases demand in projects for, triplebottomline (TBL) reporting
(covering economic, environmental and social sustainability) are also positive drivers for incorporating the
performanceconceptinplanning,processing andevaluation/assessment.
Procurementindependentprocesses
Projectdeliveryandprocurementsystemsdeterminetherulesofengagementandtheworkrelationshipenvironment
between client and supply team,andamong members of the supply/delivery team (includingtheir subconsultants
and subcontractors) not just in a formal legal sense, but this also flows into informal aspects of the work
relationship.
Manyfactorsaffectthechoiceofprocurementmethod,butrecentactionresearchinAustralia,investigating
actualpublicandprivateprojects,hasshownthatrelationshipmanagement,regardlessofthetypeofcontractthat
wasadopted(traditional,partneringoralliancing),holdsthekeytopositiveoutcomes.Theunderlyingprinciplesof
relationshipmanagementapproachesareopen,frankcommunicationandajointapproachtoproblemsolving,and
theseprinciplescanbeappliedtoany procurementsystemandcontracttypes(Cheungetal.2004Rowlinsonetal.
2006).
New procurement independent processes, such as that cited above, need to be developed to facilitate and
promoteinnovationandexcellenceinasustainedway.
HumanresponsestudiesandLivingLabs
Although the performance concept can be applied whetherthe performance criterion is quantitative or qualitative
(Belleretal.2002),itsvaliditydependsontherigourofthesolutionevaluationprocess.Thismeansthatthemore
quantitativetheperformancecriterion, thebetter.
Figure19.4ashowsthetwosidestoaquantifiedperformancecriterion:anobjectiveparameter(left)andthe
acceptable limit (right). As indicatedin the figure,the proper establishment of performance criteria (or setting of
acceptablelimits)requiresextensivehumanresponsestudies.Unfortunately,thisremainsthebiggestgapinbuilding
scienceresearch(Folienteetal.1998).Figure19.4bshowstheareasinsocialsciencethatneedtobeconsidered,in
conjunctionwiththetraditionaltechnicalstudies.Thisneedsto bedoneformostperformanceattributes,evenfor
thosethatcurrentlyhavesuggestedorrequiredlimitsbasedonadhocdecisionsoftechnicalcommittees.
PBmodelcodes,standardsandtestingsystems
For practical and economic reasons, building codes will always have a mixture of performance and prescriptive
provisions(invaryingproportion).Butmodelbuildingcodesthathavefullperformancebasedprovisionsfromthe
highestlevel(goalor objective)downtoperformancerequirementsareneededbecausetheydemonstrateina
technicalsensewhatcanbedoneandhow(see,forexample,UnitedNations(UN)1996).Thisdoesnotonlyhelp
countries that would like to wholly adopt the performance approach in building regulations but any country or
regulatorybodythatwouldliketoadoptperformancerequirementsinparts,orbyindividualperformanceattributes
(suchas toaddto,orreplaceexistingpartsofitscurrentcode).

168

Figure19.4:SetupandConsiderationsinEstablishingQuantifiedPerformanceCriteria
(a)BasicElementsofPerformanceCriteria

PerformanceCriteria:
Objective
Parameter
Canbe
measured
and/or
calculated

> Acceptable
< Limit(s)
Basedonuserexpectation
Maybesubjective
Multiplelevelsbasedon
userschoiceofquality&
cost
Performanceband(CIB
Publication64,1982)

Clientcanchoosecriteria
beyondminimumreqts.

(b)TopicsofConsiderationinEstablishingAcceptableLimits

Technical
Sociological

Mechanics
Soliddynamics
Fluiddynamics
Chemistry
Engineering
Heat&masstransfer

Humanbehaviour
Psychology
Sociology
Physiology
Ergonomics
etc

Materialsscience
Environmentalscience
Buildingscience
Numericalcomputing
Probability&risk
etc

(Source:Folienteetal.2005,26)
Performancebased (PB) building codes need to be supported by a set of standards covering definitions of the
objectiveparameter(s)inperformancecriteria(oroftheperformanceindicator),andhowtheyaretobemeasured
and/or calculated,among others.To demonstratethata given product or design satisfies the performance criteria,
objectivemethodsofevaluationareneeded.
Itisobviousthatwithoutagreedperformanceevaluationtoolsandmethods,theperformanceconceptcannot
beimplementedproperlybecauseperformancecannotbeverified.
Other specific issues and needs are further identified and discussed in Interjurisdictional Regulatory
CollaborationCommittee(IRCC)(1998),Tubbs(2004) andMeachametal.(2005).

Horizon2020
OpenICTbasedPBBplatformandwholeoflifenDmodelling
The lack of an ICTbased PBB platform to facilitate integrated analysis of building performance hinders the
widespread application of the performance concept (Becker 1999 Porkka & Huovila 2005). Beyond mere data
interoperability between tools, that was aimed for in Horizon 2010, and integrated nD models for building
performanceanalysis(or,monolithictoolsthatcandomultipleperformanceanalyses(Leeetal.2005Aouadetal.
2005)),weenvisagehereawholeplatformthatallowsextensiveandseamlesslinkagesandinteroperabilityacross
independentlydevelopedtoolsanddatabasesthroughoutthefacilityslifecycle (Folienteetal.2005c).
Since performance assessment is relevant in all phases of the building process, it is important to build a
seamless chain of services from the identification of needs and initiation of a project through briefing, design,

169

product development, manufacturing and construction to commissioning and operation, maintenance demolition,
recyclinganddisposal(Figure19.5).Theinformationoncecreatedshouldnotbelostandreproduced,butenriched
andcompletedintheprocess.Itshouldbepossibletovalidatetheconformityoftherequired,designed,constructed
andmaintainedperformanceatanystageoftheprocess.Differenttools(includingpowerfulvisualisationtools)are
extremelyusefulincustomerinteractionandfeedback.Theperformancemodelsbeyond4D,nowreferredtoasnD
models(withmodulesanddatabasesthatcanbepluggedinandout, i.e. notmonolithic)canbedevelopedfromsuch
anopenICTbasedPBBplatform(Folienteetal.2005c).Ideally,everycellinthendimensionalmatrixinFigure
19.6wouldbepopulatedwithperformancecriteriaandmethod(s)ofevaluation.
Figure19.5:InteractionsofDatabasesandToolstobeCapturedinanOpenICTbasedPlatform
forPerformanceBasedDesignandEvaluationThroughtheLifeoftheFacility
Performanceindicators&requirements/criteriadatabase
Performancerequirementsestablishment/settingtools
Performancerequirementsprioritizationtools
Specifying
target/required
performance
performance

Process/performancemodels/tools

Ai Bi

Initiation Definition

Design

Ci
Build

Zi

Occupancy

Demolish/Reuse

PROCESS

(Source:Folienteetal.2005b,27)
Figure19.6:DimensionsinnDModelsforBuildingandConstruction

e) 4D

es
s
e
pr
oc

Building

Li
fe

Buildingsystem
Subsystem

Performance
evaluationor
validationpoint

cy
cl

3D

m
(ti

Product
(space) Buildingblock

SETTINGTHE
PERFORMANCE
REQUIREMENTS
VALIDATINGTHE
CONFORMITY
DEFININGTHE
TECHNICAL
SOLUTION

Sustainability

Serviceability

Adaptability

Health&comfort

Safety

Performance

Component

5D

Note:Everycellinthematrixisapointtomatchrequirementsandtechnicalsolutions
(Source:Folienteetal.2005b,28)

170

Realtimebuildingperformance/healthmonitoringtechnologies
Performanceassessmentbydirectmeasurementsisthemostreliablewayofknowingactualinserviceperformance.
Ifthevalueofthefacilityisbasedorlinkedtoactualinserviceperformance,thereshouldbestrongmotivationto
know the actual performance, state or health of built facilities, regardless of what calculations and model
simulationssaidtheywouldbe.Manyfactorsgetinbetweendesignintentandinserviceperformanceoffacilities.
Building performance/health information is useful not only for diagnosis (to find out what to do when
somethingunexpectedhashappened)butalsoforprognosis(toplanwhattodobeforesomethingadversehappens
or to do somethingnow to prevent it fromhappening). Periodic assessment will be sufficient in many cases but,
where available, realtime monitoring could provide better opportunity to adjust and make corrective measures
soonertoimproveperformance,minimisingbusinessdisruptionsandotherfailurecosts.Newsensorsandvisual,
wirelessandmobiletechnologiesareexpectedtoofferopportunitiesforanewgenerationofservicesandinnovative
sustainable business models, especially in the operation, maintenance and refurbishment of buildings. Of special
interesttopropertyinvestors,owners,businessesandbuildingtenantsisthequalityofindoorenvironments(spatial,
functional, thermal, visual, acoustic,indoor air quality) that affect human comfort,healthand productivity. There
hasalsobeenincreasinginterestinsecurityandsafety,andenvironmentalimpactsduetoresourceuseandoverall
buildinguse(suchaselectricityandwater).
Forecastingfutureneedsandtechnologies
Theproducts,technologiesandprocessesinconstructionhavedevelopedoverhundredsandthousandsofyearsand
onlyslightchangesseempossibleinthefuture.ButlookingatHorizon2020fromasustainableknowledgesociety
perspective, and in an infotronics age, a number of systemic innovations, even disruptive innovations, can be
expectedtoseedaylightbythattime.Technology,innovationandbusinesstrendsinthepastfiveyearsalonepoint
tothisstrongpossibility.Atthesametime,thefuturecitizensoftheinformationsocietymayhavedifferentlifeand
workstylesthanweknownow,andthusdifferentneedsandrequirementsfromtheirbuiltenvironment.
A number of megatrends can be identified concerning emerging technologies, the maturity of intelligent
productsandsystems,andpotentialnewprocessesandservices.Atthesametime,someweaksignalscanalsobe
identified.Theymayeitherpassortransformintonewmegatrendsthataffectboththedemandfor,andthesupply
of, built facilities within the next decades. Thus, it is proposed that a systematic forecasting procedure on future
societychanges,peoplesneedsandtechnologiesbeestablishedinordertohelpboththeR&Dcommunityandthe
industry to adapt and develop efficient andproductive ways of meeting the building performance needs of future
clients. This would also, naturally, include to an increasing degree the need for knowledge and technologies to
transformthecurrentbuildingstocktomeetthebuildingperformancerequirementsofthefuture.
Valuepredictionandquantificationtools/methods
KeytostakeholderengagementandindustrywideadoptionofPBBisindustryknowingandenjoyingthebenefits
andvaluegainedfromPBB(Bakensetal.2005).Inthesamewayastheperformanceconceptisappliedinsetting
technicalperformancerequirementsandassessingtechnicalsolutions,itcanalsobe usedinsettingexpectedvalue
(using appropriate indicators) and then assessing whether this value has been realised, based on the delivered
productorservice.Thus,thefirstneedisestablishingabasicsetofindicatorsofvalue(consideringbotheconomic
andnoneconomicindicators).Sincevaluehasanumberofdimensionsdifferinginsignificanceaccordingtothe
perspectiveofthestakeholderintheproject,methodsofeliciting additional valueindicatorsfromclientsandproject
partnersalso needtobeestablished.Oneofthesemethodscanbeemployedona projectbyprojectbasis.
Then,asintechnicalperformanceevaluation,valuequantificationmodelsandevaluationmethodsneedtobe
developedandincludedinthedatabaseofperformancetools,andlinkedintotheopenICTbasedPBBplatform
describedearlier.
PBcodeswithmorequantifiedcriteria
Theneedforquantificationofasmanyperformancecriteriaaspossiblehasbeenstatedearlier, andfairlystronglyin
thisreport.AsaresultofHorizon2010,outputsofhumanresponsestudies,methodsandtechniquesofestablishing
quantified,riskbasedperformancecriteriafromhumanresponsestudieswouldhavealsobeendevelopedandsome
standardised.Thedesired2020outcomesarethat:
quantifiedcriteriainPBb codeshavebeenestablishedusingthesemethods(notonlyreplacingqualitative
criteriabutalsoquantitativecriteria thathavebeensetinan adhoc mannerbytechnicalcommittees)
multiplelevelsofperformancehavebeenestablishedallowingconsumerschoiceofriskorperformancelevel
vs.costbalancetheyarewillingtotake(allaboveminimumcoderequirements).

171

Technosocialstudiesandanalysis
Decisionmakingbecomesmorecomplexwhenthecontextmovesfromproduct/materialleveltowholebuildingto
whole site development or portfolio of buildings scale, and when the key variables increase. The availability of
technologybased decisionmaking tools alone is no longer sufficient to predict outcomes at higher levels of
complexity the influence of human decisions, behaviour andactions,andthe dynamicrelationships between and
amongactorsandphysicalsystemsneedtobeexplicitlytakenintoaccount.Thismeansthatperformancemodels
basedoncomplexsystemsscienceneedtobeemployedforbothscenarioplanningandevaluation.Thiswouldallow
practicalapplicationsoftheperformanceconceptbeyondbuildingsandintothewidercontextofdevelopment.
Textbookandpracticeguidelines
AlthoughbasicPBBrelatededucationandtrainingmaterialsshouldbeavailablesooner,by2020thereshouldbe
widespread availability of textbooks, handbooks, compendia of demonstration projects, case studies and best
practice, and guidelines on criteria, processes, performance models, evaluation and assessment, through print,
electronic,audio, and video media, andfrommultipleandeasilyaccessiblesources(includingondemand).

Horizon2030
IntegratednDmodelandvaluetoolsetforwholeoflifedeliveryandmanagementofbuiltassets
Elementsof Horizons2010and2020relevanttoanopenICTbasedPBBplatform,databases,interoperabletools
and nD models including value models and criteria should have converged by this time, changing AEC
practice and enhancing industry knowledge in the process. The briefing experience will be enhanced by nth
generationvisualisationandaugmentedrealitytechnologies,whereinitwouldbepossibletobefullyimmersedinto
spacesthathavenotbeenbuiltyet,augmentedbyphysicalsimulationofenvironmentoverspecifiedperiodsoftime
orthroughseasonalcyclesthatcanbesetbytheuser.
Technical solution options canalso be virtually built,again augmented by physical reality, and, if needed,
evaluatedinasimilarmannerbyownersandpotentialusersbeforetheyareactuallybuilt.Therewillbeverylittleor
nosurpriseinthefinalfinishedphysicalproductbecausethebriefingsimulationandthesolutiontrialevaluationsof
thebuildingarefairlyrealistic.
Further challenges in this area lie in developing models of the interfaces of individual buildings and
neighbourhoodsatacityscaleandincludinguncertaintyassessmentinperformancepredictionformaintenanceand
facilitymanagement purposes.
ThinandtransparentPBregulatorysystems
PBbuildingcodesare thininthattheirnormativecontentonlyincludestheobjectivesandquantifiedperformance
requirementswithmultiplelevelsofcriteria,nottheapprovedsolutionsordeemedtocomplyrequirements.They
arealsothinbecausetheexplanations/commentaryandlinkstorelatedstandardsanddatabases(oneofwhichkeeps
theapprovedsolutions)areaccessedthroughhyperlinks.
In addition, code requirements are linked into the ICTbased PBB platform. For example, tools for
establishing performance requirements would have seamless access to the latest code provisions, automatically
calledup,basedonkeyparametersoftheprojectidentifiedatthestart.
Knowledgeandservicesbasedindustrywithhighexpertiseandcontinuouslearning
Since tailored or costoptimised solutions are better achieved using holistic first principles models and tools,
industry professionals are expected to keep up with the latest developments of more sophisticated and realistic
models of performance. The regulatory system expects technical proficiency. They would also be expected to be
moreawareof,andsensitiveto,userandclientneeds theywouldbefocusedonvalueaddingthroughthewholelife
ofthefacility.Becauseoftheirhighlevelofknowledgeandprofessionalism,theiropinionsandservicesaresought
after.Thus,industryprofessionalsinvestincontinuingtechnicalandprofessionaleducation,qualityassuranceand
continuousimprovement.

CONCLUSIONS
AperformancebasedbuildingR&Droadmapispresentedthatleadstotherealisationoftheconstructionindustrys
longterm vision for itself, and in particular, of Europes ECTP Vision 2030. This would be a more distant
destination and a more difficult androugher journey if theperformance concept isnot embraced. In other words,
R&D investment in the performance approach is an investment into the future of the building, construction and
propertyindustryeverywhere,inhighperformingandsustainablebuiltenvironments,andinabetterqualityoflife
forusandourfuturegenerations.

172

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This chapter is based on a report submitted to the European Commission as part of the Thematic Network on
PerformanceBased Building (PeBBu) funded under the EU Fifth Framework program . Pekka Huovila (VTT
Finland),DikSpekkink(SpekkinkConsultancyandResearch,theNetherlands),GeorgeAng(GovernmentBuilding
Agency, the Netherlands) and Wim Bakens (CIB, the Netherlands) contributed to the report. These important
contributionsarereflectedinthischapterandaregratefullyacknowledged.

REFERENCES
Aouad,G.,A.LeeandS.Wu.2005.nD modelingforcollaborativeworking inconstruction. Architectural
EngineeringandDesign Management,1(1):3344.
Ang,G.,M.GroosmanandN.P.M.Scholten.2005.Dutchperformancebasedapproachtobuildingregulationsand
publicprocurement. BuildingResearch&Information,33(2):107119.
Baghai,M.,S.ColeyandD.White.2000. TheAlchemyofGrowth:Practicalinsightsforbuildingtheenduring
enterprise.NewYork:PerseusPublishing.
Bakens,W.,G.C. Foliente,andM. Jasuja.2005.Engagingthestakeholdersinperformancebasedbuilding:lessons
fromthePeBBunetwork. BuildingResearch&Information, 33(2):149158.
Barrett,P.2005. RevaluingConstruction:CIBresearchagenda:CIBinformationbulletin.Netherlands:CIB.
Becker,R.1999.Researchanddevelopmentneedsforbetterimplementationoftheperformanceconceptin
building. AutomationinConstruction,8(4):525532.
Becker,R.2005.PBB internationalstateoftheart:PeBBu:International SotA Report:Finalreport.Rotterdam.
Beller,D.,G.C. FolienteandB. Meacham.2002.Qualitativeversusquantitativeaspectsofperformancebased
regulations. 4thInternationalConferenceonPerformanceBasedCodesandFireSafetyDesign.Bethesda,
Maryland,1718September.
Cheung,F.Y.K.,S.Rowlinson,J.Spathonis,R.Sargent,T.Jones,M.C.JefferiesandG.Foliente.
2004. Organisationalstructure,culture and commitment:anAustraliapublicsectorcasestudy.ClientsDriving
InnovationInternationalConference.SurfersParadise,2527October.
CIB.1982. WorkingWiththePerformanceApproachtoBuilding:Reportofworkingcommission W60.Rotterdam:
InternationalCouncilforResearchandInnovationinBuildingandConstruction..
CommonwealthScientificandIndustrialResearchOrganisation.2005. CSIROMITBrochures:Technologies
LCAdesign. http://www.cmit.csiro.au/brochures/tech/lcadesign/ (accessed15May2006).
EuropeanConstructionTechnologyPlatform.2005.ChallengingandchangingEuropesbuiltenvironment:avision
forasustainableandcompetitiveconstructionsectorby2030.Paris:The EuropeanConstructionTechnology
Platform.
Foliente,G.C.2000.Developmentsinperformancebasedbuildingcodesandstandards.ForestProductsJournal,
50(7/8):1121.
Foliente,G.andP.Boxhall.2002. EvergenFeasibilityReport:CMITDoc02/273.Highett:CSIROManufacturing
andInfrastructure Technology.
Foliente,G.C.,R.H.Leicester,andL.Pham.1998.DevelopmentoftheCIBProactiveProgramonperformance
basedbuildingcodesandstandards.BCEDoc98/232.Highett:CSIROBuilding,ConstructionandEngineering.
Foliente,G.C.2005.Stakeholderengagementintheperformanceapproach:theAustralianandEuropean
performancebasedbuildingnetworks.ClientsDrivingConstructionInnovation:Mappingtheterrain,eds.K.
Brown,K.HampsonandP.Brandon.,113122.Brisbane:CRCforConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
Foliente,G.C.,P.Huovila,G.Ang,D.SpekkinkandW.Bakens.2005a. PerformanceBasedBuilding R&D
Roadmap.Rotterdam: InternationalCouncilforResearchandInnovationinBuildingandConstruction.
Foliente,G.C.,P.Huovila,G.Ang,D.SpekkinkandW.Baker.2005b. Performance BasedBuilding R&D
Roadmap:PeBBu finalreportEUR21988.Netherlands:CIBdf(PeBBu)Secretariat.
Foliente,G.C.,S.TuckerandP.Huovila.2005c.PerformancebasedframeworkandapplicationsfornD modelsin
buildingandconstruction.Performance Based Building,ed.P.Huovila.Helsinki:RIL.
Gielingh,W.F.1988.GeneralAECReferenceModel(GARM):ReportNo.IBBCBI88150. Netherlands:Delft
University.
Gross,J.G.1996.Developmentsintheapplicationoftheperformanceconceptinbuilding. 3rdCIBASTMISO
RILEMInternationalSymposium.Israel,912December.
Hampson,K.andP.Brandon.2004. Construction2020:AvisionforAustraliaspropertyandconstructionindustry.
Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation
Huovila,P. 2005. PerformanceBasedBuilding.Helsinki:RIL.
Huovila,P.,J.Leinonen,P.Paevere,J.PorkkaandG.Foliente.2004. Systematicperformancerequirements
managementofbuiltfacilities. ClientsDrivingConstructionInnovationInternationalConference.Surfers
Paradise,2527October.

173

InterJurisdictionalRegulatory CollaborationCommittee.1998. GuidelinesfortheIntroductionofPerformance


BasedBuilding Regulations:Discussionpaper.Canberra:TheInterjurisdictionalRegulatoryCollaboration
Committee.
Lee,A.,S.Wu,A.MarshallPonting,G.Aouad,R.Cooper,J.H.MTah,C.AbbottandP.S.Barrett.2005. nD
ModellingRoadmap:AvisionfornDenabledconstruction.Salford:UniversityofSalford.
Meacham,B.,R.Bowen,J.TrawandA.Moore.2005.Performancebasedbuildingregulation:currentsituationand
futureneeds. BuildingResearch&Information, 33(2):91106.
Porkka,JandP.Huovila.2005.Decisionsupporttoolkit(DST):asteptowardsanintegratedplatformfor
performancebasedbuilding(PBB).CombiningForces: Advancingfacilitiesmanagement andconstruction
throughinnovation. Helsinki,1316 June.
Preiser,W.F.E.andJ.C.Vischer.2005. AssessingBuildingPerformance.Oxford:ElsevierButterworthHeinemann.
Rowlinson,S.,F.Y.K.Cheung,R.SimonsandA.Rafferty.2006.Alliancing inAustralia:nolitigationcontractsa
tautology? JournalofProfessionalIssuesin Engineering Education and Practice(inpress).
Szigeti,F.andG.Davis.2005. PBB Conceptual Framework:Final report.Rotterdam:InternationalCouncilfor
ResearchandInnovationinBuildingandConstruction.
Tubbs,B.2004.PerformanceBasedBuilding Regulatory Systems:CIBTG37finalreport.Netherlands:
InternationalCouncilforResearchandInnovationinBuildingandConstruction.
UnitedNations.1996. ECECompendiumofModelProvisionsforBuildingRegulationsBuildings.NewYork:
EconomicCommissionforEurope,UnitedNations,NewYorkandGeneva.

174

CHAPTER20

PerformanceBasedProcurement
Practices
SelwynTucker
INTRODUCTION
A performancebased approach to procurement of buildings is the opposite end of the spectrum to prescriptive
methods with a continuum in between. While ithas been accepted thata prescriptive approach isnot always the
best,neithershoulditbeexpectedthataperformanceapproachwillalways be best.Determiningaframeworkfor
choosinganappropriateprocurementapproachhasbeenthesubjectoftheLegalandProcurementDomaingroupof
the PerformanceBased Building (PeBBu) network. The International Council for Research and Innovation in
BuildingandConstruction(CIB)hasinitiatedandcommissionedvariousinternationalprogramsandresearchand
developmentprojectsrelatedtoperformancebasedbuilding(PBB)andin2000establishedtheThematicNetwork
PeBBu PerformanceBased Building which was funded by the European Commission through a Network
subsidy as part of the fifth Framework Research Program. An Australian equivalent network (AusPeBBu) with
similar objectives was funded by the Department of Environment, Science and Technology and has worked in
collaborationwithPeBBu.
The results of the discussions and meetings of the PeBBu networks have shown that implementation of
performancebased approaches have differed widely between countries because of many factors which include
considering the drivers to PBB, documenting the limitations placed on innovation by professional indemnity
insurers,particularinsuranceproblems,tenderingrules,howvariousnationalinitiativestowardsvalueandtendering
restrictionsaffectPBB,issuesrelatingtotheborderlinebetween PBBandprescriptiveprocurement,hownational
andlegaljurisdictionsaffectPBB,nationalpracticesandprocedures,andtraining andeducationrequirementsacross
thedomain.

OBJECTIVESOFTHEPERFORMANCEBASEDBUILDING
NETWORKS
The objectives of the PeBBu Network arethe stimulation and proactive facilitation of international dissemination
andimplementationofPBBinbuildingandconstructionpracticeandthemaximisationofthecontributiontoPBB
bytheinternationalresearchanddevelopmentcommunity. ThisaimstorealisetheadvantagesofPBB,whichare
moreuserorientedandcosteffectivebuildings,promotionoftechnologicalinnovation,andenhancedinternational
trade.TheworkofDomain6onLegalandProcurementPractices(PeBBuThematicNetwork,Inc.2004)hasnot
primarilybeendrivenbyaconcern for implementationbutratherofaconcerntounderstandthecharacteristicsof
performancebasedprocurement.InthedomainoflegalandprocurementpracticesincountrieswithinthePeBBu
network,thespecificobjectiveswereto:
identifythedriversto PBB whichvaryfromcountrytocountry
reportonlimitationsoninnovation,theeffectonPBBofvalueandtenderingrestrictions,andtheeffectoflegal
andnationaljurisdictions
investigatehowinitiativestowardsvalue,andtenderingrestrictionsaffectPBBsuchasvalueformoney,best
value,mosteconomicallyadvantageoustender,andothernationalpracticesandprocedures
document the limitations placed on innovation by such practices as professional indemnity insurers, the
particularinsuranceproblemofafundinggap,andtenderingrules
investigatehownationalandlegaljurisdictionsaffectPBB
produceareviewofnationalpracticesandprocedures.
Thischapterreviewsinternationalpracticeinchoosingaprocurement methodwhichprovidesthebestoutcomefora
PBB approach, a value alignment process in PBB, and use of some case studies on successful procurement of
buildingstoillustrateadvantagesanddisadvantages.

175

PERFORMANCEBASEDBUILDING
The report from Denmark to PeBBu in Fenn et al. (2005, 71) showed considerable insights into evolving
procurement practicesandsummarisesthecurrentsituationverywell:
The changes of the buildingprocess are reflected in, andreflect changes in, the procurement of
buildings and constructions. Looking at the building process in a longer time perspective may
illuminatesome ofthechangesthathaveoccurredinthepastdecadesandthechallengesfacing
theprocurementofbuildings.Thebuildingprocesshasundergonesignificantchangesalongfour
lines:
Process: The conventional picture of the building process as a sequence of phases (brief,
designandconstruction)isbeingchallenged.Increasingly,avaluechainperspectiveisbeing
followedandappliedbyintroducingotherprocessesliketheclientsbusinessprocesses,the
planningprocess,operation,maintenanceand demolition.
Actors: New actors like facilities managers have entered the building process. Others have
had their roles redefined. Today, contractors or manufacturers often carry out much of the
detaileddesign.
Issues: A number of new issues like accessibility and sustainability have emerged or are
emergingasnewrequirements.
Products:Manufacturershaveconstantlyintroducedalong[and]widerangeofnewproducts.
Furthermore the Construction Products Directive is likely to impact on the quality and
availabilityofproducts.
Procurement of buildings and constructions is basically a complex task and an uncertain
endeavour for the client. There is an inherent and often large uncertainty linked to planning,
productionandoperationofbuildings.Contrarytomanyotherindustries,thecustomerisusually
notjustpurchasingorbuyinganendproductbutismoreorlessactivelyinvolvedindesigningthe
endproduct.Thisprocessofprocurement maybemoreorlessprescriptiveorperformancebased.
TheperformanceapproachinbuildingwasdefinedmanyyearsagobytheCIBWorkingCommissionW60(Gibson
1982,4):
Theperformanceapproachis,firstandforemost,thepracticeofthinkingandworkingintermsof
endsratherthanmeans.Itisconcernedwithwhatabuildingorbuildingproductisrequiredtodo,
andnotwithprescribinghowitistobeconstructed.
Performancebased building codes have been the subject of discussion on prerequisites to the viability of a PBB
codeandimplementationinmanyjurisdictions,includingdevelopingcountries,formanyyears(Nassau2000).The
DanishreportmakesitquiteclearthatPBB hasbeenslowtomakeanimpact:
It was expected that prescriptive specifications would largely be replaced byperformancebased
specificationswhenthenecessaryfundofscientificknowledgewasavailable(seeGibson1982).
Thus,performancebasedbuilding hasinmany respectsbeenassertedastobetheseventhwonder
to improve innovation, achieve good quality and reduce cost in building. But progress has not
beenasfastandpervasiveashopedfor.

DRIVERSTOPERFORMANCEBASEDBUILDING
Incentivesandtriggers
ThePeBBureport(Fennetal.2005,33)makessomecommentsontheassumptionsandexpectedresultsfromusing
aPBB approach:
The issue of incentives and barriers to performancebased building implementation implies that
performancebasedbuildingisperseamoreappropriateapproachthantheprescriptiveapproach
... The incentives and triggers for performancebased building are well documented but need
greater clarity and dissemination. For example the claim in PeBBu Newsletter Nr1/02 that
performancebasedbuildingisastrongstimulusforproductandprocessinnovationandenhances
consumerorientation, cost optimisation and trade possibilities in construction requires detailed
backupandanalysis.Theclaimsthatperformancebasedbuildingisthereforeexpectedtoreduce
totalconstructioncostsbyasmuchas25%mustsimilarlybedefendedandjustified.

176

Procurement methods in construction are often different in each country due to historical evolution of common
practice,accordingtothePeBBureport(Fennetal.2005,34):
The influence of governments on construction is important and goes some way to explaining
practiceandprocedure.Ineverycountrytheclientforalargepartoftheoutputoftheindustryis
government, ora semigovernment organisation (Hillebrandt 2000).Thisinfluence also affected
building legislation and regulation early measures to deal with planning and standards of
constructionwerebasedonaprescriptiveapproachwhereasingleorveryfewsolutionsareable
tosatisfy.
ThemajorinfluenceswhichdifferconsiderablyacrossthecountriesintheEuropeanUnionhavebeenidentifiedas:
jurisdiction,includingcivilcodeandcommonlaw
governmentinfluence
professionalinstitutionalstrength.
It is apparent that clients and, in particular, government clients who are such an important part of construction
demand, must be receptive to change. As an example the UK government recently confirmed its desire to move
away from lowestcost bidding in such initiatives as least cost doesnt necessarily mean best value, and Re
ThinkingConstruction.
ThePeBBureport(Fennetal.2005)notedtherehasbeenaconsiderableshifttotypesofprocurementwhere
all procurement activities are underthe control of a singlecoordinating authority (see Table 20.1)away from the
traditionalapproachinEnglish(notnecessarilytheUnitedKingdom)Construction,whichwasforentirelyseparate
design by, for example, an architect. Production was by a main contractor responsible only for the design of any
temporaryworksnecessarytocompletethedesignedpermanentworks.
Table20.1:TrendsinProcurement:byPercentageValueofallContracts(UK)
Procurementmethod
Percent
1984 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1998
Lumpsum
72
70
70
62
55
50
56
38
Measureandvalue
7
5
3
4
3
4
2
2
Costplus
4
3
5
1
0
0
1
<1
Designandbuild
5
8
12
11
15
36
30
41
Management
12
14
10
22
27
10
11
18
Totals
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

2001
40
3
<1
43
12
100

(Source:Fennetal.2005,34)

BARRIERS
Besidesthewellknownbarrierstoanykindofinnovationandchangeinthebuildingandconstructionindustrylike
thelowlevelofresearchanddevelopment investmentsandthesegregationandfragmentationofdesign,engineering
andconstruction,theDelphistudyandthenationalcasestudieshavehintedatsome ofthemorespecific barriers
relatedtoprocurement (Fennetal.2005).Thesebarriersinclude the:
uncertaintyaboutriskandliability,notleasttheissueofdutyofcareversusadutyofresult
suspicionofdesignersandotheradvisorsthattheapplicationof PBBwillfurtherundermineprofessionalstatus
wishofclientstoexerciseextensivecontroloftheendproduct
dominantpositionofconsultantsinthebuildingprocessinsomecountrieslikeUKandDenmark
administrative practices of municipalities requiring very detailed project description before granting various
approvalsinsomecountries
elaborateinvolvementoftheendusersrequiringspecificsolutions.
(Fennetal.2005)

LIMITATIONSTOINNOVATION
The input to the PeBBu project on procurement from many countries identified a wide range of procurement
systemsbutitwasthetopicoflimitationsoninnovation,amajorbenefitoftheperformancebasedapproach,which
drewmanycomments.Thefollowingsummarisesthemainresponses.

Technicalinnovation
Technicalinnovationwouldappeartooccurregardlessofwhethertheprocurementsystemwasperformancebased
ornot.TheIrishcontributionhighlightedtheuseofoffsiteconstructionwherethebuildingisconstructedoflarge

177

sections(includingelectrical,plumbingandheatingcomponents)underfactoryconditionsinalocationawayfrom
thesitewiththeresultthatthestandardofbuildingsisveryhighcomparedtotraditionalbuilding.Theconclusion
wasthattheconstructionindustryusesinnovationtoreacttocircumstancesastheyexistatapointintime,rather
than to bringabout a change in the performance of thebuilding orthe desire to create a competitive advantage
(Fennetal.2005,91).

Regulationsandtraditions
Whileregulationsandtraditionsshouldnotlimitinnovativeconcepts,Fennetal.s(2005,5152)Belgiumreport
suggestedthat:
Theoretically new concepts and technologies may allow further improvements and/or constitute
morecosteffective ways forachievingthesameimprovement.Traditionallythinkingandthe
factnottoknow whatyoucanexpectduringerectionoftheconstruction,whichdifficulties you
mayexpect,resultinhighercost,atleastinitiallyForpracticalreasons,itisnotpossiblethat
standardassessmentproceduresincludeallsuchnewconcepts.Therefore,alternativemethodsfor
assessingtheperformancesoftheseconceptsandtechnologiesmustbeavailable.Anassessment
methodshouldbeavailablewhichallowscorrectcomparisonofvariousinnovativesystemswitha
consistenttreatmentofthetechnologies.Theapplicationoftheprincipleofequivalence(asused
intheNetherlandsfortheEPN)asameasureforcorrectlyassessinginnovativeapproaches,must
becoveredbyalegalframeworkforproofofcompliance.
AninitiativefromtheCIBinanattempttoaddressthelackofinformationandimplementedbyAusPeBBuisthe
Compendiumofbuildingperformancemodelswhichis:
beingdevelopedasanonlinedatabaseofbuildingperformancemodelsortoolstofacilitatethe
useoftheperformanceapproachinbuildingandconstruction... Itisintendedasa onestopshop
for the building and construction industry worldwide, so that building professionals, product
manufacturers, building officials and researchers can find in one place all of the building
performancetoolsthatareneededtosupport,implementandfurtherdevelopperformancebased
building.
(Fennetal.2005,52)

Professionalindemnityinsurance
Since the practitioners in the building and construction industry have to insure their professional responsibility,
everyone looks for an assurance that a new design/material will perform adequately. This can limit the
innovativenessofthedesigners(architects),astheyusuallywouldprefertoworkwithwellknownproductsinstead
ofexperimentingwithnewtechnologies.TheEuropeantechnicalapprovalsgiveanassessmentofthefitnessforuse
for new products and systems and are more and more performancebased. So, when in the performancebased
approach,new materials andnew uses for traditional materials are encouraged,the technical approvals can often
give the answer. Professional indemnity insurance does not limit so much innovativeness of designers generally,
sincetherearethetechnicalapprovals.
CIB Commission W087 PostConstruction Liability and Insurance (Lavers 1999) has investigated the
issue of performancebased liability, and the concomitant liability and property insurance arrangements, which
are,insomemembersview,linkedtothewayoflookingupon producersdutyi.e.eitherasaDutyofresult
(meaning, obtaintheresulttheclientexpresses pluswhatthebuildingregulationsrequire)incontrasttothe Dutyof
care (meaning, do as well as any reasonably skilled designer/craftsman would do in your situation). Thus,
uncertaintyininterpretationcanaffectinsuranceissues.

Tenderingrulesandrequirements
Most public tendersarenot permitted to be let on otherthanalowest capital cost basis. Yet,inthe public sector
procurement,it is only thepublicprivate partnershipsthatarecommonlyperformancebased. Performancebased
regulationscanmakeitdifficulttoassesstheproposalsofthecontractorsandtocompareonewithanotheranditis
notalwaysclearwhatcanbeexpectedfromthecontractor.Anassessmentmethodshouldbeavailabletocorrectly
allow comparison between various innovative systems with a consistent treatment of the variety of technologies
encountered.Itisbelievedbysomethat:
For large constructions mostly the client initially selects tenderers based on capital cost only,
whileinnovationswhichdemonstratesignificantinusecostsavingsand/orotherimprovementsto
performance tend to get dropped to win on capital cost with the result that this tends to affect
performance aspects such as flexibility, productivity, reduction of environmental impact etc.
Afterwardsthecostisoftennotlowerquitethecontrary,theinnovationmaycauseahighercost
byanassuranceincertitude.

178

(Fennetal.2005, 52)

LESSONSLEARNED
Although Danish building projects are procured within a largely performancebased legislation, there are strong
elementsoftheprescriptiveapproachpresentinDanishbuildingprojectstoo,duetothewishofclientstoexercise
control of the endproduct through requiring very detailed project description for approvals, and the elaborate
involvementoftheendusers.Also,inmanyDanishbuildingprojects,theconsultantwillsetoutrelativelydetailed
descriptions of the endproduct, while the contractor will often be responsible for some of the detailed design,
constructionmethods,choiceofproductsandsoon.Thusevenalargelyperformancebaseddesignwillhavetobe
turned into a prescriptive designat somepointinthe project. Thus,the issue of prescriptive versus performance
basedisnotaneitherorissue,butratheracontinuumstretchingfromperformancebasedtoprescriptive building
(Figure20.1).Withinthiscontinuum,anegotiationspaceexistswhichcanbeexploitedbytheactorsofthebuilding
processtobemoreorlessperformancebased.
Figure20.1:NegotiationSpaceofParticipants
Fully
prescriptive

Fully
performance
based

Brief
Design
Construction
Operation
Demolition

(Source:Fennetal.2005,85)

RESEARCHPRIORITIES
OneoftheoutcomesofthePeBButasksgroupswastodeterminefutureresearchpriorities.TheDomain6(Legal
andProcurementPracticesinBuildingandConstruction)taskgroupidentifiedthreeareaswhereworkisrequiredto
clarifytheissueswhichhavearisenduringthecourseofthestudies(Fennetal.2005).Thethreeareas area:
detailedandcasebasedanalysisoftheprocesses ofinterpretation,negotiationandtranslationofrequirements
(whether performancebased or prescriptive) between the various actors and through the various phases of a
buildingproject
moresubstantialanalysisonthereasonsofclientsforprocuringindifferentways,usingbothinterestbasedand
resourcebasedapproachesinordertoaddressboththeissueofwillingnessandtheissueofabilityofclientsto
procureinnewways
betterunderstandingandcharacteristicsofthenegotiationspace(seeFigure20.1)availablefortheactorsinthe
building process to analyse and evaluate under which circumstances various procurement methods,
requirementsetc.aremostappropriate.

AUSTRALIANEXPERIENCE
Performancebasedcontractsrequiresettingofagreedbenchmarkstoidentifytherequiredoutcomesandaprocess
bywhichinnovationcanbeaccommodatedtothe benefitofboththeclientandthecontractor.Theformsofcontract
are almost invariably collaborative in nature, regardless of whether they are called managing contractor,
collaborativecontractoralliancecontracting.Theprojectstowhichtheyhavebeensuccessfullyappliedareusually
uniqueinsomeway,suchasa hospital,conventioncentreormuseum.
Recent examples of benchmark setting cover a range of topics which focus on quality, community,
environmentaland training issuesandinclude:
achievementofdefectfeecompletion
increasedcommunityawarenessoftheproject(inthepublicsector)
preferenceforESDfavourablematerialsthroughaprotocolforchoice

179

upperlimitstoenergyintensity(MJ/m2 perannum)
upperlimitstoinserviceCO2 emissions(tonne/m2 perannum)
upperlimitstoinservicewaterconsumption(kilolitres/m2 perannum)
lessthan50%ofdemolitionmaterials,byvolume,goingtolandfill
lessthan35%ofnontoxicconstructionwaste,byvolume,goingtolandfill
minimumtraining programsincluding100%attendanceofhealthandsafetyinductionsonsite.

Innovationandcontributiontodesignbytheparticipantsinconstructionhavealsoappearedinmanagingcontractor
conditions,forexample:
Themanagingcontractorandanyothermemberoftheprojectteammayproposetotheprincipal,
changestothedesignormaterialsoranyothermatterrelatingtotheworkswhichislikelytooffer
significant benefits (including longterm or repeated benefits) to the principal (Department of
AdministrativeandInformationServices2001).
Incentivepaymentshavealsobeenincludedinanattempttoachievehigherstandardbenchmarkswiththebenefits
beingsplitinpreviouslyagreedproportionsamongthepartiestotheconstruction.Thebasisofdeterminingwhatis
anoutstandingresultwhencomparedtoabusinessasusualresultandtheincentivepaymentsassociatedwithsuch
achievementsisamatterofnegotiationatthebeginningofaprojectbutdoesincludeachieving75%oftheagreed
outstandingresults.
MuchislearntfromparticipatinginPBB butrarelyarethelessonslearntreported,butthereareexceptions
(DepartmentofAdministrativeandInformationServices2001andHampsonetal.2001).Thecollaborative
approachseemstobethekey:
supportandcommitmenttoarelationshipcontractprocessneedstobeuniversalandclientsmustchampionit
sufficienttimemustbesetasidetoplanimplementationoftheprocurementapproachandtohaveitagreedand
establishedasearlyaspossible
fixeddeadlines[benchmarks]arepowerfuldriversforsuccessbutintroduceverysignificantrisks
arelationshipcontractapproachrequiressignificantinvestmentoftimeandcost
relationshipcontractingrequiresthesupportofthebuildingindustryasapositivesteptowardsamorevibrant,
mutuallysuccessfulandprofitableindustry.
While there are many examples of successfully implementing PBB for procurement, each project seems to start
almost atthe beginning eachtime. However,there is some progress in understanding what ishappening withthe
concept ofknowledge advantage and its application to the construction industry, as described by Walker et al.
(2004,3):
Product or service differentiation is based on quality of delivery, uniqueness of distribution
channelorotherdefiningcharacteristicsofthevaluepropositionthatidentifiesthedelivereras
providingadistinctiveofferingthatiseitheruniqueorsufficientlydifferentiatedfromtheherd.
Centralto this concept is the notionthat organisations (and indeed individuals) possess a set of
learned and practiced core competencies that are in their best interest to concentrate upon and
develop. These competencies provide a knowledge advantage. The main problem that each
organisation grapples with is to know what it knows and know how to successfully transfer
knowledge about its competencies within its boundaries. Managing knowledge is a highly
complexanddifficultthingtodobecausethemostvaluableknowledgeanorganisationhasaccess
toeitherresidesmainlyinpeoplesheadsorisembeddedwithorganisationalprocedures.

SUMMARY
TheLegalandProcurementPracticesdomaininthePeBButhematicnetworkhasprovidedinsightsintotheuse(and
nonuse)of performancebasedapproachesinbuildingandconstruction.Conclusionsinclude:
performancebasedapproachesinbuildingandconstructionhavebeenusedwidely
therearerolesforbothperformanceandprescriptivebasedapproachestosuitthecircumstances
incentives and triggers for performancebased building are a strong stimulus for innovation but the claimed
improvementsneedfurtherjustification
barrierstoimplementationofperformancebasedapproachesaresimilartothoseforanyinnovationandrange
fromuncertaintyinriskandliabilitytoadministrativeproceduresstillrequiringdetailedspecificationsbefore
approvaltoproceed
innovation is limited by the construction industry being reactive rather than proactive, lack of acceptable
assessment methods whichallow correct comparison of alternative systems in a constituentmanner, costs of
professional indemnity insurance due to uncertainties in implementing innovation and tendering rules still
focusingonlowestcapitalcosts.

180

The expected benefits of a performancebased approach to building are broad and somewhat illdefined in
quantitativeterms,asreportedinthefinalreportofDomain6of PeBBu(Fennetal.2005,4041):
As to a future perspective Domain 6 has been frustrated by the dearth [total lack] of empirical
data. The benefits, incentives and triggers for PBB [performancebased building] are well
documented but ina journalistic manner.Thus, PBB needs greater clarity andrigour. It is clear
thatPBBposesmanychallengesforlegalandprocurementpracticesinbuildingandconstruction
but because of the unstructured nature of the field [discipline] it is not clear how these can be
approached[overcome].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ThischapterhasdrawnheavilyonthecontentsofthePeBBuDomain6finalreport(Fennetal.2005).

REFERENCES
DepartmentofAdministrativeandInformationServices.2001.AdelaideConventionCentreextensions:the
collaborativecontractandlessonslearnt. SouthAustralia:DepartmentofAdministrativeandInformationServices.
Fenn,P.,K.Haugbolle,andT.Morse.2005.Legalandprocurement practices:PeBBuDomain6finalreport.
Rotterdam:CIBdf(PeBBu)Secretariat.
Gibson,E.J.1982. Working withthePerformanceApproachinBuilding:CIBreportpublication64.Rotterdam:
CIB.
Hampson,K.D.,R.J.Peters,D.H.T.Walker,S.Tucker,S.Mohamed,M.D.AmbroseandD.R.Johnston.2001. Case
StudyoftheActonPeninsulaDevelopment.Brisbane:QUT.
Hillebrandt,P.2000. EconomicTheoryandtheConstructionIndustry.Basingstoke:McMillan.
Lavers,A.1999. CaseStudiesinPostConstructionLiabilityandInsurance.London:E&FNSpon.
Nassau,P.2000.Performancebasedbuildingcodes:isthewholeworldreadyforthem? Fifth WorldOrganisationof
BuildingOfficialsCongress.Dubai,2629March.
PeBBuThematicNetwork,Inc.2004. PeBBu Domain6:Legalandprocurement practices.
http://www.pebbu.nl/maincomponents/scientificdomains/domain6/ (accessed16May2006).
Walker,D.H.,A.J.WilsonandG.Srikantahn.2004. TheKnowledgeAdvantage(KAdv)forUnleashingCreativity
andInnovationinConstructionIndustry2001004AIndustryBooklet.Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentrefor
ConstructionInnovation.

181

CHAPTER21

PerformanceBasedBuildingDesign
ProcessPeBBuDomainAgendaand
FutureDevelopmentNeeds
LamPham
PeterBoxhall
DikSpekkink
INTRODUCTION
The European PerformanceBased Building (PeBBu) Network, which operated from October 2001 to September
2005,incorporatedsixscientificdomains.ThisreportisconcernedwiththeachievementsandoutcomesofDomain
3DesignofBuildings.Thisdomainhadover40activemembers,buildingresearchersandpractitioners,from18
different countries. The leader of EU PeBBu Domain 3, andauthor of its finalreport, was Dik Spekkink of The
Netherlands.ThecoordinatorofthecorrespondingdomainoftheAustralianPerformanceBasedBuildingNetwork
(AusPeBBu)wasLamPham.
MuchofthediscussionamongDomain3members,andtheformulationofcontentforaDesignofBuildings
State of the Art Report, took place at a series of domainworkshops. These were held in Rotterdam (July 2002),
Budapest(2003),Manchester(January2004)andPorto(November2004).ThischapterisbasedontheDomain3
FinalReport.
TheconceptualframeworkforDomain3canbestbedescribedbythedefinitionof performancebaseddesign
(PBD)thatwasdevelopedintheproject:Aperformancebaseddesignisabuildingdesignthatisbasedonasetof
dedicated performance requirements and that can be evaluated on the basis of performance indicators. PBD is
aimed atunderstanding and satisfying the clients realneeds andleaves the design process open for creative and
innovative solutions. Domain 3 discussions were about the design process itself rather than about any particular
technicalissues.
This chapter specifically examines the discussion and progress made with respect to the four issues which
comprisedtheinitialDomain3 agendaandwhichrepresentedthemainfocusesofthe workshops:
translationofclientrequirementsintoperformancerequirements
classificationandformatfordescribingperformancerequirements
involvementoftheusersinthedesignprocess
assessingtheresultingdesign.
Attheendofeachsection,somecommentsfromtheAustralianperspectivearealsoincluded.

THEEUROPEANPERSPECTIVEONPERFORMANCEBASEDDESIGN
InEurope,designprofessionals(architectsandengineers)aregenerallynotveryawareofPBD. Inconsideringthe
practiceofPBDthatdoesexist,adistinctionshouldbemadebetweentwodifferentapproachestoPBD:
1. Designersandengineershavetomeetperformancebasedclientbriefsandbuildingregulations.
2. Theworkofdesignersisdefinedbyafunctionaldesignplusasetofperformancecriteria,ratherthanadesign
basedontechnicaldrawingsandspecifications(thetraditionalapproach).
Thefirstapproachtendstobe confinedtocountriesthathaveperformancebased buildingregulations.Applicants
for building permits have to prove that the designs comply with the regulations, which means that every design
professionalisinvolvedinPBDtosomeextent,consciouslyorunconsciously.
Thesecondapproachiscloselyrelatedtoperformancebasedprocurement.Upuntilnow,thisapproachhas
only been put into practice on a relatively small scale, mainly in some northern European countries. Mostly,
governmentbuildingagenciestaketheleadtheyorganisepilotprojectsand/orexperimentstosetanexamplefor
innovation in the building process. The general idea is that the demand side of the building process defines a

182

functional design and a set of performance requirements, allowing the supply side to choose the most suitable
technicalsolutionsmatchingtheserequirements, availabilityandcost.
Anotherdrawbackisthereluctanceorevenoppositionofdesignprofessionals.ManyofthemconsiderPBD
asafurtherdegradationoftheirpositionsandinterestsinthebuildingprocess.Ingeneralengineersandtechnical
designersaremoreusedtoworkingwithperformancerequirementsthanarearchitects.Themaindesignareaswhere
performancebaseddesignandprocurementisappliedareserviceengineering(acoustics,lightingconditions,indoor
climate,airquality,andsoon),energyconsumptionandmaintenance.

Australianperspective
Performancebased buildingregulationhasbeenoperatinginAustraliaforthepasttenyears.Mostactivitieshave
thereforetakentheapproach1above.Themostactiveandeffectiveuseofperformancebasedsolutionshasbeenin
thefiresafetyareawherepreviousregulationstendedtobeprescriptive.
Inotherapplications,thesituationissimilartoEurope.Themainapplicationusingthe approach2hasbeenin
thenonregulatedareaofenvironmentalsustainability.

TRANSLATIONOFCLIENTANDUSERNEEDSINTOASSESSABLE
PERFORMANCESPECIFICATIONS
Performancebased buildingis primarily concerned with whata building isrequired to do for the users and other
stakeholders.Thisincludesconsiderationoftheentiredesignlifeofthebuilding.Itisessentiallyaclientoriented
way of thinking and working. In order to be able to deliver good performance it is crucial for partners in the
buildingprocessto capture,understandanddefineuserandstakeholderneedsbeforetheystartthinkingaboutthe
solutions.Themainproblemhereisthatusersandclientsontheonesideandpartnersinthebuildingprocessonthe
otherspeakdifferentlanguages.Theyhavedifferentframesofreference.Onthedemandside,usersthinkinterms
of functional concepts, using user language related to the users own operations. On the supply side, building
partners tend to think in terms of solution concepts, using technical language. Because of these different
languagesandframesofreference,itisdifficulttomatchsupplyanddemandinpractice.
Mostexistingbriefingtoolstacklethislanguageprobleminsufficiently,whichisoneofthereasonsthatvery
often built facilities appear not to comply with the real user needs. The performance concept can bring about
considerable improvements, as this approach offers an intermediate language that makes it possible to match
demand and supply (Figure 21.1). Thus, existing briefing tools must be improved and/or new tools must be
developedusingperformancelanguageformatchingdemandandsupply.Asuserandstakeholderneedsmayvary
in time, tools for the management of user and stakeholder requirements are needed in all stages of a facilitys
lifecycle.
Figure21.1:PerformanceLanguageasanIntermediateBetweenUserLanguageand
TechnicalLanguage

Performancelanguage
translation

Userlanguage
relatedtousersown
operations
WHYisitrequired
(mission,purpose)
WHATisrequired
(intendeduse)

Functional
needs

Technical
specifications

facilityorproductrelated
WHAT:propertiesrequiredto
facilitatetheintendeduse
requiresspecialist
knowledge
Performance
requirements

Performance
specifications

Technicallanguage
relatedtotechnicalsolutions
HOWcantherequirements
translation
bemet
understoodbysupplychainparticipants

Compare&Match
Compare&Match

Performance
language
predictedand/ormeasured
propertiesofthesolutionsoffered

(Source:Folienteetal.2005,23)

183

Some interesting examples of methods for the matching of user needs to performance requirements and/or
specificationsarefoundintheNetherlands,CanadaandFinland.TheDutchGovernmentBuildingAgency(GBA)is
developingacomputeraidedinterviewtechniqueforusersofofficebuildings.Thequestionsareformulatedinuser
language.Forexample,usersarenotaskedwhattheairrefreshmentrateperhourshouldbeinacertainarea,but
theyareaskedtogiveanyreasonswhytheventilationofaroomshoulddeviatefromthestandardvalueofgood
ventilation.Dependentonthecombinationofanswersthataregiventopredefinedquestions(questiontree),the
computergeneratesasetofspecialistperformancerequirements.Itismoreorlessanexpertsystem,basedon15
yearsofexperiencewithperformancebasedbriefingandprocurement andassessmentofdesignsolutions.
Figure 21.2 shows the top of the question tree, where potential users are asked to indicate the relative
importance of different performance or quality issues. Some requirementsare very general, while others are very
detailed. Users are asked to indicate how important they consider different performance issues to be for their
organisationandprocesses.Whenstandardisselected,astandardperformancelevelisdeemedsufficientandthe
systemwillautomaticallygenerateacorrespondingsetofperformancerequirements.Whenmediumorhighis
selected,extraattentionmustbepaidtotheaspectsconcerned.Inthisway,theperformancebasedbriefisgradually
builtup,andtheuserdoesnothavetocometotermswithdifficultspecialistperformancelanguage.

184

Figure21.2:SampleSheetfromaBriefingSystemBeingDevelopedby
theDutchGovernmentBuildingAgency
Userneeds
Functionality

Importance
Standard Medium

High

Standard Medium

High

Standard Medium

High

Standard Medium

High

Standard Medium

High

Standard Medium

High

Spacerequirementsbuilding
Flexibility/adaptabilitybuildingandbuildinglayout
Relations/logistics
Communicationandtelematics

Comfort
Thermalcomfort
Airquality
Acousticalcomfort
Visualcomfort
Hygiene

Security/Safety
Safetywithcalamaties
Occupants'safety
Socialsafety
Operationalreliability
Antiburglarysafety
Safetyasregardstoharmfulinfluences
Architecture
Townplanning
Architecture
Interior

Environment
Sustainability
Energyconsumption
Materials
Waste
Soilpollution
Waterconsumption
Airpollution

Internalconstraints
Investmentcosts
Operationalcosts
Planning/deliverytime

In Canada,the International Centre for Facilities (ICF)has developed theST&M approach (serviceability tools
andmethods).Themethodcomprisesasetofstandardtoolsformeasuringinbroadtermswhatisneededandwhat
isprovideditcompareswhatfunctionalitytheoccupantgroupsrequireandhowwelltheassetssupportthoseneeds.

185

Scales are used, giving arange of standard levels, so thatstakeholders can choose what level is needed for each
aspect. For every aspect there are two scales. The first is a functionality requirement scale giving levels of
functionalityfrom0to9(demand).Thesecondisaserviceabilityscaleforassets,alsorangingfrom0to9(supply).
Eachpairofscalesiscalibrated.Therearescalesforsome 200aspectsinall.Thisisprobablythemostelaborate
andeasytouseexampleofhowperformancespecificationsfordesigncanbematchedwithuserrequirements(and
viceversa).TheST&MapproachwasstandardisedbyASTMandin1996wasincorporatedintoasetofAmerican
NationalStandards, andiscurrentlyalsoinanISOCommittee draft.
Inmany countries client briefs are usually solutionoriented. They often contain technical solutions, which
arehardforclientsandenduserstounderstand.ResearchbyVTTinFinlandshowsthatperformancebasedbriefs
turn out to be easier for endusers to understand, because they appeal more to the endusers own areas of
knowledgeandprocesses.Moreover,performancebasedrequirementsinbriefsgivedesignerspossibilitiestofully
exploittheirknowledge,accomplishingcreativeandflexiblesolutions.

Australianperspective
Australianclientanduserneedsaredifficulttoestablish.Thecommunityatlarge,rightly orwrongly,acceptsthe
minimum performance levels set by regulation asthe appropriate ones for all situationsandisnot inclined to set
higherlevels.Partofthereasonsisperhapsbecauseclientsandusershavelittleappreciationofwhatdifferentlevels
mightbe.
Regulators are faced with similar problems in setting the minimum acceptable performance level in
accordancewithcommunityexpectation.TheAustralianGovernmentProductivity Commission,initsNovember
2004 report on the Australian building regulatory system, found that community expectation is operationally
unhelpfulandunclearsincewhatthecommunityexpectsmaynot:
relatetowhatitiswillingtopay
bewellinformedaboutwherethegreatestrisksare
focusonthegreatestnetbenefits
beabasisforconsensusbecausestakeholdersmayhaveirreconcilabledifferences.
Thisdoesnotmeanthat communityexpectation isirrelevantorsecondarybutthattheapplicationoftheconceptis
problematic.

CLASSIFICATIONSANDFORMATSFORPERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATIONS
There is a large variety of classifications being used for arranging performance specifications in the briefing
process. Even on a national level (and sometimes even within one client organisation), several different
classificationmethodsareencountered.
Figure21.3showstheFinnishbuildingpropertyclassificationasusedintheEcoPropsystem.

186

Figure21.3:VTTEcoPropBuildingPropertyClassification
K Conformity

A Performance

K1
K1
K2
K3
K4

A1 Indoorconditions
A1.1 Indoorclimate
A1.2 Acoustics
A1.3 Illumination

Location
Sitecharacteristics
Transportation
Services
Impacton
immediate
surroundings

B Costandenvironmental
properties
B1 Lifecyclecosts
B1.1 Investmentcosts
B1.2 Servicecosts
B1.3 Maintenancecosts
B1.4 Disposalandvalue

C Buildingprocess

A2 Servicelife
A2.1 Servicelife
A2.2 Deteriorationrisks

C1
C2

Design
Siteoperations

Operation

D1
D2

Usability
Maintainablity

K2Spaces
K3Services

A3 Adaptability
A3.1Adaptabilityin
designanduse
A3.2Spacesystemsand
pathways

A4 Safety
A4.1 Structuralsafety
A4.2 Firesafety
A4.3 Safetyinuse
A4.4 Intrusionsafety
A4.5 Natural
catastrophes

B2 Environmentalpressure
B2.1 Landuse
B2.2 Embodiedenvironmental
pressure
B2.3 Recycling
B2.4 Environmentalpressurefrom
useofbuilding
B2.5 Environmentalpressure
becauseofusers

A5 Comfort
A6 Accessibility
A7 Usability

(Source:Spekkink2005,33)
Thisresembles,butisnotquitethesameas,theclassificationthatisusedintheDutchpublicationThematerials
fortheclientsbrief,issuedbytheDutchBuildingResearchInstitute(SBR)..
A completely different classification is used in the Canadian ST&M approach, stemming from the ASTM
StandardonWholeBuildingFunctionalityandServiceability(Integrated CentreforFacilities,Inc.2001).

Australianperspective
The situation is similar to that in Europe. There are no standardised classifications and formats for performance
specificationinAustralia.ThesetupoftheAustraliandesignindustryallowseachperformancearea,suchassafety,
indoor conditions, lifecycle costs etc., to operate independently. Within the regulatory domain, it has been
recognisedthattheperformancebasedapproachrequiresintegraldesignthatis,allperformancerequirements
have to be met. This isnotan easy task because some requirements orneeds may be in conflict for example,
safetyandsecurity,energyefficiencyandindoorairquality.

THEMANAGEMENTOFCLIENTANDUSERINVOLVEMENT
THROUGHOUTTHEDESIGNPROCESS
Theinvolvementofusersinthedesignprocessisverynew.Thebestexamplescomefromprojectdeveloperswho
haveprovisionforuserstofollowthedevelopmentprocessontheirprojectwebsites.Somedevelopersofferusers
the opportunity to provide input and choose from options during the development process, by means of such
websites.Theprojectdeveloperswho dooffertheseopportunities(andendusersmoreandmorewilldemandthem)
have learntthatthe processes need to be very transparentnot only for the clients, butalso for themselves and
theirprojectpartners.Ithastobeverycleartoallpartiesinvolvedwhendecisionsneedtobemade,whichdecisions
may bepostponedetc.,inordertopreventfrustrationoftheprocessandextracosts.Ingeneralwemay conclude
thatthebuildingindustryisnotaveryuseorientedindustryasyet.

187

Inseveralcountriesweseelargescaleprogramsaimedatstructuralchangesinthebuildingindustry.Examplesare
Rethinking Construction in the UK, Process and Systems Innovation in the Building Sector (PSIB) in the
Netherlands, theSARA program in Finlandand Project Hus in Denmark. One of the common goals of these
programs is to change construction into a more consumeroriented industry, where incentives for change and
innovation should come from clients. Further developmentof the performance concept can strongly contribute to
that goal, as performancebased building is useroriented by nature. The management of user involvement
throughouttheprocessisoneoftheaspectsthatneedstofurtherdevelopment.
Asearlyas1992theDutchBuildingResearchInstitute(SBR)issuedareportaboutanewsystemofbriefingthat
allowsclientstodevelopthebriefininteractionwiththedesign.Thisneedstobedoneinacontrolledprocess,in
whichbriefinganddesigningareparallel,butseparate,processes.
This principle has been taken over by the Royal Institute of Dutch Architects (BNA) and the Dutch
Association of Consulting Engineers (ONRI), who issued a common Standard task description (STD) for
designing buildings in 2004.This STD is basicallya breakdown of the design process into interrelated tasks per
phase for all disciplines involved (commissioning, architecture, building physics, interior design, structural
engineering,serviceengineering,landscapedesign,andprojectmanagement).Inthissystem,whichisintendedto
bethebasisintheNetherlandsforcontractsbetweenclientsontheonesideandarchitectsandconsultingengineers
ontheother,eachnewdesignphasestartswithanevaluation,updateandfurtherelaborationofthebrief.

Australianperspective
In Australia,interaction between clients/usersand designers tendsto only occur inthenonregulated areas of the
design, for reasons previously explained. The Australian building industry is currently developeroriented rather
than useroriented and little has been reported on the management of client and user involvement in the design
process.

ASSESSMENTMETHODSFORDESIGNRESULTS
Therearevariousreasonswhysomeperformancebasedrequirementsmaynotbemetinafinaldesign.Examples
are:cuttingcostsinsomephaseoftheproject,inabilitytofindsuitabledesignsolutionstofulfiltherequirements,
forgetting the original requirements due to several translations, and modifications in the course of the design
process.Toavoidthissituation,earlyandcontinuousverificationneedstotakeplaceinthedesignprocess(Anget
al.2001).Theuserhastobesurethatthedesiredperformancetargetswillbe fulfilled.Andifthisisnotpossible,the
userneedstoknowthisbeforehand.
Assessmentmethodsmayvaryfromsimplemeasuring(forexample,thenumberofsquaremetersprovided)
to standardised calculating (for example, the strength and stability of building structures or the energy loss) to
simulating certain aspects of the behaviour of the building inuse (for example, daylight penetration in different
seasons and under different weather conditions). In some EU member states, national building regulations are
becomingmoreandmoreperformancebased.OneoftheexamplesistheDutchNationalBuildingDecree,laying
outthetechnicalrequirementsforallbuildingworks,whichiscompletelyperformancebased.TheDutchNational
Building Decree often refers to national standards, where not only performance levels for building parts and
properties,butalsothecorrespondingassessmentmethods,aredefined.
AssessmentmethodsinEuropeanandnationalstandardsaremostlyaimedatthetestingofactualbuildingsor
building products. However, one of the main problems in performancebased design is how to predict the
performance of a building on the basis of a design. For many quality aspects the total building performance
depends on a complex interaction of many influences. On the one hand there are no validated, standardised
assessmentmethodsavailabletopredictthetotalbuildingperformance,butontheotherhandthisperformancewill,
toagreatextent,determinetheclientsperceptionofthequalitydelivered.Theonlywaytodoitisbysimulationof
thebuildingbehaviour,usingintegrateddatamodels.Practitionersatseveralinstitutesanduniversitiesaroundthe
worldarecurrentlyintheprocess ofdevelopingsimulationapplicationstofacilitatethis.Typically suchsoftware
uses one integrated data model to carry out a range of analyses, including, for example, energy performance,
lifecycleanalysis,thermalanalysis,costplanning,airflowanalysis,andlightingandoccupantsafety.Thesoftware
effectivelyenablesthedesignteamto testdrive thebuilding.

Australianperspective
ThemainissueintheAustraliancontextisthelackofquantifiable/verifiableperformancecriteria.TheProductivity
Commission(2004,xii)observedthatthisisamajorproblemwiththecurrentBuildingCode.Itrecommendedthat:
TheABCBshouldenhanceeffortstomaketheperformancebasedrequirementsintheBCAmore
effective. This should include providing measurable criteria to aid in judging compliance and
clarifyingtheassessmentprocesstobeused.

188

KNOWLEDGEGAPSANDFUTURERESEARCHPRIORITIES
Following the series of Domain workshops, the following main knowledge gaps and future research priorities
relatingto performancebaseddesignwereidentified:
standardised methods for measuring/assessing performance in different fields and in the respective design
stages(quantitativemeasurementandqualitativeassessment)
assessing the subjective, hardtomeasure performance like architecture, image expected and cultural
value
newfieldsandproblemsforwhichtheperformancebaseddesigncouldoffersolutions
structuredandsystematiseddataacquisitionasneeded forthedevelopmentofanalyticalmethodssuitablefor
bothquantitativeandqualitativedata
stateoftheart3Dand4Dmodellingsystemsandcomputersimulations
integrationofinformationtechnology intoperformancebasedbuilding
specificationofuserrequirementsintouniversallanguage
integrationofperformancebasedbuilding intoeducationprograms
illustrationofPBDthroughcasestudiesandbenchmarking
developmentofglobalusersatisfactionindexes
performanceassessmentofexistingbuildings.
The following needs relating to the development of new design tools and new design approaches to support
performancebaseddesignwerealsosuggested:
design tools for the implementation of standards in the fields of thermal and energy performance, indoor air
quality,structuralengineering,firesafety
methodologiesforoptimaldesignaccountingforriskand lifecycle cost
computeriseddesignplatformsforoverallperformanceintegratedCAD
methodologiesfortheevaluationofbuildingperformance
reorganisationoftheregulatorydesignapprovalprocess
specialdesignsolutions/featuresgearedtowardenergyconservation
performancebasedmethodologyforsustainablebuildingdesignandenvironmentalimpactassessment
implementationguidelinesforvariousbuildingoccupancies
integratedperformanceapproachinthedesignforfiresafety
optimisationofbuildingevacuationthroughcomputersimulation
useofrenewableenergysourcesandenergysystems
PBD of loadbearing structures and their optimisation integrated structural designapplying optimised design
methods.

CONCLUSION
FromtheEuropeanperspective,performancebaseddesign(PBD)isstillmainlyanissueinresearchandeducation.
Althoughtechnicaldesignershavebeenworkingwithperformancerequirementstoacertainextent,consciouslyor
unconsciously, the general practitioners appear to be hardly aware of it as a methodology. Performancebased
regulations have proven to be a key factor in the implementation of PBD as well as in the enhancement of the
awarenessofPBD.PBDstillhastoovercomesomemajorbarriersforitsfurtherdevelopmentandimplementation.
Theseincludethetraditionalculture ofthebuildingindustryandthesuspicionofmanydesignprofessionals,aswell
as more philosophical objections to PBD, such as the view that important quality aspects of buildings cannot be
adequatelytranslatedintoperformancespecifications.

REFERENCES
Ang,K.I.,D.A.WyattandM.Hermans.2001.Asystemicapproachtodefineclientexpectationsoftotal building
performanceduringthepredesignstage. CIBWorld Building Congress.Wellington,NewZealand,26April.
Productivity Commission.2004. ReformofBuildingRegulation:Researchreport.Canberra:Productivity
Commission.
Davis,G.andF.Szigeti.2000. ASTMStandardsonWholeBuildingFunctionalityandServiceability,2ndedn.USA:
AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials(ASTM).
Foliente,G.C.,P.Huovila,G.Ang,D.SpekkinkandW.Baker.2005b. PerformanceBasedBuilding R&D
Roadmap:PeBBu finalreportEUR21988.Netherlands:CIBdf(PeBBu)Secretariat.
Integrated CentreforFacilities,Inc.2001. TopicsoftheFunctionalityandServiceabilityScales(ST&M).
http://www.icfcebe.com/standards/astm_scales_list.pdf (accessed17May2006).

189

Integrated CentreforFacilities,Inc.2003. UsetheServiceabilityToolsandMethodsforCostEffectiveFacilitiesto


SupporttheMission. http://www.icfcebe.com/tools/stm_support_mission_03_04_25.pdf (accessed17May2006).
Spekkink,D.2005. PerformanceBasedDesign:BringingVitruviusuptodate:APeBBu Domain3report.
Rotterdam:CIBdf(PeBBu)Secretariat.

190

CHAPTER22

ProjectDiagnostics:
ACureforPoorlyPerforming
ConstructionProjects
DaniyalMian
AdrianMorey
INTRODUCTION
Thesadtruthisthatprojectsveryoftenfailandthereisnothingthatwehavebeenabletodoaboutthisdeteriorating
situation. In spite of wellknown research results and despite decades of individual and collective experience of
managingprojects,despitetherapidgrowthinmembershipofprojectmanagementprofessionalbodiesanddespite
an increase in the amount of project working in the industry, project results continue to disappoint stakeholders
(Davies2002).
Inordertoimprovethepotentialforaprojecttoachievetheoutcomesexpected,aninnovative,holisticand
integratedpackagehasbeendevelopedthatallowstheimmediateassessmentofcurrentprojecthealth,identifiesthe
root causes of the reasons why the project is not performing as expected and suggests a means of returning the
project to better health. The model evolved from a human healthcare model using symptoms to evaluate project
health, detailed investigation of key symptoms to diagnose causes of problems, and proposition of a remedy to
returntheprojecttogoodhealth.
Thischapterdiscussesthedevelopmentandoperationofthedifferentstagesofthissmartpackagewhichis
now being offered as a specialist consulting service. In the following sections we review the project success and
failurefactorsusedbyotherresearchersoverthepastdecade,followedbyestablishinghowweusedtheconceptof
project health to measure project success or failure. This is followed by a more detailed investigation of key
symptoms to diagnose causes of problems, and proposition of a remedy to returnthe project to good health.The
chapterendsby settingoutaroadmapforthenexttwelvemonths.

CHANGINGMEASURESOFPROJECTSUCCESSOVERTHEPAST
DECADE
Projectsuccessorfailuremeansdifferentthingstodifferentpeople.Eachstakeholderconsidersadifferentdefinition
ofsuccess or failure, which is consistent with their perception and interests inrelationto the project outcome. In
order to develop common measures that broadly represent the interests of all stakeholders, the subject of project
successorfailurehasbeenoneofthemainareasoffocusforanumberofresearchersoverthe pastdecade.
RubinandSeeling(1967)firstintroducedtheconceptofprojectsuccess/failures.Theirresearchwasbasedon
investigatingtheimpactofaprojectmanagersexperienceonaprojectssuccessorfailure.Avots(1967)extended
thisideabyconductingatheoreticalstudy.Thefindingsfromthestudyconcludedthatthewrongchoiceofproject
manager, unplanned project termination and unsupportive senior management were the main reasons for project
failure.
RussellandJaselskis(1992)andAbidaliandHarris(1995)developedpredictionmodelsthatwere focusedon
explainingfailurefactorsattheprojectlevel.Thesemodelsusedfinancialratiosderivedbystatisticalsearchthrough
anumberofplausiblefinancialindicators.MorerecentlyArditi(2000)reasonedthattheuseof financialratiosto
measure project failures may not be very reliable as they can only highlight symptoms and that these indicators
mightbemeasuredusingdatathathasbeencreatedbythemanagementtohidethepoorfinancialconditionofthe
organisation.ConcurrentresearchcarriedoutbyBelassietal.(1996)proposedthattime,costandqualitywerethe
basic criteria of project success. They are also discussed in articles on project success such as that of Skitmore
(1997)andShenharandLevy(1997).Atkinson(1999)andWesterveld(2002,412)referredtothesemeasuresasthe
goldentriangle.Baccarini's(1999)definitionofprojectsuccessincludesmeetingtime,costandqualityobjectives
andsatisfyingprojectstakeholders.Hedefinedproductandprocesssuccessasmeetingqualityoutputstandardsand
meetingtimeandbudgetobjectives,respectively.
Mian (2004) found themost commonly identified cost overrun issues inthe literature inthepast ten years
includedpoorestimating,inclementweatherandinsufficientanduntimelycashflow.Lesscommonissuesincluded
lackofcontractorprojecttypeexperienceandcontractorslackoffamiliaritywithlocalregulations.Issuessuchas

191

complexity of project and inflation were found occasionally. Similarly, time overrun measures most commonly
encountered included communication gap between project parties, inaccurate prediction of production output,
inclement weather, design changes, safety issues, industrial action, and skill shortages. Issues reviewed less
frequently included lack of supply of plant, equipment and materials and site storage problems. Issues that were
occasionallycoveredincludedlocationalprojectrestrictions(siteaccess)andproductionofdesigndrawings.
Mian (2004) also found out that in this time period the most commonly found quality measures were
reluctancetoadoptqualitysystems,inadequatequalityassuranceandcontrolsystems,lackofproductidentification
andtraceability,lackofinternalandexternalaudits,infrequentinspectionsandinsufficienttraining.Lesscommonly
foundfactorsincludedlackofcontrolofinspection/measuring/testingequipment,lackofcontrolofnonconforming
productandpoordatacontrol.Qualitymeasuresleastcommonlyfoundintheliteratureincludedlackofemployee
conscientiousnessandlackofencouragingspecialisationinconstructionwork.Thisindicatedthatthemajority of
clientsand stakeholdersnow took the issue of quality conformance more seriously and believed that the issue of
resuscitatingfailingprojectsduetopoorqualityofdocumentationorworkmanshipisvitallyimportanttoavibrant,
healthyindustry.Theoldadversarialattitudes,whichwereingrainedaspartofpoorproject outcomes foratleast
someofthekeyparticipants,wereseenasbeingpass.
However,theissuesofprojectsuccessturnedouttobefarmoresubtlethanthis.Perceivingprojectsuccess
simplyasthecompliancewithtime,costandqualitycanbequalifiedasamorenarrowviewinthisrespect.Pinto
andSlevin(1987)andMorrisandHough(1987)foundoutthatsoftmeasuressuchascommunication,environment
events, community involvement, team member conflict, lack of negotiation and arbitration, legal disputes,
managementinabilitytounderstandsitepeople,andstakeholdersvaluewerelikelycandidatesformeasuringproject
successorfailuresandwarrantedtheneedofincludingthemalongcost,time,qualityandsafety.
Van Aken (1996) cited in Westerveld (2003) even defined project success or failure as the satisfaction or
dissatisfaction of all stakeholders. Davies (2002) noted that in 1993 a group of 15 European private sector
companiesformedthefirstprojectmanagementnetworktoidentifyprojectmanagementbestpracticeandtolearn
togetherhowtoimproveprojectperformance.Sincethenthenetworknumberhasincreasedtoalmosttenandthe
membershiptonearly one hundredorganisationsinAustralasia,USAandEurope.
In some cases the researchers tried to link project success to different project stages, such as delivery and
postdelivery stages. Similarly project success was also linked to individual perspectives of the involved
stakeholders. Inthe quest to identify a robust set of success and failure measures,previous researchers employed
variousmethodologiesrangingfromunstructuredinterviewsthataskedtherespondentstolistanumberofmeasures
that are important to project success or contribute to project failure, to structured interviews that required the
respondenttorankalistofmeasuresthataffectprojectperformance.
Thereisagrowingneedforaholisticsolutionthatactsasanearlywarningsystemandhelpprojectmanagers
inimplementingstrategiesthatcanbringtheprojectback ontrack.Currentlymosttoolsdevelopedinthefieldof
project management seem insufficient to fulfil this role. Project diagnostics is a threeinone tool that explores
symptoms,identifiescausesandrecommendsremedialmeasurestofacilitateprojectrecovery.

THECONCEPTOFPROJECTHEALTH
Humphreys et al. (2004) proposed that human physical health can broadly be thought of as the condition of the
body.Whenphysicalhealthispoor,performanceorqualityoflifecanbecompromised.Poorphysicalhealthoften
hasassociatedsymptomsthatcanbeusedtohelppinpointthecauseofillhealthquicklyandaccurately.Oncethe
cause has been identified, a remedy can be implemented to return the body to good health. If symptoms are left
unchecked,theycandevelopintocriticalsituationsandbecomemuchworse.
Inmanywaysthehealthofaconstructionprojectisanalogoustohumanphysicalhealth.Humphreysetal.
(2004)identifiedsomeparallelsbetweenconstructionprojecthealthandhumanphysicalhealth:
stateofhealthinfluencesperformance
healthoftenhasassociatedsymptoms
symptomscanbeusedasastartingpointtoquicklyassesshealth
symptomsofpoorhealtharenotalwayspresentorobvious
stateofhealthcanbeassessedbymeasuringkeyareasandcomparingthesevaluestoestablishednorms
healthchangestemporarily
remediescanoftenbeprescribedtoreturngoodhealth
correct,accurateandtimelydiagnosisofpoorhealthcanavoidsmallproblemsbecominglarge.
Hereprojecthealthissynonymouswithprojectperformance,ifaprojectoranyparticularaspectofaprojectisnot
performingasexpectedbythestakeholdersitwouldbeperceivedasunhealthyorfailingontheotherhandifitis
fulfillingtheexpectationofthestakeholdersitwouldbeperceivedashealthyorsuccessful.
The requirement for rapid, accurate diagnosis leads to the concept of an initial broad healthchecking
mechanism,whichcouldguideamoredetailedinvestigation,designedtoidentifythefactorscontributingtopoor

192

health. The use of performance indicators to assess the state of the contributing factors allows remedies to be
prescribed,basedontheconditionofthecontributingfactorsinvestigated.

HEALTHCHECKMODEL
A model presented in Figure 22.1 is derived from Demings (1986) continuous improvement management cycle.
Thiswasdevelopedtoadaptthemedicalhealthmodeltoaconstructionprojectscenario.Thismodelisbasedona
fourstage process beginning with broad and rapid assessment of current health, followed by a more thorough
analysisoftheareasidentifiedasunhealthy,whichallowsprescriptionofaremedyandfinallythelaststageisthe
continuedmonitoringofthehealthcondition.
Figure22.1:ConstructionProjectHealthCheckModel

Exit/End(completecycle)
ifCSFhealthy

Benchmarking:MeasureKPI
againstthebenchmarkto
checkthehealthofCSF.
CriticalSuccess
Factors(CSFs)

Entry/Start

InvestigateCFslinkedtothe
unhealthyCSF

Secondary
KeyPerformance Performance
Indicators(KPIs) Indicators(SPIs)
Implement
andMonitor
REMs
Remedial
Measures
(REMs)

Contributing
Factors(CFs)

Benchmarking:
MeasureKPI
againstthe
benchmarkto
checkthehealth
ofCSF.

RootCauses
(RCs)
Userootcausesto
identifyREMs

TheunhealthyCFsare
identifiedastheRCs

Broadassessmentofcurrenthealthofprojects
A review of project success and failure factors in the past decade provides several lists of success and failure
measurestotallingmorethan120differentsuccessand/orfailuremeasures.Amoreflexibleapproachwasadopted
by clustering these into seven main measures: cost, time, quality, relationships, safety, environment, and
stakeholdersvalue.Thismadetheprocessmoremanageableandhelpedinanalysingtheinteractions.
As is the case with human physical health, these measures are critical areas that can facilitate a broad
evaluationofprojecthealth.Thesearethuscalledcriticalsuccessfactors(CSFs)andusedasthebasisforabroadly
inclusivefundamentalhealthchecktogaugeprojecthealthintermsofspecificsuccessfactorsthatarecriticaltothe
interested stakeholders. This differs somewhat from the traditional use of CSFs by Rockart (1979) cited in van
VeenDirksandWijn(2002)whointroducedthemasthoseaspectsofaproject,whichifsuccessfullyexecuted,can
significantlyinfluencethesuccessofaproject.ThesevenCSFswerechosenonthebasisthatthey:
aresimpletounderstand
helpfocusattentiononmajorconstructionprojectconcerns
areeasytocommunicatetotheprojectstakeholders
areeasytomonitorthroughtheuseofassociatedmetrics
reflectclientsneedsandexpectations.
InordertousetheseCSFsasanindicationofhealth,theyneededtobeassessed.Thiswasachievedbydeveloping
anassociatedseriesofkeyperformanceindicators(KPIs)foreachCSF.KPIWorkingGroup(2000)citedinChan
andChan(2004)proposethatthepurposeofKPIsistoenablemeasurementofprojectperformancethroughoutthe
constructionindustry.AccordingtoMunir(2002),aKPIisanumberorvalue,whichcanbecomparedagainstan
internal target or an external target benchmark to give an indication of performance. To facilitate the KPIs

193

application to assess the performance of the CSFs, these were calibrated using benchmarks from Australia (Cole
2003),UK(Cbpp2003)andUSA(CII/ECI2003).Thisallowedthemodeltobeapplicabletoaprojectregardlessof
whetheraperformancetargetwassetbyaninterestedparty,legislationorbyotherprojects.
Plemmons (1994) proposes that benchmarking is a technique of evaluating performance in specific areas
whencomparedtorecognisedleaders.Forthehealthcheckmodelthebenchmarkswereusedforthesamepurpose
butinmostcasescomparedtoindustryaveragesinsteadofmarketleaders.Thisshiftcanbeattributedtothenature
ofthehealthcheckmodelwhereitismoreappropriatetoclassifyaprojectasunhealthyifitisnotdoingbetter
thantheindustryaverageratherthancomparingitagainsttheindustrybestpractice.Aworkshopwasheldtoseek
stakeholdersfeedbackonthebenchmarkingprocess.
Although a large number of KPIs were identified in the literature review, these often lacked certain
characteristics that would make them applicable, useful, independent and practical for the immediate health
assessmentofongoingorhistoricalprojects.Inordertohavearobust,accurateandimmediateassessmentofcurrent
health of a construction project in terms of the seven broad themes, five characteristics/criteria were chosen that
neededtobepossessedbytheKPIs.These characteristics/criteria wereidentifiedas:
1. Easily measurable must be able to be measured quickly, directly and accurately with as little effort as
possible.
2. Broadly applicable must be able to be measured at any stage of a project or at least a combination of
indicatorsacrossaCSFshouldbeabletorepresentallstagesofaproject.Theindicatorsshouldalsobeableto
representdifferentprocurement methods.
3. Assessable once measured, the indicator must be able to be compared to a known value to allow correct
judgmentofhealthtobemade.
4. Reflectrealitythemeasuredvariablemustencourageadescriptionofrealityratherthanidealorperceived
situations.
5. Sensitivity theindicatormustbetunedtoprojecthealthtoallowaccuratehealthassessment.
After careful scrutiny, 33 KPIs were chosen according to these five characteristics/criteria. However, due to the
natureofsome ofthecharacteristicsdescribedaboveitwasnecessarytovalidatetherobustnessoftheseKPIs by
testingthemonactualprojects.Table22.1providesanexampleofoneoftheindicatorsusedtoinvestigatetheCost
CSFandanexplanationofhowtheindicatorisused.
Table22.1:CostPerformanceIndex(CPI)
CSF
Cost

Proposed
indicator
CPI
(cost
performance
indicator)

Explanationofindicator
Definition
CPI=BCWP/ACWP
Where:
BCWP=budgetedcostofworkactuallyperformed
ACWP=actualcostofworkactuallyperformed
Benchmark
CPI0.85indicatesahealthyproject
CPI<0.85indicatesanunhealthyproject

Detailedanalysistodeterminethecausesofpoorhealth
Attheendoftheimmediatehealthassessmentstage,theCSFsfoundtobeinpoorhealthcanbeusedasthefocusof
a more detailed investigation. This will allow the cause of poor health to be diagnosed via contributing factors
(CFs).LikeCSFs,theCFsneededtobeassessedtopinpointtheareasmostlikelytobecausingpoorprojecthealth.
ThemethodusedtoassesstheCFshasbeendesignedwiththerequirementsofstage3inmind.Stage 3 ofthemodel
requiresspecificproblemareastobeidentifiedanddescribedsothatappropriateremediescouldbeprescribed.This
leadtothedevelopmentofaseriesofsecondaryperformanceindicators(SPIs)associatedwitheachCF.Theseare
then used to assess the performance of each CF and, if found underperforming, become the basis of a suggested
remedialstrategy.
Cbpp (2003) defines an SPI as an indicator showing the level of performance achieved against an
operationthatisofsecondaryimportancetothesuccessfulcompletionoftheservicesbeingprovided.AnSPIoften
provides a diagnosis by assessing the CF that was linked to the unhealthy CSF. To ensure the usefulness of the
modeltocarryoutdetaileddiagnosis,theSPIsneededtopossessthesamecharacteristicsastheKPIs.However,the
SPIalsoprovidesguidancetowardsprescribingthecorrectremedy.
The CFsweremostlyidentifiedusingpilotinterviewsconductedonsevenprojectswithinQueensland.These
interviews were conducted using a structured questionnaire. The respondents included clients, consultants,
contractorsandsubcontractors.Twentyeightinterviewswereconducted.Thequestionnairewasdesignedtoallow

194

identificationofcontributingfactorsandtoallowthemtoberankedintermsofrelativeimportanceusinganumeric
scale. Theprojects were varied and includeda variety of contracttypes such as design and build,lump sum, and
scheduleofrates.Mostoftheprojectsweremorethan$10m invalue.Thequestionnairewasundertakenbypersonal
interview with each respondent to ensure each question was understood and answered adequately. This was
particularlyimportantinthiscaseasterminologyusedtodescribeCFswasderivedfromaninitialliteratureanddid
not necessarily reflect the terminology of the respondent. For this reason also, the raw data from all interviews
neededtobecollatedasthenameforasingleCFcanvaryfrompersontoperson.
The data analysis started with examination of the questionnaire to identify the CFs for each of the seven
unhealthy CSF themes.The collation of CFs based on common terminology reduced the totalnumber of CFs by
identifying common CFs between the seven CSF themes. The respondents were required to limit the number of
contributing factors that they proposed to four. In most cases respondents provided four different contributing
factors of varyingrelative importance, but occasionally the answers consisted of one contributing factor for each
CSF.TherespondentswererequiredtoranktheCFsusingascaleof14.
To determine the overallranking of the identified CFs for each unhealthy CSF using the importance scale
nominated by the respondents (clients, consultants, contractors and subcontractors) the importance index was
computedusingthefollowingmodifiedequationbyMezherandTawil(1998):
Figure22.1:Equation1

Where II denotes importance index and x is a constantthat represents the weight of the th response wherex =
1,2,3,4andy representsthefrequencyofthethresponsewhere=1,2,3,4.Hence
y1=frequencyoftheleastimportantcontributingfactor.
y2=frequencyofthelessimportantcontributingfactor.
y3=frequencyoftheimportantcontributingfactor.
y4=frequencyofthemostimportantcontributingfactor.
Table22.2providesanexampleoftheCFsidentifiedinthestudy fortheCSFcostoverrunaswellastherank
andimportanceindexoftheCF.
Table22.2:RankandIndexofContributingFactors

Costoverrun

CSFs

Contributingfactors(CFs)
Variations
Inaccuratecostestimate
Rework
Lackofclientdecisionmaking
Competitivenatureofmarket
Poorqualityofdesignanddocumentation
Approvals
Contractor/subcontractorworkefficiency
Tomanageprojectsimultaneouslyalargecomponentofworkwasdonein
anothercitybranchoffice
Poorworkmanship
Worksequencingwithothertrades
Audittesting
Changeofmanagement
Emissionsandundermeasuresindocumentation
Lackofcompletenessofcontractdocuments
Limitedresources
Lackofarchitectorhighermanagementinterest
Productivityofworkforceduetotravellinginvolvedduetoremotelocationof
project
Relationshipworkshop
Highqualityproductrequired
Highermanagementdirectinvolvement
Programmingissuescausingpressureoncontractors

Index
14.7
6.0
3.3
2.7
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.0

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
7

2.0

1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7

10
10
12
12
12
12
12
17

0.7

17

0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3

17
20
20
20

195

AsimilarlistingwasgeneratedforeachofthesevenCSFs.Atotalof127contributingfactorswereidentified.Table
22.3ranksthesevenCSFthemesbasedonthefindingsoftheinvestigation(notethatqualityhasbeendividedinto
twogroupsforTable22.2 qualityofconstructionandqualityofdocumentation).
Table22.3:RankandIndexofCSFs
CSFs
Cost
Qualityofconstructionincreaseinrework
Relationships
Time
Safety
Stakeholdersvalue
Environment
QualityofdocumentationincreaseinRFIs

Index
6.68
4.65
4.15
3.86
3.60
3.43
3.40
3.20

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

InadditiontotheCF identifiedinthestudy,otherimportantfindingsincluded:
allprojectswereconsideredsuccessfulbytherespondents,butsomeprojectspossessedunhealthyCSFs
contributingfactorsforthehealthy CSFsmaybeusefulforidentifyingremediesinStage3
avarietyofperspectiveswereobtainedfromthebroadrangeofrespondentsinterviewedineachproject
verbal clarification was required for some questions, particularly those requiring percentage estimates and
relationships
allrespondentswereextremelycooperativealthoughreluctanttofocusonnegativeissues
theinvestigationofonlyprojectswhichwereconsideredsuccessfulmayhaveimplicationsonthecompleteness
ofthesetof CFs.
Due to the investigation of only successful projects in this pilot study the list of CFs was not considered
comprehensiveandwasaugmentedwithCFsidentifiedfromaliteraturesurvey.
TheCFswerefurthervalidatedusingaDelphitypeapproachusingindustrypartners asspecialistsandasking
themtoaddCFstothelistobtainedfromthepilotstudysoastohaveacomprehensivelist.Thiswasrepeatedby
tworoundsoffeedbackonCFandfinallytheywerediscussedinaworkshopattendedbythesamespecialiststoget
afinallistbasedontheconsensusofthesespecialists.
AnumberofSPIsfulfillingtheabovecriteriawereidentifiedfromtheliteraturesurveyforeachoftheCFs.
However,duetothenatureofsomeoftheKPIandSPIcharacteristicsdescribedaboveitwasnecessarytovalidate
theirrobustnessbytestingthemonactualconstructionprojects.

Validationofindicators
Thevalidationstagewasimportantastheoutcome ofthisstagewasexpectedto bearobustsetofindicatorsthat
couldhelpinpinpointingtherootcausesofpoorconstructionhealth.Thevaliditywasassessedusingthreeprojects
withinAustraliaandafourthinternationalprojectinEurope,whichwasespeciallyhelpfulinvalidatingmeasures
associatedwithinternationaljointventures.
Toenhancethechancesofcheckingtherobustnessoftheindicators,thecasestudieswerechosentobe:
unsuccessful anunsuccessfulprojectwaspreferredtomaximiserepetitiveevaluationoftheindicators
live this was useful for indicators meant to give a snapshot at a point in time and would facilitate the
implementationandmonitoringofremedialmeasures,whichwasthefinalobjectiveofthehealthcheckmodel
ofdifferentsizes helpedtoevaluate thesizedependentindicators.
The projects were carefully chosen to ensure that they encompassed different project stages and different
procurement methods.
KPIsandSPIsconsistedofobjectivemetricsandsubjectivequestions.Inordertoincreasetheobjectivity,the
questionsconsistedofaseriesofconditionalstatementsthatfacilitatedassessmentwhilstminimisingsubjectivity.
The data was collected through facetofaceinterviews and the interview questions were structured around
the information required to measure KPIs and SPIs. At the beginning of the case study a list of project
documentationrequiredformeasuringtheindicatorswascirculatedamongthecasestudyparticipants.Thishelped
incrosscheckingthesubjectiveanswersoftherespondentswiththeharddatafromtheprojectdocumentationsuch
as RFI register, claims register, EOTs (extension of times) and many others. The process is explained by
considering the exampleof the third important factor rework as shown inTable 22.2 that contributes to a cost
overrun.ReworkandtheassociatedSPI toinvestigatereworkareshowninTable22.4.

196

Table22.4:ExampleofCF(contributingfactor)/SPI (secondaryperformanceindicator)
CSF
Costoverrun

CF
Rework

SPI
RR=RC/TACV
Where
RC=reworkcost&TACV=
totaladjustedcontractvalue

Theaimofthevalidationprocess wastoassesshowwellanindicatormeasureswhatitisintendedtomeasure.
ForthepurposeofimmediateassessmentofcontributingfactorstopinpointtherootcauseswellforanSPI refers
to its abilityto be measured easily, to be comprehensively applicable(that is, applicable to all project stages and
many procurement methods), to be assessed and make the correct assessment, and to be sensitively tuned to the
healthofaproject.Thevalidationprocess forthehealthcheckmodelhelpedtoidentifythemostefficient,robust
andeffectiveSPIs.
ThemainfindingsofthevalidationprocessforRR (reworkratio)aresummarisedasfollows:
Easilymeasurable:AsshowninFigure22.2,thedatarequiredtomeasureRRwasreadilyavailableonthreeout
of four (75%) case studies. On projects where rework cost was not being recorded onsite, it was calculated
using anapproximation formula: 30% of (total value claimed total value approved), that is,rework cost is
approximately 30% of the contractor claims that are not approved. The claims data was collected using
contractorprogressclaimsshowingtheclaimedandapproved.Theavailabilityofanyoftheaboveresultedin
measuringRRquickly,directlyandaccuratelywithlittleeffort.
Broadlyapplicable:Althoughthemeasurewasonlydesignedtomeasurecontractorsreworkcost,itwaseasily
measurable for all the case studies using different procurement methods such as construction management,
traditional, anddesignand construct.
Assessable:Basedonaliteraturereviewandpastexperiencesofindustryspecialistsabenchmarkof0.02was
chosentoassessthisSPI.ItwasalsodecidedthatanyprojecthavinganRRratiogreaterthanthisbenchmark
was unhealthy. Although RR was easily measurable andthus easily assessable on allthe case studies,it was
more important to check if theresults obtained fromthe assessment was the correct indication of actual cost
performance of the project. The use of other psychosocial and subjective indicators that were based on the
public,mediaandstakeholders commentsreinforcedtheRRresultsonthreeoutoffour(75%)casestudies.
Reflect reality: This characteristic is linked to the availability of data for an SPI. SPI data was realistically
availableonallcasestudiesmainlyduetothepresenceof appropriatedocumentation.
Sensitivity:Costisdirectlylinkedtoprojecthealthasacostoverrunclearlyindicatespoorhealth.Reworkis
oneofthefactorsthatcontributedtocostoverrunandpoorprojecthealth.Itwasnotedinthevalidationprocess
thatRCkeptonchangingthroughoutthe lifecycleoftheprojectandduetotheirinfluenceonRR andinturnon
projecthealth,theprojecthealthwassensitivetoevenminorchangesinRC.Thesensitivitycharacteristicwas
onlyvalidatedontwocasestudies(50%)becauseofthetimeassociatedwithsourcing,collectingandanalysing
data at different stages of the project. In most cases the SPI provided guidance towards identifying an
appropriateremedialmeasure.
Figure22.2:ReworkRatio(RR)Validation

Percentageofprojects
onwhichcharecteristic
wasvalidated

ReworkRatio(RR)Validation
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Easily
Measurable

Broadly
Applicable

Assessable

ReflectReality

Sensitive

Characteristics

Themainoverallconclusionsdrawnfromthevalidationprocessare:
ThesevenCSFsidentifiedthroughtheliteraturewerethemostsignificantforprojectsuccessorfailureasthey
receivethemostattentionfromtheonsiteactivitiesandtheinvolvedstakeholders.

197

The robustness criteria defined above acted as a decision tool for retaining, discarding or changing SPIs.
However,itwasnecessarytoretainonlythemostrobustsetofindicatorsthatfullyaddressedthesetcriteria.
This helped in minimising the chances of producing a tool that might end up being time and resource
consumingandimpracticaltouse.
As the majority of SPIs were objective and used mathematical formulas, the evaluation process was rather
straight, inexpensive and quick to implement. However, the set also included some subjective SPIs that used
opinions of clients, community and the media. These were read together with the results obtained by using
objectiveSPIs,forexample,the safetyincidentswasmeasuredusingadirectquestionbuttheresultwasread
togetherwithlosttimeinjuryfrequency (LTIF)andnegativemediacoverage.

Remedialmeasuresandmonitoring
A literature scanandthe practicalnature of construction suggested that a suitable approach for development of a
suite of remedies for arange of health problems was to use the past experiences of the project participants.This
wouldonlybeusefulwhenusedinconjunctionwiththeoutcomesoftheCF andSPI analysis.
Oneofthelimitationsofusinglessonslearntisthatremediestendtobedependentonpersonalexperience.
Thismeansthatremediesforagivencontributingfactororidentifiedrootcause mayvaryfrompersontoperson
andpotentiallyinconflictingways.Theapproachforthismodelwastodevelopasetofremediesthathaveproved
historicallytobeworkableandcanachieveresults.However,itneededtobeunderstoodthateachprojectisunique,
withitsownsetofissuesandmostappropriatewaysofrestoringittogoodhealth(Tsoukas2005).
Forthisreason,remediesnominatedintheProjectDiagnosticssoftware(seelater)canbegenericremedies
only andshouldonlybeseenassuch,untilandunlesstheparticularprojectdynamicsareclearlyunderstood.
Itispossiblethatsingleormultipleremedialmeasureswillbeassociatedwitheachofthecontributingfactors
for the specific unhealthy CSF. The implementation of the measures may require the coordination of multiple
projectparticipantsorstakeholders.Onceimplemented,timemayberequiredtorestore theprojecttogoodhealth.
Asnecessary,theKPIsforrelevantCSFsareabletobemeasuredagainlater,tocheckifthecauseofpoor
performancehasbeenremedied.Thecyclecaniterateuntiltheprojecthealthisconsideredtobesatisfactory.
A software package called Project Diagnostics has been developed by CSIRO. This smart system which
requires an expert user is being offered by Arup as a specialist consulting service. The diagnostics module has
already been used on a project in Queensland and the client has expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the
assessment. The remedial measure module is currently undergoing additional validation before being ready for
commercial use by September 2006. The service can be provided both proactively as a monitoring service, and
reactivelyonanasneedbasis.

CONCLUSIONS
Aprojecthealthmodelderivedfromthehumanhealthmodelhasbeendevelopedtoallowtheimmediate assessment
of current project health, identify the reasons why the project may not be performing as expected and suggest a
means of returning the project to better health. The software package Project Diagnostics automates this health
check model. The threeinone integrated package makes this tool a potential lifeline for clients and industry
stakeholderswishingtoimproveoutcomesthroughbetterprojectdelivery.
Project Diagnostics keeps drilling deeper and deeper through layers of the supply chain until it identifies where
performance targets are not being met. It then analyses this and suggest remedial actions. The different modules
werevalidatedusingAustralianandinternationalcasestudies.Thepurposeofthevalidationprocesswastoassess
howwellanindicatormeasureswhatitisintendedtomeasure.Thevalidationprocesshelpedinidentifyingthe
mostefficient,robustandeffectiveindicators.
The overall benefits of thisresearch will be seen in thingslikemoreprojects being completed ontime, on
cost,withmorepredictabilityoftheoutcomes,andrelationshipsmaintained,goodsafetyrecordsandaminimumof
environmentalimpact.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Queensland University of Technology, CSIRO, Queensland Department of Main
Roads, Queensland Department of Public Works, John Holland and Australian Cooperative Research Centre for
ConstructionInnovationfortheircontinuedsupportonthisproject.

REFERENCES
Abidali,A.andHarris,F.1995.Amethodologypredictingfailureintheconstructionindustry.Construction
ManagementandEconomics,19:189196.
Arditi,D.2000,Businessfailuresintheconstructionindustry.Engineering ConstructionandArchitectural
Management, 7(2):120132.

198

Atkinson,R.1999.Projectmanagement:cost,timeandquality,twobestguessesandaphenomenon,itstimeto
acceptothersuccesscriteria. InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,17(6):33742.
Avots,I.1967.Whydoesprojectmanagementfail? CaliforniaManagementReview,12(1):7769.
Baccarini,D.1999.Thelogicalframeworkmethodfordefiningprojectsuccess.ProjectManagement Journal, 30
(4):2532.
Belassi,W.andO.Tukel.1996.Anewframeworkfordeterminingcriticalsuccess/failurefactorsinprojects.
InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,14(3):141141.
Cbpp.2003. ConstructionIndustryKeyPerformanceIndicators.UK:Cbpp.
CII/ECI.2003. ContractorQuestionnaireVersion7.0. http://www.ciibenchmarking.org/ (accessed12October
2003).
Cole,T.2003. FinalReportoftheRoyalCommissionintotheBuildingandConstructionIndustry:Summaryof
findingsandrecommendations,volume1 (ColeRoyalCommissionReport).Canberra:AGPS.
Davies,T.2002.Therealsuccessfactorsonprojects.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,2:185190.
Deming,W.1986. OutoftheCrisis.Cambridge:Mass., MITCentreforAdvancedEngineeringStudy.
Humphreys,M.,D.MianandA.Sidwell.2004.A modelforassessingandcorrectingconstructionprojecthealth.
InternationalSymposiumoftheCIBW92onProcurementSystems,Chennai,India,710January.
Chan,A.andA.Chan.2004.Keyperformanceindicators formeasuringconstructionsuccess.Benchmarking:An
InternationalJournal,11(2):203221..
Mezher,T.andW.Tawil.1998.CausesofdelayintheconstructionindustryinLebanon. JournalofConstruction
andArchitecturalEngineering,5(3):252260.
Mian,D.2004.Constructionprojectimmediatehealthcheck:aCSF andKPI approach. PMOZConference.
Melbourne,1113August2004.
Morris,P.andG.Hough.1987. The AnatomyofMajorProjects.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.
Munir,A.2002. EstablishingandImprovingManufacturing PerformanceMeasures.Middlesbrough:Schoolof
Science &Technology,UniversityofTeesside.
Pinto,J.andD.Slevin.1987.Criticalsuccessfactorsinsuccessfulprojectimplementation. IEEETransactions
EngineeringManagement,34(1): 2227.
Plemmons,J.1994.Measuringandbenchmarkingmaterialsmanagementeffectiveness.AACETransactions, 2:1
2.9.
Rubin,I.andW.Seeling.1967.Experienceasafactorintheselectionandperformanceofprojectmanagers. IEEE
TransEngineeringManagement,14(3):131134.
Russell,J. andE.Jaselskis.1992.Quantitativestudyofcontractorevaluationprogramsandtheirimpact. Journalof
ConstructionEngineeringandManagement,118(3):612624.
Shenhar,A.andO.Levy.1997.Mappingthedimensionsofprojectsuccess.ProjectManagement Journal,28(2),
513.
Skitmore,M.1997.Evaluatingcontractorprequalificationdata:selectioncriteriaandprojectsuccessfactors.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics,15(2):4556.
Tsoukas,J.2005.Projectdiagnostics:assessingthehealthofprojects.11thJointCIBInternationalSymposium.
Helsinki,Finland,June1316..
vanVeenDirks,P.andM.Wijn.2002.Strategiccontrol:meshingcriticalsuccessfactorswiththebalanced
scorecard. LongRangePlanning,35 (4):407427.
Westerveld,E.2003.Theprojectexcellencemodel:linkingsuccesscriteriaandcriticalsuccessfactors.
InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,21(6):411418.

199

Part6
ConstructionHealthandSafety

200

CHAPTER23

SafetyCulture,SafetyAttitudesand
MarketForceInfluencesonConstruction
SiteSafety
HerbertBiggs
VaughnSheahan
DonaldDingsdag
DeanCipolla
INTRODUCTION
Muchhasalreadybeenwrittenregardingsafetyculture andhoworganisationalvaluesandbeliefsworktoinfluence
safetyonconstructionsites(seeGuldenmund2000Glendon& Stanton2000Neal& Griffin2004Neal,Griffin&
Hart2000andMohamed2002forareview).Fromanacademicperspective,safetycultureisseentobeaconstruct
thatdescribesthevalues,norms,attitudesandbeliefsthatareheldcollectivelytowardssafetywithinanorganisation
(Cox et al.1998 Glendon &Stanton 2000 Williamson etal. 1997). When asking people who work at alllevels
within this industry to discuss safety and safety culture, most will discuss organisational practices that promote
communication, collaboration, education and planningindicatingthata base level of safety culture knowledge
exists at all levels throughout the industry workforce (see Biggs et al. 2005). Despite the large volume of safety
culture literatureand areasonable degree of knowledge withinthe industry, there continues to be a highlevel of
incidentsandinjuries(ColeRoyalCommission2003NationalOccupationalHealthandSafety Commission2003).
Apartialexplanationforthelackofimpactthatsafetycultureknowledgehashadonactualsafety,isacomplaint
that the nature of the construction industry inhibits proactive safety culture behaviours. It is an argument in this
chapterthatmoreneedstobeachievedbythoseinseniorpositionswithintheindustrytoensurethatsafetyculture
knowledgeisappliedandmanagedinsuchawaythatwillhavemaximumimpactonactualsitesafety.
This chapter, as presented in a practical and applied sense, will discuss how construction companies can
minimisemarketforceinfluencethroughsafetyculturecompetencyplanning.Usingdatagatheredrecentlyaspart
of a Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation research project, this chapter first outlines the
researchmethodfollowedbyadiscussionoftheresultspertainingtotheidentifiedsafetycriticalrolesandthekey
market factors that impact OHS. The minimum safetycritical tasks are then listed for each position. Finally, a
discussionismaderelatingtohowacompanycouldapproachmanagingtheseissuesthroughbettersafetyculture
competencyplanning.

Improvingsitesafetybyworkforcemotivation
Goodsitesafetydoesnothappenbyaccident,itistheresultofthebehavioursandactionsofallthosewhoworkon
andmanageabuildingsite.Onagoodsite,peoplewill:
understandwhattheyneedtodoandwhytheyneedtodoit
thinkaboutwhattheyaredoingbeforetheydoit
lookforhazardsandrisksandmanagethembeforetheyoccur
takecareofthingsthemselveswithoutneedingmuchpolicing
haveabeliefthattheyareresponsibleandaccountableformakingsurethattheyandtheirworkmatesremain
safe.

Harnessingthepowerofsitesafetyculture
Keytothebuildingofapositive sitesafetyculture istheconsistentandregularsendingofthemessagethatsafetyis
nonnegotiable,andunsafebehaviourisnottolerated.Occupantsofcriticalsafetyroleswhoaretypicallyinvolved
in supervising or managing others (such as foremen, supervisors, and leading hands) are key in sending this
consistent and regular message to the workforce. To ensure that these individuals can send this message, each
criticalsafetyroleholdershouldachievecompetencyacrossfourkeyelements(refertoFigure23.1).

201

Figure23.1:SafetyCompetency:KeyElements

Safetyknowledge
Firstandforemost,thereisaneedtoensurethatthoseinleadershippositionshavetheabilitytoidentifywhatissafe
and unsafe. The greater the knowledge, the greater the ability to clarify to others what specific behaviours are
required.Besidestraditionaltrainingapproaches,itispossibletoimproveindividualOHSknowledgebyspeaking
withthoseundertakingtheworkandaskingthemtoidentify whattheythinktherisksareandhowtheserisksare
bestaddressed.Fundamentally,greaterknowledgeshouldresultin:
anabilitytoidentifyunsafeworkpractices
knowledgeofhowtodothingsbetter(saferworkmethods)
anabilitytoproblemsolvetoachievesaferworkpractices.

Interpersonalcommunicationskills
Thiselementisimportantinasmuchasitrelatestotheabilitytoworkwithothersinsuchawayastomaximisethe
likelihoodthattheywilllistenandunderstandthecommunication.Thisskillisusefulinmanydifferentsituations,
but is particularlyuseful when speaking to people about changing their behaviour. Good communication is also
importantforbuildinganenvironmentinwhichbothsidesgeneratetrust.Specifically, whencommunicatingwith
othersthefollowingshouldbeobserved:
communicationisclearanddirect
communicationavoidsblametheopportunityistakentosuggestimprovementsandwhatneedstobedone,
ratherthanseekingtoblameorpunish blamingsomeoneislikelytomakethemdefensive,whichwillmean
thattheywontfullylistentothemessage
communicationemphasisesthepersonalthereisanattempttocommunicateanunderstandingofthepersonal
impactofpotentialdecisions.
Thesecondcriticalelementofcommunicationislistening.Byconfirmingthatthemessagereceiverisunderstanding
whatisbeingsaid,thelikelihoodisthatbothpartieswillbetterunderstandthesituationandthatreallisteningwill
occur. Betterlisteningcanoccurby:
mirroring(matchinglanguageandbodylanguage)
reflecting(confirmingcomprehensionviarepetitionofkeypointsinothersspeech)
paraphrasing(summarisingwhatwassaidtoconfirmoverallcomprehension).
Different situationsrequire different communication approaches fromhighly informaland collaborative to formal
andstronglystructured.Theconsistentmessageisalwaysthatsafetyisnotnegotiable.

Leadershipstyle
Thestyleinwhichapersoninakeypositionleadsisimportantindevelopingandmaintainingapositivesitesafety
culture. Central to this leadership theme is the ability to foster good relationships with staff and the workforce.
Better relationships increase the likelihood that people will behave in a way that will achieve the goals that are
indicatedasimportant.Thatis,ifconstructorshavegoodrelationshipswiththeirstaffandtheybehaveinamanner
that promotes work safety, the staff will be inclined to behave safely as a way of showing appreciation for the
respectwithwhichthattheyaretreated.Toachievepositiverelationships,thoseinleadershiprolesshouldseekto
develop a style that promotes work involvement and relationship building, while still maintaining authority and
discipline.

202

Fundamentalskillsinclude:
1. Workerinvolvement(collaboration)
workerinputintosafetymanagementonadailybasis notjustthroughcommittees
reductionof usversusthem mentality teambuilding
involvementofallsitemanagementintheplanningprocess
sharinginformation.
2. Relationshipbuilding
teambuilding
providingopportunitiesforpeopletomeeteachother e.g.BBQs
sharingofpersonalinformation
regularconversationatasociallevel,e.g. Howarethekids?
conversationsaboutsafety subtleweavingofsafetyintogeneralconversation
good site amenities that promote interactionandreflect that management care for the wellbeing of staff.
e.g.lunchareasandcleantoilets.
3. Supporting
trustinginsubordinates
opendoorpolicy encouragingandallowingstafftospeakopenlywithbosses
avoidanceofblameassignment encouragingpeopletospeakopenlyaboutsafetyissues
empowering rewardingthosewhoraisesafetyissuesandhelpingthemtoprogressandresolveissues.

Values,beliefsandattitudes
Valueand beliefs have a very strongimpact onaction. If a strongly positivesitesafety cultureis to be achieved,
thoseinleadershiprolesneedtohavevalues,beliefsandattitudesunderpinnedbytheimportanceofsafety.Thefirst
partofthisprocessisexaminingindividualattitudestowardssafety Howimportantisit?Isitimportantmostof
thetimeorallofthetime?IsitOKtocompromiseonsafetyifitsgoingtobemoreexpensive?Asimprovingthis
elementisverydifficult,improvingsitesafetycultureneedstostartwiththepremiseofalongtermcommitment
and acapacitytomakeharddecisionsthatcouldbecostlyintheshortterm.
Broadlyspeaking,someoftheoverallvalues,beliefsandattitudesthatshouldbedevelopedforpeoplewho
workonsiteare:
1. Values
workmateslivesandwellbeingareimportant
doingthe right thingisimportant.
2. Beliefs
speakingupaboutsafetywontthreatenmyjob
ifIdospeakout,somethingwillbedone
ifIdontactIwouldberesponsibleifsomethinghappened
goodconstructionisaboutbuildingsafely OHSisnotaseparateconcern.
3. Attitudes
personalsafetyisabovemoney
wellbeingofothersismoreimportantthanmoney.
Thedevelopmentofthesevalues,beliefsandattitudesdependsontheleadershipabilityofkeystaffandwilltake
timetodevelop.Occupantsofthesesafetycriticalrolesneedtobeconsistentlyandconstantlytalkingaboutsafety
andpersuadingstaffthatsafetyisimportanttothejobandthatitishighlypersonallyrelevanttothem.Thisfocuson
changingattitudesshouldbeconductedalongsideyoureffortstochangeanddirectbehaviour.
Apositivesitesafetyculture isoneinwhicheveryoneisinvolvedinmanagingthehazardsandrisks.Getting
to a position where people have a sense that they want to be involved, and atthe same time are accountable for
managingOHS,ischallengingbutpossible.Keytomovingtowardsagoodsafetycultureismakingsurethatthose
whohavemanagementorsupervisorroleshavetherightknowledge,skillsandattitudestosuccessfullyundertake
safetycritical roles.

RESEARCHMETHOD:QUALITATIVEDATA
Researchdatausedinthisarticlewasgatheredintwoparts:focusgroups/interviewsandamanagementbased
safetycritical taskssurvey(whichwillbediscussedinlatersections).

Focusgroupsandinterviews
Ten focus groups were held across Australia with people in a range of different positions (see Table 23.1 for
position demographics). With the exception of one focus group, all participating companies were members of the
Australian Constructors Association (ACA). The focus group discussion lasted on average one hour and fifteen

203

minutesandwasstructuredaroundadiscussionofsafetyculture andtheattitudes,skillsandbehavioursrequiredby
keystaffmemberstodriveapositivesafety culture.Thefocusgroupswererecordedusingdigitalvoicerecorders
andthentranscribed.ThetranscribeddocumentswerethenusedinthequalitativedataanalysisprogramNvivo.The
softwareallowsforthemesfromthefocusgroupdiscussiontobeextractedandcategorised.
Table23.1:PositionGroupingandNumberofParticipantsforFocusGroups
Position
Seniormanagement(incCEOandGMs)
NationalOHS manager
StateandregionalOHSmanager
SiteOHScoordinator/advisor
Engineer/constructionprofessional
Constructionmanager
Site manager/superintendent
Project manager
Foremen
Total

Numberof
participants
7
2
10
10
3
5
4
4
4
49

Concurrent withthe focus groups, 12 individual interviews held with staff from ACA companies and secondtier
contractors.Theindividualintervieweeswereaskedsimilarquestionstothoseposedtothefocusgroup,butallowed
for a deeper line of enquiry. Additionally, 11 interviews were held with the construction safety regulators in all
states and territories of Australia. Consultation was held with the major construction unions (ACTU, AMWU,
AWU, CFMEU, CEPU), Master Builders Association, and the Tasmanian Construction and Building Industry
TrainingBoard,and theresultsoftheseinterviewsandfocusgroupsisdiscussedbelow.

Safetycriticalroles
Thefirstquestionaskedwithinfocusgroupsandinterviewswasarequestforthemtolisttherolesthattheysawas
beingcriticaltodrivingapositivesiteculture.Thisinformationwasrecordedandthencomparedbetweengroups.
Therewaslittlevariationinthislistbetweengroups.Thelistisasfollows:
MD/CEO/generalmanager
seniormanagement
operations/constructionmanager
projectmanager
engineer
sitemanager/superintendent
foreman
siteOHSadvisor/supervisor
regionalsafetymanager
statesafetymanager
nationalsafetymanager.
Itisclearthatthislistrepresentsthekeyroleswithinallthelevelsofaconstructioncompany.Theroleoftheclient
in driving company safety culture was also mentioned in several focus groups. When participants were asked to
discuss the difference between a good and poor sitesafety culture, they often discussed the behaviour and
competenciesofkeystaffmembers.Typically,apositivesiteculturewasonewherestaffbehavedinamannerthat
promoted communication, collaboration and planning. This finding was taken as support for the argument that
increasingtheskillandcompetency base of safetycriticalroleholderswouldleadtobehavioursthatwouldbuild
andmaintainasafetyculturethatwouldworktocounterexternalindustrydemandsandinfluences.

MarketforceinfluenceintheAustralianconstructionindustry
itshardtogetthingsdonerightanddoitadifferentwaywhenyouvegotsomuchworktobe
done. I think being under pressure has a lot to do with safety, and I also think that the time
requiredtodothingsissometimeshard.
(Focusgrouprespondent(engineeronalargecivilproject)June2005)
Asthisquoteindicates,undertakingtheappropriateactioninregardtosafetycanbedifficultindemandingperiods.
Analysisofthefocusgroupandinterviewdatarevealedarangeofprimaryfactorsthatwereseenasbarrierstothe

204

developmentandmaintenanceofapositivesitesafetyculture.Themostcommonandeverpresentdemandswithin
the industry include tight deadline pressures, financial issues due to high competition and low cost tendering, a
highlytransientsubcontractingworkforce,andchallengingworkduetonewandnovelengineeringrequirements.
Aswellastheseissues,alackofconsistencyinsafetymanagementpracticeswashighlightedinseveralfocus
groups. Currently, in Australia there is no industrywide and accepted framework for what constitutes OHS
competencyinleadershippositions.ThishasresultedineachcompanymanagingitsOHSobligationsintheirown
manner.Thisdifferingapproachtotrainingandskillinghasfurtherexacerbatedthechallengingtaskofmanaginga
workforcethatmovesand subcontractsacrossmanydifferentcompanies.
Othermoresubtlepressuresincludedsocietalchangesandtheconcurrentimpactofhighwagesoftenpaidto
the workforce. A theme discussed in a focus group was a belief that high wages have increased the risks that
workersarepreparedtotaketogetthejobdone.Asthewagesavailableintheconstructionindustry arewellabove
thoseavailableinothersimilarindustries,itwasarguedthatworkersfeelthattheycannotlosetheirjobbecausethey
cannot earn the same money elsewhere and they have a debt (credit card, house, car etc.) that requires them to
maintaintheirhighwages.Thisthemeisillustratedinthefollowingquote:
Iseethatalot,youknow,thereareyoungblokesuptheretheyaremarried,23,theyvegot
akidonthewayandtheyvegota$350,000house,gota$40or$50,000car,hecantaffordtobe
out of work, he cant afford to have his hours drop, so these guys, when the boss is saying
something,theyvegottomakeitwork,theyovercommitthemselvesandthatsthesignoftheday
Insteadofsaying,rightIcanonlyaffordthiscar,thisiswhatIamgoingtohave,soIcanstill
recover,IcanturnaroundandIcansay:mateshoveitupyourarseitsnotsafe,andIknow
thatIamstillgoingtokeepmy$20,000carandmy.$180,000house.
(Focusgrouprespondent(sitesafetyadvisoronalargeresidentialtowerconstruction)June2005)
Byprovidinganobstacletosafeperformance,theseexternaldrivershaveaclearandknownimpactonsitehealth
and safety. The difficulty that construction companies face is how to manage these external forces to maintain
companyprofitabilityaswellasupholdespousedhealthandsafetyvalues.Thefollowingsectionoutlineshowthis
couldbeachievedviabettersafetyculture planning.

RESEARCHMETHOD:SAFETYCRITICALTASKS
Essential to effective safety culture planning is the setting of a minimum benchmark for safetycritical role
competency. It was the intention of the researchers to usethe high degree of formal and informal industry OHS
expertisetocreateamodelofthetasksthatstaffmustbecompetenttocomplete.
To identify the skillsand competencies that safetycriticalrole holders should be competent to complete,a
surveywasdevisedbasedonthefocusgroupandinterviewdata.Thissurveylisted40safetytasksandaskedpeople
in key positions to rate: how frequently they undertook the task how important the task was to the successful
completionoftheirjobandhowimportanttheythoughtthetaskwastoreducinginjury onsite.Thissurvey was
administered to all ACA companies and three secondtier contractors. A total of 358 survey responses were
collected (see Table 23.2. for the demographics).The survey data was analysed to identify the tasks each safety
critical position deemed to be important for their job and to reducing injury on site (Mean = 4.0+). It is
acknowledgedthatthisapproachonlyrevealswhatiscurrentlyseenasimportanttositesafetyanddoesnotdirectly
contributetoanunderstandingofwhattasksshouldbecompletedbytheseroleholders.However,itisarguedthat
thecurrentapproachtosafetycompetency andskillingisfragmentedtosuchanextentthat,politically,theonlyway
togainconsistencywithinthe industryistogatherindustrywide perspectivesastowhattasksareimportant.Future
researchwillfurtherdevelopthisframeworktoallowforfutureplanningwithinthepositions.

205

Table23.2:PositionGroupingandNumberofParticipantsforManagementSurvey
Position

Numberofparticipants

CEO/MDandGMs
Seniormanagement(incCEOandGMs)
NationalOHS manager
StateOHSmanager
RegionalOHSmanager
SiteOHScoordinator/advisor
Engineer/constructionprofessional
Constructionmanager
Sitemanager/superintendent
Projectmanager
Foremen
Other(includingnonspecified)
Total

12
12
8
10
12
39
44
35
35
58
13
80
358

Planningforapositivesitesafetyculture
Planningfor sitesafetyculturehasthepurposeofreducingexternalobstaclestoappropriateleadershipbehaviour
and providing an environment that rewards positive behaviours, and more importantly, offers no excuse for not
undertakingappropriateactions.
Anintegralpartofsafetycultureplanningisensuringthatpeoplewhoholdsafetycriticalpositionshavethe
appropriate level of knowledge and understanding to develop an environment that supports safety culture. Table
23.3highlightstheminimumtasks(organisedunderknowledge,abilitiesandbehaviours)thatstaffinsafetycritical
rolesmustcompletetohavemaximumimpactonsitesafety.

206

Table23.3:SafetycriticalRoles:MinimumTasksforMaximumSiteSafetyImpact
Role
Managing
directorsand
generalmanagers

Seniormanagers

Constructionor
operations
managers

Knowledge

Ability
Carryoutformalinspectionsofworkplaceandworkplace
tasks

Behaviour
Makesitevisitswheretheytalk
directlytoasiteworkerabout
safety
Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatalllevels
whenencountered
Recogniseandrewardpeople
whohavepositivelyimpacted
safety

Applyfullworkingknowledgeoforganisationssafety
managementsystem
Developprojectsafetymanagementplans
IdentifyandincludesuitableOHSrequirementsinto
subcontractorpackages,e.g.riskassessmenttools
Mentorstaffandfollowtheirprogress

Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatanylevel
whentheyencounterit
Speaktoseniormanagement
aboutsafetyissuesinthe
workplace

Recruitandselectnewstaffincorporatingsafetycompetency
Carryoutformalinspectionsofworkplaceandworktasks
EffectivelydisciplinestaffforpoorOHSbehaviour/attitude

Makesitevisitswheretheytalk
directlytoasiteworkerabout
safety
Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatalllevels
whenencountered
Recogniseandrewardpeople
whohavepositivelyimpacted
safety

Understandgeneral
regulatoryOHS
requirements

Understandgeneral
regulatoryOHS
requirements

207

Projectmanagers

Engineers

Sitesupervisors
andmanagers

DevelopOHS
proceduresand
instructions
Understandgeneral
regulatoryOHS
requirements
Identifyandinclude
suitableOHS
requirementsinto
subcontractor
packages
Fullworking
knowledgeof
companysafety
management
system
Understandand
applygeneral
regulatoryOHS
requirements

Monitorsubcontractoractivities
Carryoutprojectriskassessments
Carryourformalinspectionsofworkplaceandworktasks
Carryourformalincidentinvestigations
Carryoutworkplaceandtaskhazardidentification,risk
assessmentsandcontrol(e.g.jobsafetyassessmentsand
safeworkmethodstatements)
DevelopOHSproceduresandinstructions
Mentorstaffandfollowtheirprogress
ConsultonandresolveOHSissues

Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatalllevels
whenencountered
Workwithsubordinatestosolve
safetyproblems
Makesitevisitswheretheytalk
directlytoasiteworkerabout
safety
DisciplinestaffforpoorOHS
behaviour/attitude

Monitorsubcontractoractivities
Carryourformalinspectionsofworkplaceandworktasks
Carryoutworkplaceandtaskhazardidentification,risk
assessmentsandcontrol(e.g.jobsafetyassessmentsand
safeworkmethodstatements)

Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatalllevels
whenencountered
Workwithsubordinatestosolve
safetyproblems

Understandgeneral
regulatoryOHS
requirements
Fullworking
knowledgeof
companysafety
management
system

Deliversitespecificinduction
providegeneralOHSinformationandprovidebasicOHS
instruction
Carryoutbasictaskcompetencyassessmentsofemployees
Monitorsubcontractoractivities
Carryourformalinspectionsofworkplaceandworktasks
Carryourformalincidentinvestigations
Carryoutworkplaceandtaskhazardidentification,risk
assessmentsandcontrol(e.g.jobsafetyassessmentsand
safeworkmethodstatements)
Carryoutprojectriskassessments
MentorStaffandfollowtheirprogress

Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatalllevels
whenencountered
Workwithsubordinatestosolve
safetyproblems
Makesitevisitswheretheytalk
directlytoasiteworkerabout
safety
DisciplinestaffforpoorOHS
behaviour/attitude

208

Foremen

Understandgeneral
regulatoryOHS
requirements
Fullworking
knowledgeof
companysafety
management
system

Monitorsubcontractoractivities
Carryourformalinspectionsofworkplaceandworktasks
Carryoutworkplaceandtaskhazardidentification,risk
assessmentsandcontrol(e.g.jobsafetyassessmentsand
safeworkmethodstatements)
Administerfirstaidtoinjuredpersons
Speaktoseniormanagementaboutsafetyissuesinthe
workplace

Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatalllevels
whenencountered
Workwithsubordinatestosolve
safetyproblems
Makesitevisitswheretheytalk
directlytoasiteworkerabout
safety
DisciplinestaffforpoorOHS
behaviour/attitude
Recogniseandrewardpeople
whohavepositivelyimpacted
safety

209

SiteOHSadvisors
andsupervisors

Understandgeneral
regulatoryOHS
requirements
Understandand
applydetailed
legislative
requirementse.g.
welfareprovisions
aswellassafety
andhealth

ProvidegeneralOHS informationandprovidebasicOHS
instruction
Deliversite/workplacespecificinduction
ConsultonandresolveOHSissues
Speaktoseniormanagementaboutsafetyissuesinthe
workplace
Facilitategroup/workteamOHSdiscussionsandmeetings
Workwithsubordinatestosolvesafetyproblems
Participateinsitesafetycommittee
InitiateandcoordinateOHSawarenessactivitiesor
presentations
PlananddeliverToolboxtalks
DisciplinestaffforpoorOHSbehaviour/attitude
Carryoutworkplaceandtaskhazardidentification,risk
assessmentsandcontrol(JSAandSWMSs)
DeliverOHStrainingintheworkplace
Carryoutformalinspectionsofworkplaceandworktasks
Monitorsubcontractoractivities
Carryoutformalincidentinvestigations
Applyfullworkingknowledgeoforganisationssafety
managementsystem
DevelopOHSproceduresandinstructions
Carryoutprojectriskassessments
Developprojectsafetymanagementplans
EvaluateOHSperformanceofsubcontractors
IdentifyandincludesuitableOHSrequirementsinto
subcontractorpackages,e.g.riskassessmenttools
ResearchandpreparereportsonOHSissuesand
improvementstrategies
Carryoutbasictaskcompetencyassessmentsofemployees

Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatalllevels
whenencountered
Makesitevisitswhereyoutalk
directlytoasiteworkerabout
safetyintheworkplace
Recogniseandrewardpeople
whohavepositivelyimpacted
safety

210

RegionalOHS
managers

Understandand
applygeneral
regulatoryOHS
requirements
Understandand
applydetailed
legislative
requirementse.g.
welfareprovisions
aswellassafety
andhealth

InitiateandcoordinateOHSawarenessactivitiesor
presentations
DeliverOHStrainingintheworkplace
PlananddeliverToolboxtalks
ProvidegeneralOHS informationandprovidebasicOHS
instruction
Workwithsubordinatestosolvesafetyproblems
Speaktoseniormanagementaboutsafetyissuesinthe
workplace
Facilitategroup/workteamOHSdiscussionsandmeetings
Carryoutprojectriskassessments
Monitorsubcontractoractivities
DevelopOHSproceduresandinstructions
ConsultonandresolveOHSissues
Applyfullworkingknowledgeofyourorganisationssafety
managementsystem
Carryoutworkplaceandtaskhazardidentification,risk
assessmentsandcontrol(JSAandSWMSs)
ResearchandpreparereportsonOHSissuesand
improvementstrategies
Carryoutformalinspectionsofworkplaceandworktasks
Carryoutformalincidentinvestigations
CarryoutbasicprojectOHSsystemelementaudits
IdentifyandincludesuitableOHSrequirementsinto
subcontractorpackages,e.g.riskassessmenttools
Developprojectsafetymanagementplans
EvaluateOHSperformanceofsubcontractors

Makesitevisitswhereyoutalk
directlytoasiteworkerabout
safetyintheworkplace
Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatanylevel
whenyouencounterit
Recogniseandrewardpeople
whohavepositivelyimpacted
safety

211

StateOHS
managers

Understandand
applygeneral
regulatoryOHS
requirements
Understandand
applydetailed
legislative
requirementse.g.
welfareprovisions
aswellassafety
andhealth

NationalOHS
managers

Understandand
applygeneral
regulatoryOHS
requirements
Understandand
applydetailed
legislative
requirementse.g.
welfareprovisions
aswellassafety
andhealth

Workwithsubordinatestosolvesafetyproblems
Speaktoseniormanagementaboutsafetyissuesinthe
workplace
DeliverOHStrainingintheworkplace
Mentorstaffandfollowtheirprogress
DisciplinestaffforpoorOHSbehaviour/attitude
ProvidegeneralOHS informationandprovidebasicOHS
instruction.
Carryoutprojectriskassessments
DevelopOHSproceduresandinstructions
Carryoutformalincidentinvestigations
Carryoutworkplaceandtaskhazardidentification,risk
assessmentsandcontrol(JSAandSWMSs)
Carryoutformalinspectionsofworkplaceandworktasks
Developprojectsafetymanagementplans
InitiateandcoordinateOHSawarenessactivitiesor
presentations
Monitorsubcontractoractivities
EvaluateOHSperformanceofsubcontractors
Applyfullworkingknowledgeofyourorganisationssafety
managementsystem
Facilitategroup/workteamOHSdiscussionsandmeetings
ProvidegeneralOHS informationandprovidebasicOHS
instruction
InitiateandcoordinateOHSawarenessactivitiesor
presentations
Carryoutformalincidentinvestigations
Carryoutformalinspectionsofworkplaceandworktasks
Carryoutworkplaceandtaskhazardidentification,risk
assessmentsandcontrol(JSAandSWMSs)
CarryoutbasicprojectOHSsystemelementaudits

Recogniseandrewardpeople
whohavepositivelyimpacted
safety
Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatanylevel
whenyouencounterit
Makesitevisitswhereyoutalk
directlytoasiteworkerabout
safetyintheworkplace
ConsultonandresolveOHS
issues

Speaktoseniormanagement
aboutsafetyissuesinthe
workplace
Makesitevisitswhereyoutalk
directlytoasiteworkerabout
safetyintheworkplace
Challengeunsafe
behaviour/attitudeatanylevel
whenyouencounterit
Workwithsubordinatestosolve
safetyproblems
ConsultonandresolveOHS
issues

(Source:FocusGroupTranscriptsJune2005)

212

DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSION
The characteristics and competencies mentioned earlier inthis chapter are merely the fundamental characteristics
that the various position holders require to set a foundation for safety culture. Some knowledge, abilities and
behaviours are required in all positions (such as challenging unsafe behaviour/attitude at all levels when
encountered), whereas other competencies are specific to particular roles (for example, deliver sitespecific
induction).Itisvitalthatconstructioncompaniesensurethatpeopleinthesepositionshavetheabilitytoenactthe
espoused organisationalsafety values.Byincreasingsafetycompetency,itshouldbepossibleto furtherminimise
theimpactofexternalmarketforcesonsitesafety.
Thekeyexternalfactorstomanageareinflexibletimelines,lowcosttendering,novelworktasks,atransient
workforce and a general willingness to take risks. Planning for safety culture competencies should allow for a
greaterunderstanding,withintheproject,ofsafetyandthepersonaloutcomeswhenitisnotmaintained.Thisgreater
understanding, particularly with positions of project manager and above, should work to reduce the presence of
inflexibletimelinesincontractsandshouldencouragethosewiththepowertoseekextensionsorvariationstodoso.
Effectivesafetycultureplanningatthisstageoftheprojectisvitaltoensurethatinflexibletimelinesarenotsetand
sufficientfundsforsafetyarebudgetedfor.Bydoingso,thenecessitytoworkexcessivehoursandtakesignificant
riskstogetthejobdonewouldbereduced.Additionally,byencouragingtheclienttohaveagreaterunderstanding
ofsafetyshouldalsoservetocreateamoreevenplayingfieldatthetenderingprocess.Itisnotarguedthatthisisan
easythingtoachieve, but itisarguedthatarealreductionininjuriesandfatalitiescannotoccurinanenvironmentof
undercostingandinflexibledeadlines.
Theplanningforpeopleinsafetycritical rolestohavecollaborationandcommunicationskillsshouldhelpto
minimisetheinfluenceofnovelworktasksonsafetyperformanceandriskperception.Increasedworkerinputinto
decisionmakingshouldprovidea greaterdegreeofexpertiseinmanagingnovelsafetyissuesandgreatermotivation
toadheretorequirements.Wearguethecriticalroleofvalues,beliefsandattitudesinestablishingandmaintaininga
positive sitesafetyculture andsuggestanumberofkeyelementsandtasksinachievingthatgoal.
Finally, a greater degree of consistency in safety skilling, combined with an environment that supports a
safetyculture,shouldbegintotransfervaluestothelargely subcontractingworkforce.Thisunderstandingwouldbe
evidenced in a more negative evaluation of risktaking behaviour (that is, the outcomes of risky behaviour are
apparentandseentobesignificant).
Despite the existence of quality research articulating how safety culture should be built, managed and
maintained,thepowerfulexternalmarketforcesthatarepresentintheconstructionindustryworktointerferewith
the application of these findings and the establishment of a true safety culture. It is argued that one small step
towardsreducingtheimpactofthese factorsisfortheindustryasawholetoplanfortheir safetycriticalrolesto
havetheknowledge,skillsandbehaviours,thoroughlyinformedbypositivebeliefsandattitudes,thatwillhelpthem
to make decisions that will reduce the power of these factors whether those decisions are at the
tendering/contractsstageoratthetimeofaconcretepour.Unfortunately,realimprovementsinsafetyandindustry
safetyculturearenotpossibleuntilasafetycompetency foundationisset.

REFERENCES
Biggs,H.,D.Dingsdag,V.SheahanandN.Stenson. 2005.Theroleofcollaborationindefiningandmaintaininga
safetyculture:Australianperspectivesintheconstructionsector. 21st AnnualARCOMConference.London,79
September.
Cole,T.2003. FinalReportoftheRoyalCommissionintotheBuildingandConstructionIndustry:Summaryof
findingsandrecommendations,volume1 (ColeRoyalCommissionReport).Canberra:AGPS.
Cox,S,J.Tomas,A.CheyneandA.Oliver.1998.Safety culture:thepredictionofcommitmenttosafetyinthe
manufacturingindustry.BritishJournalofManagement,9:311.
Glendon,A.andN.Stanton.2000.Perspectivesonsafetyculture. SafetyScience,34:193214.
Guldenmund,F.2000.Thenatureofsafetyculture:areviewoftheoryandresearch. Safety Science, 34:215257.
NationalOccupationalHealthandSafety Commission.2003. CompendiumofWorkersCompensationStatistics
Australia20012002.Canberra:DepartmentofEmploymentandWorkplaceRelations,Commonwealthof
Australia.
Mohamed,S.2002.Safety climateinconstructionsiteenvironments. JournalofConstructionEngineeringand
Management, 128(5):375384.
Neal,A.andM.Griffin.2004.Safety climateandsafetyatwork. ThePsychologyofWorkplaceSafety, eds.J.
Barling andM.Frone,1534.Washington:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
Neal,A.,M.GriffinandP.Hart.2000.Theimpactoforganizationalclimateonsafetyclimateandindividual
behavior. SafetyScience,34:99109.
Williamson,A.,A.Feyer,D.CairnsandD.Biancotti.1997.Thedevelopmentofameasureofsafetyclimate:the
roleofsafetyperceptionsandattitudes. Safety Science, 25(13):1527.

213

CHAPTER24

ChangingSafetyBehaviourinthe
ConstructionIndustry,Using
EnforcementandEducationastheStick
andtheCarrottoImproveSafetyCulture
DonaldDingsdag
HerbertBiggs
VaughnSheahan
INTRODUCTION
The sheetanchor of the project on which this chapter is based holds that, owing to the unacceptable numbers of
injuriesanddeathsintheconstructionindustry,achangeofsafetycultureintheAustralianconstructionindustryis
long overdue (Department of the Parliamentary Library 2005 Johnstone 2003). Consequently, this chapter
unequivocally assumes an advocacy position by suggesting ways in which the industry can improve its safety
performance through improving its safety culture. As the title of the chapter suggests, either enforcement or
educationmay be the primary motivators of safety culture. More crudely put, these could be characterised as the
stickorthecarrot.However,tosuggestthateithersinglydrivesthedesiredsafetycultureiscontentiousandwrong
headedas,inallprobability,bothareequallynecessaryandcodependentasweintendtoestablishinthischapter.
Complicatingfactorsarethatuntilthisprojectlittleconclusiveindustryspecificresearchhasbeenconductedonthe
efficacy of safety culture and that there are various competing and, at times, contradictory approaches to safety
culture.Inthemaintherearetwomajorapproachesofwhichonereliesonchangingorganisationalsafetycultureby
a change process that over a long time alters the norms, values and attitudes leading to the desired behavioural
change.Theother,competing,model,behaviourbasedsafety(BBS),reliesoninfluencingbehaviourswhichreduce
atrisk behaviours thereby creating the desired safety culture. As we discuss below, both have merit and
disincentiveshowever,quiteclearlyiftheperiodforcompleteculturalturnaroundespousedinsomesafetyculture
literature is seven years it is not surprising that the former approach has not been embraced in the Australian
construction industry. Rather, the latter has met with greater acceptance, because it appears to produce results
quickly. But as we detail below, the underpinning principles may be counterproductive to creating an enduring
positivesafetyculture.
Inaddition,wecontendthatthespecific wayinwhich theprincipalOHSActsinAustraliaareconstructed
alsohasaprofoundinfluenceonsafetyculturetheyarepenalcodesandnoncompliancemayresultinlargefines
and, in extreme circumstances, gaol. However, this type of persuasion does not necessarily produce a desirable
safety culture. Rather, the instrumentalist type of safety culture/behaviours that results is predicated on basic
compliancewithlegislativerequirementanditdoesnotproducethevisionandvaluesthataproactiveandvibrant
safety culture requires in order to generate desirable safety behaviours. Further, minimalist compliance, without
strivingtocontinuallyimproveperformance,isprobablythemajorfactorcontributingtotheAustralianconstruction
industrys poor safety record. This is demonstrated in statistics from the Australian Safety and Compensation
Council(ASCC) usedthroughoutthischapter.
Typically, composite national statistics such as these obfuscate some aspects of fatalities such as those
characterisedobtuselyaslongtermcontactwithchemicalsorsubstances,probably forthelattermeaningdeath
due to asbestosis or mesothelioma which have long latency incubation periods and indicate contact with the
hazardoussubstanceperhapsthirtyyearspriortothedeath.Also,recordsofcompensatedinjuriesanddeathsgrossly
underestimatetheactualratesasthereisagreatdealofunderreportingofinjuriesintheconstructionindustry,and
an unknown number of workrelated deaths are not reported as such as they may occur a long time after the
employeehaslefttheparticularemploymentorhasretired.Similarly,ifapersonisfatallyinjuredandistakento
hospital by ambulance, if the death occurs away from the workplace, it may not be categorised as a workplace
fatality.Yetanotherissuerelatestothelagbetweenthepublicationandthetimeof occurrence.Evenso wemust
relyonthemostaccessibleandthemostrecentlyavailablestatisticswhich,notwithstandingtheconcernsexpressed
above,quiteclearlyshowthatsafetyperformanceintheconstructionindustryrequiresmajorimprovement.

214

The Australian Construction industryemployed 773,000 people in 20032004 representing 8% of the Australian
workforce.Withintheconstructionindustry,255,000(33%)workerswereselfemployed,and465,000(67%)were
employees.
The 14,125 claims made by the employees in the construction industry accounted for 10% of accepted
workerscompensationclaimsin20032004 involvingoneormoreweekstimelost.
The incidence of compensated claims for the construction industry in 20032004 was 29 claims per 1000
employeesequatingtoaround39claimsperday.Thiswasalargedecreasefromtheincidencerateof39claimsper
1000employeesrecordedin19961997butremainsmuchhigherthanthecurrentnationalaverageforallindustries
of16claimsper1000employees.
Theincidenceofworkplacefatalitiesinthisindustrywas6.5fatalitiesper100,000employeesin20032004
which was almost three times higher than the national average for all industries of 2.3 fatalities per 100,000
employees.Overthepasteightyearsthenumberofcompensatedfatalitiesinthe constructionindustryhasdecreased
from56deathsin19961997to32in20032004,butremainsthehighestofallindustries.
Themostcommontypeofinjury/diseasewassprainsandstrains,accountingfor42%ofallclaims.Themost
commoncausesofcompensatedinjuryanddiseaseinthisindustryin20032004 were:
bodystressing(muscularstressduetomanualhandlingorrepetitivemovement)whichaccountedfor36%ofall
claims
beinghitbymovingobjects,whichaccountedfor15%ofallclaims
falls,tripsandslipsofaperson, whichaccountedfor24%ofallclaims.
In 20032004 the most common causes of compensated fatality in this industry were longterm contact with
chemicalsorsubstances,whichaccountedfor22%offatalities,andfallsfromheight,whichaccountedforafurther
19%offatalities(ASCC2006).
Theabsolutenecessityofleadershipbyseniormanagementtocreateaproactiveandbeneficialsafetyculture
ortochangeanegativesafetyculturewehaveexaminedandproclaimedelsewhere(Biggsetal.2005aCipollaet
al. 2005 Biggs et al. 2005cb Biggs et al. 2005c). Consequently we do not discuss these necessary elements of
achievingadesirablesafetycultureherebecausethisisnottheobjectiveofthischapter.Rather,wesuggestthatas
well as the primacy of executive managements leadership in promoting safety culture the legislative stick is
essential,forwithoutthenecessarycompliancethatpenalcodesgenerate,constructionindustrysafetyperformance
wouldbeevenworsethantheabovestatisticssuggest.Contradictorytoourpositionthatminimalistcomplianceis
not desirable it is often the case that, when an organisation has suffered a major injury or multiple injuries or a
fatality,subsequenttoprosecutionorlesserpenalprovisions, itisgalvanisedintochangingsafetybehavioursforthe
betterandturningthesafety culturearound.Itmay wellbeconstruedthatsuchaneventprovidesapathwayto
education.
Another complicating factor isthat there is very little formal safety andhealth education for OHS officers
and, of greater concern, for key personnel charged legally with the observance and enforcement of safety in the
constructionindustry.OHSlegislationgenericallydesignatestheemployer,thatis,thegeneralmanager,theMDor
personsincontrolofpremisesand/orprincipalcontractors(whichmostofAustraliaslargestconstructionfirms
are) as having the ultimate responsibility for OHS. Rather, the industry relies overheavily on training, some of
which may have dubious value for safety performance because it does not target the correct safety competencies.
Further, in all likelihood it is not intended to improve safety culture, nor does it reach the most appropriate
employees,normanagement.Muchtrainingissteepedincompetencybasedprincipleswhichcanhaveamajorrole
inattainingtherequiredskillcompetenciesaswellasthenecessarysafetybehaviours,butthecorrectcompetencies
musthavefoundationinappropriateadulteducationalvaluesandtechnique.Moreover,thetrainersmaybepoorly
trained themselves and they may not have the appropriate educational qualifications, or the necessary
communicationskills.Theresultisthatthecornerstoneofsafetyculture,whichisthatsafetyisbasedonashared
ideology,thatistosaythevalues,normsandbehavioursorthatsafetyiseverybodysbusinessinsafetycultural
terminology, isnotgettingthrough tothe correctrecipients because the essential messageis misdirected andit is
alsomiscommunicatedowingtothepoorqualityofthetrainingandalackoftrainingineffectivecommunication
technique.Evenso,weendorsethenecessityandthevalueofappropriatetrainingfortheconstructionindustryand
itsroleinproducingthedesiredbehavioursandcontributing toaneffectivesafetyculture.

ENFORCEMENTOREDUCATION?THELAW
As we outlined in the abstract and later, a major factor contributing to suboptimal safety performance is the
functionofOHSregulationinthedisparateAustralianjurisdictions.NotonlyaretherenineprincipalOHSActs,but
alloftheseappeartobetooheavilyfocusedonenforcingcompliance,withoutprovidingthenecessaryeducational
functionthatmust,outofnecessity,accompanythisRobenstype oflegislationderivedfromtheUK whichaside
frombeingapenalcode(butnotacriminalcode,eventhoughintheUKandinsomeoftheAustralianjurisdictions
morerecently,thereisprovisionforcriminalprosecutionofsomeseriousoffenceslikeindustrialmanslaughter)is
performancebasedanddependentonselfregulationbyemployersattheircost.Robenslegislation,firstintroduced

215

intheUKin1974wasintendedtoengendercontinuousimprovementandimprovingstandardsinlegislationwithin
agoalsettinglegalframeworksupportedbycodesofpracticeand/orperformancestandardswhichcouldberevised
moreeasilythanprimarylegislationwhichmayrequire adifficultenactmentpassageinparliament.Byandlargein
theAustralianjurisdictions,theseoriginalintendeddirectionswerewatereddownoronlyenactedpartially.Noneof
thecurrentenactmentsprovideindetailwhatisspecificallyrequiredtoconformotherthaninthebroadestgeneric
terms. Examples we produce are taken from interviews conducted with Australias 11 largest construction
organisations(principalcontractors)whoaremembersoftheAustralianConstructorsAssociation(ACA).Further,
often when regulators inspectorates are approached to provide specific detail of how to conform, they refuse to
provide it because they may be held accountable inthe event of resulting injuries or fatalities. Inthe instance of
WorkCoverNSWatypicalresponsereceivedwhenaskingfocusgroupparticipantsofoneACAmembercompany
abouttheirinteractionswiththeinspectoratewas:
wegotoWorkCoverandwetalktothem,allthetime,andtheydont,theyrenot,theywont
give us a clear ruling on stuff. They will definitely not give you anything written, but they are
reallystandoffishbecausetheyreworriedaboutbeingloadedinthebarrelthemselves.Imean,we
shouldallbetalking.Subcontractors,principalcontractors,andWorkCover,toalltalktogetherto
makethewholeplaceabetterplace.
Another participant retorted, That comment about they wont give you anything written, I get plenty of them,
prosecutions.Someparticipantsduringafocusgroupwithanotherofthe11ACAmemberorganisationsdefended
WorkCover:
The regulator, to be fair to the regulator he is caught between a rock and a hard place, he is
certainlyextremelyunderresourced,underfundedandtheyhavegotacoupleofpeopleinthere
nowthathavegottherightsortofattitudeyouknowcertainly
And:
Sothereisagoodalignment,weneedtosortofpromotethatallianceandengagethem,itsvery
difficultforthemthanitisforusbecauseoftheirstaffinglevelsandtheirabilitytogetaroundthe
industry.
It may be construed that there is no OHS education required at law and that behaviourial change is achieved by
inducingcompliancefromorganisationsbecausetheyhavebeenpunitivelydealtwiththroughfinesor,inthemost
extremecircumstances,byprosecutions.Eitherofthesecanbecostly.InNSWforexamplethemaximumfinefor
the newly introduced industrial manslaughter provisions is $1.65m for an organisation and $165,000 for
individuals(OccupationalHealthandSafetyAct2000,NSW,Section32A(inactualitythefinesareexpressedas
penaltyunits(at$110foreachunit)with15,000fortheformerand1500forthelatter).Quiteclearly,theperceived
stickinthisextremecircumstanceshouldprovidemotivationfororganisationsforthemuchmoredesirablecarrotof
proactiveOHSeducation.
Aspartofthisresearch,managementrepresentativesofallofthe statesandterritoriesOHSregulatorswere
interviewed. It was put to them that precedence for OHS legislation to be based on education rather than
enforcementexistedbyquotingtheMontanaSafetyCultureAct,1993,fromtheStateofMontanaintheUSA.To
quotefromHough(2000,3):
The safety culture act distributes responsibility down the line, away from governmentonly,
watchdogtypelaws.Itputsthegovernmentintheroleaseducatorforsafety,nottheenforcer.For
example, the Labor and Industry Department sponsors an onsite safety and health consultation
programaswellasonetopromotesafetyeducationinpublicschools.
What is unique about this approach is that workers compensation insurance providers assume the primary
enforcementfunction,nottheregulator:
Nowinsurers,notthestate,enforcesafetyregulationsthroughconsultations,warnings,penalties,
andfines.Every employerisrequiredtohaveworkerscompinsurance.Theycanchoseprivateor
state insurance (the one connection the state has to penalties and fines is the statesponsored
workers comp insurance fund), or chose to selfinsure. If an employer doesnt want a safety
program,theirpremiumcouldbedoubled.
(Hough2000,3)
Itwouldbeinterestingtospeculatehowsuchanapproach,ifitwereembracedbytheAustralianOHSregulators,
wouldaffectsafetyperformanceiftheycouldconcentrateonprovidingeducation,training,informationandadvice.
Also,thereisaprimarymandatoryeducationalfunctionforemployersundertheMontanaSafetyCulture Actwhich
isforeigntoRobenstypelegislationinAustraliaalthoughtheeducationalandtrainingelementsoftheActfeature
prominentlyintheprincipalAustralianOHSActsandaccompanyingregulation(s)asregulatoryrequirements.For
example,employers,aspartofthisintegralsystem,havetodomorethanjustpurchaseinsurance.Companiesare
requiredtoestablishandmaintainaneducationalbasedtrainingprogram whichincludesthefollowing:

216

ageneralsafetyorientationforeveryemployeebeforetheybeginwork
jobspecifictraining beforetheemployeebeginsthattask,thenannualrefreshersafetytraining
a system of building employee awareness through posters, newsletters, meetings, and safety incentive
programs
periodicselfinspectionsforhazard assessment,atleastannually
documentationofallactivities.
(Hough2000)

Also, employers with more than five employees must have a comprehensive safety program with policies that
specifically define employee responsibility and safety performance accountability procedures for reporting,
investigating, and taking corrective action on all workrelated accidents, injuries, illnesses, incidents and known
unsafeworkconditionsorpractices(Hough2000).
Mostoftheintervieweesdidnotknowoftheexistenceofthislegislation.Admittedlyitisuniqueeveninthe
USA. Some of the senior managers of three regulatory bodies interviewed expressed refreshingly frank views on
both the efficaciousness of enforcement and endorsement of a stronger education function as a supplement to
enforcementtoprocurecompliance(Biggsetal.2005a).Intheirview,betterresourcescouldfacilitatetheprovision
of education, training, information and advice which supports our position on the instrumentalist nature of
competencybasedtraining.Thelackofresourcesineachofthejurisdictionsiswellknownforexample,inhuman
resources,WorkCoverNSWhas,atthetimeofwriting[mid2006]approximately300inspectorswhereasthereare
some 325,000 workplaces in NSW. Complicating factors are that even though each of the inspectorates has
prosecutorialpowers,insomejurisdictions,suchastheACT,prosecutionsoforganisationsmustbeundertakenin
themagistrates court where, unlike in OHS jurisdictionalhearings, such as the NSWindustrial magistrate orthe
Industrial Relations Commission, criminal levels of proof may be required and intent established. Consequently,
prosecutionsfailorfinesimposedaretriflingcommensuratetotheinfringementanddonotactasadeterrentanddo
notleadtotheproactiveOHSeducationprocessmentionedabove.
At odds with the Montana SafetyCulture Act, education is not stated inany of Australias principal OHS
Actsasanobject.Whenaskedwhyeducationwasnotaprimaryobjectembodiedatlawandwhytherehasnotbeen
agreaterfocusoneducationoperationally,onemanagerinonemajorjurisdictioninparticularrelatedthatinthepast
therehadbeenavoluntaryinformationserviceforsmallcontractorsinconstructionwhichinitiallyfunctionedwell.
However, this service was staffed by inspectors who subsequently had to issue infringements or prosecute
contractorswhohadattendedthesessions.Accordingtothisinformant,contractorsthoughtthattheyhadbeenset
upandtheservicewasdiscreditedanddisbanded.Severaloftheinterviewedmanagerswereenthusiasticaboutthe
potentialofsafetyculturebasedoneducationalprinciplestoprocuresuperiorsafetyoutcomes,inthatthisapproach
encouragedindividualstoactandthinksafetyontheirowninitiativeratherthansimplycomplyingwithOHSlaws.
Theycharacterisedmerecomplianceasminimalistandundesirable.Onecommentedthatunderexistinglegislative
provisions the current management of site safety has not proven adequate in reducing risk exposure as lost time
injury (LTI) and fatality rates for the construction industry in Australia testify (in each of Australias states and
territories construction has consistently been amongst the highest rates of any industry). This manager, although
firmlyendorsingtheincorporationofsafetycultureintocurrentlegislation,maintainedthatpenalprovisionssuchas
those contained in the current Robensstyle principal OHS Acts must remain to keep the construction industry
honest (Biggsetal.2005a).Asnotedabove,wefullysupportthatposition.

SAFETYCULTURALCHANGEVsBEHAVIOURALCHANGE:THE
CARROTORTHESTICK?
In effect, the two main approaches to safety culture the safety cultural model, which relies on changing
organisational safety culture incrementally leading to the desired behavioural change and the other, behaviour
basedsafety(BBS),whichdependsonmodifyingbehavioursdirectlytocreatethedesiredsafetyculture both
equatetoenforcementoreducationasthemainmotivators.Thesafetyculturalmodelhasmanyvariantswhichall
shareacommonality.Atypicalapproachisthateitherinternalorexternalchangeagentsarebroughtintochange
the safety culture slowly over time anda common theme is thatthere isresistance to change principally because
many of the changesneeded are viewed negatively by one or more levels of the organisation (Simon &Simon
1996,522).Whatismeantisthat,typically,employeesandmiddlemanagementresistand/orobstructchange.The
essenceofthisapproachisthattheattitudesandbeliefsofanorganisationalunitorgrouphavetheiroriginsinthe
culturalnorms and assumption of the groups members, in this instanceto resist and obstruct just as the groups
sharedbeliefsandattitudesmayfullysubscribetothedesiredsafetyculture.Whatisessentialinordertochangethis
negative culture is to understand how it is formed and how it can be changed. The knowledge, skills or tools to
effect change are many and varied and may take many years to achieve. Generally, for a dynamic industry like

217

construction, this approach has limited appeal its cost and labourintensive and it may not deliver the desired
outcomes.
Conversely, the BBS approachhas more appeal to the Australian construction industry and our interviews
andfocusgroupresultsindicatethattheBBSapproachisabetterfitandisoperatingwithsomesuccessinsome
ofthe11memberorganisationsoftheACA.ThepredispositiontoBBSintheindustryisnotentirelyunexpectedit
appearstoproducequick,butperhapsnotmeasurable,resultsanditconformsneatlytotheenforcementapproach
embedded in the principal OHS legislation. In brief, according to Tom Krause, a principal exponent of a BBS
approach, whichisclaimedtohavehadsuccessinAustralia:
Behavioral theory focuses on the main behaviorsthatleadto accidentsrather than theaccidents
themselves, which are relatively infrequent and difficult to investigate objectively, or attitudes
which are difficult to change. Behavioral methods are proactive and focus on potential risky
behavior. BBS involves identifying, through observation, behaviors which are safe and those
whichinvolveriskofinjury.
(Krause2002)
AtypicalcritiqueofthemethodistobefoundinSimonandSimon(1996,523):
Somesafetybehaviorconsultantsrejectthenotionthatyoushouldmanageattitudesandyetthey
speakabouttheimportanceofculture.Theysay managebehaviors,notattitudes.Youcant
seeattitudes,butyoucanobservebehaviorsGetpeopletobehavetheway you wantthemto
behave and their attitudes will change These beliefs are based on Pavlovs and Skinners
behaviorismtheories,aswellasafearofinvadingpeoplesprivacy.
Not surprisingly Krause (2002) vehemently contests these attributions and is disposed to defending the use of
observers who, as part of his approach, are trained to watch employees perform their tasks, scoring their safety
performance.SinceEltonMayos HawthorneStudies(19271932)theeffects of observationontaskperformance
enhancement are well known and acknowledged to be ineffective. Clearly, its impractical to have the safety
performanceoflargenumbersofindividualsobservedaroundtheclock.Further,thistypeofbehaviourbasedsafety
approachdefeatstheprimary objective ofsafety culturewhichisthatpeopleinherently wanttobehaveandwork
safely, not because they are made to do it. Ourresearch so farhasnot yet fully determined which paradigm will
producethemostenduringandappropriatesafetyperformance fortheAustralianconstructionindustry.Eventhough
wedisavowtheuseofthetermaccidentbyKrause(2002)becauseitsusesuggestsanunforeseen,unpredictable
andunpreventableeventandwe opposetheuse of observation,weareinclinedtowardsaBBSapproachtodrive
safetyculturechange.However,weshouldstatethatthebackboneofourCRCCIresearchprojectistoidentifythe
necessary skills, knowledge, abilities and therequired safety behaviourattributes for essential safety personnel in
theAustralianconstructionindustrytocreateasafetyskillsmatrixforsafetycriticalpositionsthatcanbeusedby
theindustrynationally.Notwithstanding,BBScannotthriveinasafetyculturevacuum.Consequently,thenecessary
preconditions of a vibrant, viable safety culture reside in having management commitment and the provision of
leadership driven by appropriate and relevant communication. In other words, these are the cornerstones of the
safety cultureapproachwithoutwhichBBScannotfunctionadequately.
Further, safety culture must be created and nurtured by senior management, supported by policies,
procedures, the necessary resources and communicated throughout the organisation. The findings of our research
projectsofarstronglyconfirmthesafetyculture(andsafetyclimate)literaturerelativetotheessentialityofsenior
management leadership and the necessity of appropriate and timely communication. In other words, not only is
visibleleadershiphighlysignificant,butthewayinwhichsafetyiscommunicatedisimportantsothatthemessage
is perceived as being meaningful and representative of the organisations policies and procedures. It is also
imperativethatsafetycommunicationsareappropriatefortherecipient,consistentlyclarifiedsothattheycannotbe
misunderstood.Toreturntotheprimarythemeofthechapter,aswellastheprimacyofexecutivemanagements
leadership in promoting safety culture as the carrot, the legislative stick is also essential for, the necessary
impetusthatpenalcodesproduceensuresimplementation, andmaintenance andimprovementofOHSprovisions.In
addition, there is a far greater requirement for education than currently exists, both in terms of promoting
understanding of the function of safety culture in producing the desired behaviours as well as in improving the
qualityoftraining.EducationisalsonecessaryasaprimarystatedobjectineachoftheAustralianOHSprincipal
Actsandmustbeincludedintheiroperationalrequirements.

REFERENCES
AustralianSafety andCompensationCouncil.2006. ConstructionInformationSheet, StatisticalReportsBasedon
WorkersCompensationbasedData.Canberra:AustralianSafetyandCompensationCouncil.
Biggs,H.,D.Dingsdag,D.Cipolla,L.SokolichandV.Sheahan.2005b.Utilisingasafetyculture approachinthe
Australianconstructionindustry.RoyalInstitutionofCharteredSurveyors(RICS)COBRAConference.Brisbane,
48July.

218

Biggs,H.,D. Dingsdag,V.SheahanandN.Stenson. 2005a.Theroleofcollaborationindefiningandmaintaininga


safetyculture:Australianperspectivesintheconstructionsector. 21st AnnualARCOMConference.London,79
September.
Biggs,H.,V.SheahanandD.Dingsdag.2005c.Astudyofconstructionsitesafetyculture andimplicationsforsafe
andresponsiveworkplaces.TheAustralianJournalofRehabilitationCounselling.11(1):17.
Cipolla,D.,H.Biggs,D.Dingsdag,V.Sheahan,L.SokolichandW.Artuso.2005.Safety leadership andtheproject
manager:competenciesrequiredtopositivelyaffectsafetysiteculture. AustralianInstituteofProjectManagement
2005Conference.Melbourne,911October.
DepartmentoftheParliamentaryLibrary.2005. WorkplaceDeathandSeriousInjury:Asnapshotoflegislative
developmentsinAustraliaandoverseas:Researchbriefno.720042005.Canberra:ParliamentaryLibrary.
Hough, J. 2000. Montana'sSafety Culture Act: changingtheroleofgovernmentfromenforcertoeducator.
http://www.ishn.com/CDA/Archives/49389eba29fb7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0 (accessed2May2006).
Johnstone,R.2003. Fromfictiontofact:rethinkingOHSenforcement:workingpaper11.Canberra: National
ResearchCentreforOccupationalHealthandSafetyRegulation.
Krause,T.2002. Myths,Misconceptions,andWrongheadedIdeasAboutBehaviorBasedSafety:Whyconventional
wisdomisusuallywrong. http://www.bstsolutions.com/White%20Paper%20%20Safety%20
%20Myths%20and%20Misconceptions%20of%20BBS%20Aug%202002.pdf (accessed2May2006).
Simon,R.andS.Simon.1996.Improvingsafetyperformancethroughcultural interventions. EssentialsofSafety
andHealthManagement, ed.R.Lack,521534.USA:CRCPressInc.

219

CHAPTER25

ManagingEmployeesWorkLife
Balance:TheImpactofManagementon
IndividualWellbeingandProductivity
LisaBradley
CarolineBailey
HelenLingard
KerryBrown
INTRODUCTION
Theobjectiveofthecurrentstudywastoinvestigatefactorsinfluencingworklifebalanceandwellbeingofproject
teammembersofanallianceprojectinQueensland,Australia.Theprojectinvestigatedthesuccessofaworkplace
intervention which was implemented in order to improve worklife balance. The study results indicated that
management of an organisation plays a critical role in implementing worklife initiatives. Findings suggest that
successfulworklifebalancerequiresmanagementtonotjustimplementspecificinitiativesthereisalsoaneed
to establish the organisational context that is open to new and innovative ideas. In addition, the study found that
attendingto worklife balanceimprovesemployeesatisfactionandalsocreatesamoreproductiveworkforce.

BACKGROUND
Theconstructionindustryhasademandingworkenvironment,withlongerthanaverageworkinghours(Lingard&
Francis2004).Mostconstructionsitesoperateonasixdayweek basis,withprofessionalsandmanagersworking
many hours of unpaid overtime. The nature of work is also stressful, with tight deadlines and severe financial
penalties if targets are not met (Lingard & Francis 2004). Construction industry employees also often have to
balancetheconflictingrequirementsofmultiplestakeholders(Lingard&Francis2004).Constructionisahighrisk
industry in which thelikelihood of accidents and serious injury arehigherthan in other sectors,and construction
professionalsandmanagersbearsignificantresponsibilitynotonly forthecompletionofprojects, butalsothe
physical safety of workers (Lingard &Francis 2004). It traditionally has an adversarialculturein which conflicts
and disputes are commonplace. All these characteristics are potential workplace stressors that may impact upon
employeewellbeingandworklifebalance.Yetdespitetheseknownproblems,thereislittleguidanceavailableto
projectmanagersonhowtosustainthe wellbeing andworklife balanceoftheteamoverthedurationoftheproject.
Worklifebalanceisapopularterm,butonethatisoftennotexplicitlydefined.Thisstudyconsiderswork
life balance alongthefollowingthreedimensionsidentifiedbyGreenhausetal.(2003):
timebalance(theamountoftimedevotedtoworkandnonworkactivities)
satisfactionbalance(theamountofsatisfactionderivedfromworkversusnonworkactivities)
involvementbalance(thedegreeofpsychologicalinvolvementinworkversusnonworkactivities).
Itiscontendedthatapersonneedsbalanceacrossallthreeofthesedimensionstohavethebestpossibleworklife
balance. It is not just about the amount of time spent in work and nonwork activities. This balance will vary
between individual people not everyone wants the same levels of work and nonwork activities. That is why
satisfactionandinvolvementinallactivitiesisanimportantconsideration.

THEROLEOFMANAGEMENT
Research in other contexts consistently identifies social support in the environment, from sources such as ones
supervisor, line manager and peers,as an important determinant of employees worklifebalanceand wellbeing.
Studies have confirmed that the presence of social support reduces the negative consequences of workrelated
stressorsandworkfamilyconflict(Goffetal.1990Thomas& Ganster1995).Researchhasalsodemonstratedthat
in order for employees to experience satisfactoryworklife balance, in addition to formal organisational policies
thereisaneedtoensurethatinformalsupportexistsintheworkenvironment(Allen2001O'Driscolletal.2003
Thompsonetal.1999).

220

Overthecourseoftheproject,thesiteprojectmanagerintroducedanumberofinitiatives,aimedatimprovingthe
worklifebalanceofemployees.Atthecommencementoftheconstructionproject,thesitewasoperatingona58
hour week, spread over six days (approximately 5 x 10 hours on weekdays and 8hours on Saturdays). All blue
collarwagesstaff wererequiredto workonSaturdays. Whilenotallsalaried,professionalstaff were expectedto
workonsiteonSaturdays,and theywererequiredtoworkonworkforce rostereddaysoff(RDOs).
Formalworklifebalanceinitiativesintroducedbytheprojectmanagerwerecompressingtheworkingweek
(from six shorter days to five 11hour days) and introducing teambuilding activities for professional, white and
bluecollarworkersonRDOs.

DATACOLLECTION
Sample
From a population of approximately 70 employees, 19 site staff (14 salaried staff, 5 wages/workforce staff) were
interviewed at Time 1 14 site staff (10 salaried staff, 4 wages/workforce staff) were interviewed at Time 2.
Participationinthestudywasopentoanysiteemployeesandparticipationwasvoluntary.

Measures
Datawascollectedbysemistructuredinterviewsbetweenindividualemployeesandaresearcher,heldattheproject
site. At both time points, interviewees were questioned about their current workload and responsibilities, current
nonwork responsibilities and activities, current worklife balance challenges, negotiating worklife balance,
comparison of worklife balance to that experienced in previous employment, the impact of formal worklife
balanceinitiatives(changeinworkinghours,participationinRDOactivities)andchangesinworklife balanceover
time(Time 2only).

Procedure
Siteworkerswereinterviewedattwotimepointsshortlyaftertheintroductionofthecompressedworkingweek
in March 2005 (Time 1) and three months later in June 2005 (Time 2). Thus Time 1 provided a measure of
immediatereactionstothechangeinsitehours,whereasTime2providedindicationofmorelongtermreactions.
Participationwasvoluntaryandanonymousinterviewswererecordedandcommentstranscribed.Transcriptswere
independently analysed by two or more researchers who each identified recurrent themes in interviewees
comments,aswellasunusualoneoffcomments.Eachresearcherindependentlycompiledalist,withexemplary
quotes,whichwasthencomparedbetweenresearchers.Therewasahighlevelofconsensusbetweenresearcherson
allthemesandcommentsidentified.

FINDINGS
Findings indicated that employees were highly appreciative of the opportunity to engage in formal arrangements
specifically designed to assist themto balance their work andnonwork activities andthat this support translated
intobetterandmoreproductiveorganisationaloutcomes.

Comparisonsbetweenthisprojectandpreviousemploymentconditions
Interviewees were asked how worklife balance at the site compared to previous employment experiences. All
intervieweeswhoprovidedacomment,suggestedthatworklife balanceatthe sitewasmuchbetterthaninprevious
projects. The focus of these responses was on thepositive effect of flexibility of their current work arrangements
andtheabilitytoseparateworkandnonworktimethroughaclearbreakwiththeworkenvironmentthatallowed
enoughspacetoenjoyfamilytime.
ItsprettygoodIamquitehappywithitactually.Iusedtoworkforninedays,startedat
5inthemorningwason24hourscallsoguyswouldwakeyouat2inthemorningNow
Ijumpinthecar,youswitchoffandIgohome.Thatsit.Purelyfamilytime.Noworkatall.
(wagesstaff)
Thisis themost flexible project I have worked on, by far.And it is the best Ihave worked on.
LikeIsaid,they[management]areprettyflexible,dontstopyoufromdoingsomething.
(salary staff)
Itsbeenagoodproject thelastprojectIwasonIreallythoughtthatonewouldbeveryhard
tobeat.Likeintermsofatmosphereandpeopleworkingtogether.Thisonesbeatenitbyfar.This
isareallygoodteam onthisone.
(salarystaff)

221

Akeydriverforthehighlevelofsatisfactionwithworklifebalancewastheattitudesofthesiteprojectmanager
andsupervisors.
Ifindmanagementhereismuchmoreapproachableandgenuinelyoutto[help] morecaringI
think.
(wagesstaff)
I think a lot comes down to the project manager. In construction how flexible he is, how
flexibleaprojectmanagerheis.LastfewpositionsIhadinmining,youhadtobethereat6.30am
and couldnt leave before 4. Thats just the way it was. So although it comes into project
management, probably not just an industrywide attitude The project manager has a huge
influenceontheenvironment.Myexperience here lotbetterthanitwasinmining.
(salarystaff)
Akeyelementofthemanagerialsuccessinmaintaining worklife balance forworkerswastheabilitytomanagethe
informalprocessesofworktimeallocationthroughdirectnegotiationbetweenworkersandmanagers.Inthisway,
emergenciessuchasillnessandunexpectedfamilycommitmentscouldbedealtwithmoreeasilyandworkersfelt
confident in negotiating arrangements to ensure that their individual needs could be catered for but that
organisationalrequirementsweremet.
IfIneedhalfadaytodosomepersonalstuff,IlltellthebossandsayImgoingtodohalfaday
ofpersonalstuff becauseIknowIvedoneextrapreviously.Justtobalancethatout.
(salarystaff)
IaskmyteamleadertoseeifIcantakesome[time]off,anddoitthatway heisveryflexible.
Wecandothat thereisflexibilitythere sotheyallowforthat,whichisgood.
(salarystaff)
Thats the main thing the flexibility if we have to leave early we can. And we can make
phone calls during work there isno stoppingus there. Its pretty good we can go out for
lunch. If you are going to have a longer couple of hours,they really dont mind.Especially for
peoplesfarewellsandstuff itsprettygood.
(salarystaff)
Theactionsofmanagementwerealsovaluedbytheworkersonthesite.Theprojectmanagerhadintroducedformal
worklifebalanceinitiativesduringthecourse oftheproject(changingthesitefromasixtofiveday week,and
introducingteambuildingactivitiesforsalariedstaffwhowererequiredtoworkonsiteRDOs).Thesewerehighly
valued:
Give[theprojectmanage]abitofarap.Thefactthathesgone,alright,fiveday weekthatwas
agoodoneforme.
(salarystaff)
I was actually contemplating whether the construction industry was not for me. And I was
becomingactiveinseekingotherroles.AndthentheeliminationoftheSaturdayworkreallysaved
that.Soifitwasntforthat,Iprobablywouldntbehereatthemoment
(salarystaff)
Since[thesite]hasgonetoa fiveday week,ithasincreasedmyenjoyablelifestylesubstantially.
(wagesstaff)
Outofhoursgatheringsandactivitieswereencouragedandtheopportunitytoengageintheseactivitieswashighly
valued by the site workers.The spinoff effects were felt not only in building more cohesive and effective work
teams,butalsoincontributingtogreaterworkersatisfaction.
There has been an enormous amount of teambuilding. Yesterday everyone went carting. And I
thinkinthatrelaxedenvironmentyougettoknowyourteammembersabitmoreandyouknow
whattheirlimitsandboundariesare.Youworkthatoutinasocialsituation.
(salarystaff)
[RDOactivities]helpkeepyoumotivated.Ifyouarehappieratwork,itreflectsinyourhomelife.
Becauseweworksuchlonghours,thesearelikerewards.Otherthings,likewegetfruit.Allthese
littlethingstheydo,helpskeepyouhappyhere,andkeepsyoumotivated.
(salarystaff)

222

DISCUSSION
Boththeattitudeandthebehavioursofmanagementwereidentifiedintheinterviewsasbeingcrucialtothepositive
feelingsworkershadtowardtheprojectandthemanagersmoregenerally.Thisseemedtosignificantlycontributeto
the feelingthat working onthisalliance project was betterthan their previous employment. We willnow discuss
bothmanagementattitudesandmanagementbehaviourseparately.

Managementattitude
Oneofthemainissuesthatkeptcomingupintheinterviewswastheflexibilityofmanagement.Thereseemedtobe
anacknowledgementofagiveandtakeattitudefrommanagersthatemployeesontheproject couldtaketime
off,orputagreateremphasisontheirlifeaspectsinexchangefortheprevioushardworkandcurrenthardwork
thattheyhaddoneontheproject.Crucialtothisattitudethough,wasthesensethatitwasntaformalised,strictly
controlled give and take. It wasnt necessary to log hours and then take time off in lieu. The sense from the
interviewswasaperceptionthatmanagementassumedthatpeoplegenerallyworkedhard,sothatiftheydidwantto
takesomepersonaltime,itwasprobablydeserved.Further,justaboutallemployeesexpressedtheviewthatthey
wouldnottakethispersonaltimeveryoften,buttheyfeltthatifitwasimportanttothem,andtheyneededthetime,
thentheycouldtakethetimeandmanagementwouldsupportthem.Thisisimportantfromaprojectmanagement
pointofview,too.
Theevidenceheresuggeststhatemployees wereactuallyexpressingveryhighlevels ofcommitmentanda
strong work ethic, perhaps even higher than in projects where there was less flexibility and greater control. This
meansthatmanagersdonotneedtofearthatiftheyprovideemployees withflexibilitythenthoseemployeeswill
takeadvantageofthat.Theoppositeinfactseemedtrue.Thefactthatemployees feltthatthey couldtaketimeif
they needed to, and were trusted inrelationto this,actually led themto wanting to do this very minimally. They
reportedagreatersenseofgratitudetomanagement,andthereforedidnotwanttoletthemdown.Sotheendresult
was higher levels of commitmentand productivity. Therewas a very strongpositive feeling amongstthe staff in
relation to management and the project generally. Overall,the project was on time and on budget. In this way, a
twoway approach to flexibility by managersand workerssecured greater worklifebalancesatisfaction and also
achievedsignificantproductivitygainsinrelationtotheproject.

Managementbehaviour
The second aspect of management which is important is actual management behaviour. It was clear from the
interviewsthatitwasimportantfromastaffpointofviewthatmanagementnotjustsaytherightthingsinrelationto
worklife balance, but that they actually behave in a congruent manner as well. Rapoport and Bailyn (1996)
discussedhoweveninanorganisationwhichisformally familyfriendlythemanagercaneasilycounteractthisif
theysendnegativesignals.Inthisallianceproject,employeesreportedthatmanagementdidwalkthetalk.This
wasevidentthroughtheinitiativesthatmanagementimplementedsuchasthefivedayweek.Itwasappreciatedby
staffthatthiswasmaintainedevenwhenitwouldhavebeeneasytostopit,andalsothatmanagement rightupto
the project manager also worked the fiveday week. Further, managers were personally involved in the team
building activities. The project manager was very interested in a healthy lifestyle and personally adhered to
principles of good eating and physical activity, which employees were aware of. All of these things together
demonstratedtostaffthatmanagementwereseriousabouttryingtomakeimprovementstoworklifebalanceand
thatmanagementmodelledthebehavioursthatwereintegraltoachievingagood balancebetween workandnon
worklife.
Thereisevidenceintheliteraturethatworkplaceinitiativesofanysortarelikelytofailiftheydonothave
thefullsupportofalllevelsofmanagement.Forexample,EdwardsandSohal(2003)examinedtheimplementation
oftotal quality management intwo cases in Australia. They found in one case thata significantreduction inthe
commitment to the program occurred when the senior manager changed. The original manager was integral in
implementingthechangeandwasverysupportive.However,whenthispersonwasreplacedwithsomeonewhowas
lessactivelysupportive,commitmentdeclined.Eventhoughofficialorganisationalpolicydidnotchange,thelack
ofrealsupportfromtheseniormanagerhadanimportantnegativeinfluence.
Themanagementsupportmustincludeactualbehaviouralsupportratherthanjustsayingthereissupport.Itis
nouseformanagementtosaytheyareseriousaboutimprovingworklifebalanceforstaff,thendothingslikestay
lateatworkeachnightthemselves, or setupmeetingsearlyinthemorningwhenmanystaffmayhavechildcare
responsibilities.Theremustbe congruencebetweenwhatmanagementistryingtoachieveandwhatmanagement
themselvesdo.Oneofthe importantfactorsidentifiedbyGarciaandHaggith(1989,90)forensuringorganisational
development programs are successful is developing and nurturing management support and commitment to the
effort.Staffwillpaymuchmoreattentiontobehaviourthanwords,andemployeescanquicklybecomecynicalif
managementbehaviourbelieswhattheysaythey wanttodo.Thestaffintheallianceprojectused wordslikethe
managergenuinelywantedtohelp.Itwasthissensethatmanagementwereseriousabouttheseworklifebalance

223

issues whichmadeallthedifferencetothesuccess oftheworklifebalanceinterventions,andtheoverallproject


moregenerally.
Therewasonly onepersonwhoexpresseddiscontentwithmanagement,andthiswasbecausetheyfeltthat
managementhadnotfollowedthroughbehaviourallywithwhattheyhadinitiallypromised.Whenthe fiveday week
was introduced, wages staff were told that they would not be any worse off financially, but once it was
implemented, they were earning a little less money. Most wages staff reported that they were happier with this
anyway they would ratherhave the time with their families thanhave the extramoney. However, one person
believedthattheyhadbeenmisledbymanagementandwasunhappyaboutthis.Theyfeltasenseofbetrayal.This
againreinforceshowimportantitisformanagementtodoexactlyastheysay.

Comparisonswithpreviousemployment
Thepeopleinterviewedinthisprojectwerealmostunanimousintheirbeliefthatthisallianceprojectwasbetterthan
their previous employment. The reasons given for this included the supportive attitude and behaviours of
management, as well as the worklife balance initiatives themselves. This is probably partly because the
constructionindustryasawholeisknownforitslonghours(Lingard&Francis2004)andsoamovetoafiveday
weekwasasignificantchangeinthedaysspentatwork.MostpeoplereportedbeingusedtoworkingSaturdaysfor
manyyears,sothischangewasamajorshift,whichwasviewedverypositively.

CONCLUSION
Overallfindingsofthestudyrevealedaformalworklifeinterventionstrategysuchastheoneimplementedinthis
case organisation was very successful. This success of this initiative is largely attributable to the attitude and
behaviourofmanagement,inparticulartheprojectmanager.Movingtoafivedayweekisasignificantshiftfrom
the industry standard of six working days, but this case demonstrates that it is possible to change longstanding
conventionsandpracticesinthisindustry.Theprojectdidnotgoovertimeoroverbudgetinfact,theprojectwas
completed six months early and came in under budget. The workforce was also highly engaged, satisfied and
committed to the project. The outcomes are therefore positive for the individual employees, managers and the
organisationalike.Managerialsupportforworklifeinitiativesisacriticalelementinachievingworklifebalance
andsatisfactionwithworkingarrangements.Thecasestudy findingsindicatedthatinaddition,informalpractices
suchasnegotiatedtimeoff forpersonalreasonsandadhocarrangementsfordealingwithemergenciesarealsoa
keystrategyinmanaging workforcesandassistinginachieving worklife balance.

REFERENCES
Allen,T.D.2001.Familysupportiveworkenvironments:theroleoforganizationalperceptions. Journalof
VocationalBehavior,58:414435.
Edwards,R.andA.Sohal.2003.Thehumansideofintroducingtotalqualitymanagement:twocasestudiesfrom
Australia. InternationalJournalofManpower,24(5):551567.
Garcia,J.andC.Haggith.1989.ODInterventionsthatwork. ThePersonnelAdministrator,34(6):9094.
Goff,S.J.,Mount,M.K.andJamison,R.L.(1990).Employersupportedchildcare,work/familyconflictand
absenteeism:afieldstudy.PersonnelPsychology,vol. 43,pp.793809.
Greenhaus,J.,K.CollinsandD.Shaw.2003.Therelationbetweenworkfamilybalanceandqualityoflife.Journal
ofVocationalBehaviour,63(3):510531.
Lingard,H.andV.Francis.2004.TheworklifeexperiencesofofficeandsitebasedemployeesintheAustralian
constructionindustry.ConstructionManagementandEconomics,22:9911002.
ODriscoll,M.P.,S.Poelmans,T.Kalliath,T.D.Allen,C.L.CooperandJ.L.Sanchez.2003.Familyresponsive
interventions,perceivedorganizationalandsupervisorsupport,workfamilyconflictandpsychologicalstrain.
International JournalofStressManagement,10:326344.
Rapoport,R.andL.Bailyn.1996. RelinkingLifeandWork:Towardabetterfuture. NewYork:TheFord
Foundation.
Thomas,L.T.andD.C.Ganster.1995.Impactoffamilysupportiveworkvariablesonworkfamilyconflictand
strain:acontrolperspective.JournalofAppliedPsychology,80:615.
Thompson,C.A.,L.L.BeauvaisandK.S.Lyness.1999.Whenworkfamilybenefitsarenotenough:theinfluence
ofworkfamilyculture onbenefitutilization,organizationalattachmentandworkfamilyconflict. Journalof
VocationalBehavior,54:392415.

224

CHAPTER26

SupportingtheDesignOHSProcess:
AKnowledgeBasedSystemforRisk
Management
HelenLingard
AndrewStranieri
NickBlismas
INTRODUCTION
DesignOHS
Accordingtotheoriesofriskmanagement,themosteffective waytomanageariskistoeliminateorreduceitat
source.Withintheconstructionindustry,thissourceisthedesignteam(Martens1998)andthereiscompelling
evidence to suggest that decisions made during the design stage of a project can have a significant impact upon
occupationalhealthandsafety(OHS)duringtheconstruction,occupation,maintenanceanddemolitionstagesofa
buildings lifecycle (Williams 1998 Commission of the European Communities 1993). Construction design
professionals have considerable opportunity to eliminate or reduce OHS risks throughout the lifecycle of the
buildingsorstructurestheydesign.Designersmakechoicesaboutthemethodsofconstructionandmaterialsused,
which can significantly impact upon theOHS of those who build, occupy, maintain, clean,renovate,refurbish or
eventually demolish a building or structure (European Construction Institute (ECI) 1996 Hinze & Gambatese
1994).
TheimportanceofdesignOHShasbeenrecognisedbypolicymakingbodiesandlegislators,inAustraliaand
elsewhere.TheAustralianNationalOccupationalHealthandSafetyCommission(NOHSC2002)identifieddesign
asacriticalfactorinoccupationalinjuriesandfatalities,andestablisheddesignOHSasanareaofnationalpriority
intheNationalOHSStrategy20022012(NOHSC2002).Specificobligationsforconstructiondesignershavebeen
includedinthepreventiveOHSlegislationinfourAustralianstates(WesternAustralia,SouthAustralia,Queensland
andVictoria(Bluff2003))andtheadequacyofdesignersOHSresponsibilitiesisanissuecurrentlyunderreviewin
NewSouthWales.
However,enactmentofsuchlegislationdoesnotautomaticallydeliverareductioninOHSrisk.Thecaseof
the UKs OHS design legislation, enacted in 1995, reveals that there is a fundamental lack of knowledge and
appreciation among designers surrounding the OHS consequences of their designs (Summerhayes 2002). Further
researchsuggeststhatthemajorityofUKdesignersdonottreatOHSasapriorityanddesignriskassessmentsareof
poorquality(Rigby2003Entec2000).Likewise,itisdoubtfulthatAustralianconstructiondesignersare,atpresent,
sufficiently well informed about ways in which OHS risks arising as a result of their design can be identified,
assessed and controlled. Australia is therefore in a position to learn from the experience of the UK, and develop
toolsthathelpconstructiondesignerstobetterintegrateOHSriskmanagement intothedesignprocess.
ThischapterpresentstheconceptualdesignforaninnovativeITapplicationthatisbeingdevelopedtoassist
construction designers to integrate OHS into their design decisionmaking. It describes the mechanism by which
OHSknowledge willbemodelledandpresentedtodesignprofessionals.

Knowledgebasedsystemsinoccupationalhealthandsafety
Knowledgebased systems (KBSs) seek to replicate, by computer, the problemsolving expertise of human
specialistsinaspecificareaofapplication.KBSsareideallysuitedtoprovidingOHSdecisionsupportbecauseOHS
is a specialistarea in which it is undesirable to learn fromones mistakes. The deployment,through software, of
OHS expertise that would otherwise be unavailable to the decisionmaker can be of considerable benefit in the
managementofOHS(Roberston&Fox2000).TwowaysinwhichKBSshavebeensuccessfullyusedtoaidOHS
decisionmaking are in the provision of regulatory advice and in supporting the OHS riskmanagement process.
Giventhe lackofOHSexpertiseamongconstructiondesigners,aknowledgebaseddecisionsupportapplicationhas
considerablepotentialtoensurethatdesignersintegrateOHSriskmanagement intotheirdesigndecisionmaking.

225

Knowledgebasedsystemsindesign
Knowledgebased decision support tools have previously been demonstrated to improve decisionmaking and
enhance the efficiency and productivity of designers. For example, Berrais (2005) describes a system for the
provision of expertise relating to the design of earthquakeresistant reinforced concrete buildings. This system
ensuresthatdesignerswhohavelittleornoexperienceinearthquakezonesareabletoconsideralloftherelevant
factorsintheirdesigndecisionmaking.
Knowledgeintensivecomputeraideddesign(KIC)systemshavealsobeendevelopedtoprovideknowledge
thathas a bearing onthe design process accessible to designers (Mantyla 1995). KIC systems have been used to
provideexpertise,standardsandregulationsrelevanttotheresolutionofdesignproblems.Forexample,Yipetal.
(2005),deployedmachinelearningalgorithmstomodeltheairflowandheatretainingpropertiesoftoastercasesand
predicttheperformanceofanewlydesignedtoaster,thusobviatingtheneedforaphysicalprototype.Likewise,the
BuildingandConstructionAuthorityoftheSingaporeGovernmenthasappliedartificialintelligencetechniquesfor
the automatedassessment of plans against buildingregulations ina system known asCORENET. In CORENET,
building elements arerepresented using the International Alliancefor Interoperabilitys (IAI) industry foundation
classes (IFC) and includerooflights, vertical windows androof slabs. TheCORENET knowledge base represents
buildingregulationsasrulesthatapplytobuildingentitiesandtheirproperties.Duringanautomatedplanchecking
session,therulesassociatedwitheachbuildingentityareinterrogatedinordertoidentifybreachesofthebuilding
regulations.
Davison (2003)reports on the development of a prototype that deploys a similar automated planchecking
technologytoprovideknowledgebasedadviceonOHS inbuildingdesign.ElementsareencodedasIFCsbut,rather
thanapplybuildingregulationrulestoidentifybreaches,OHSrulesareappliedtoidentifyrisksinherentintheuse
of each building entity. A designer using this prototype can initially view textual information, including relevant
legislation, regulations and cases. Then, risks associated with the buildings lifecycle (including construction,
maintenance,useanddemolition)areidentifiedandassessedduringarulecheckingphase.ThisBritishprototype
usesalargenumberof ifthen rulesasthebasisuponwhichto solveproblems.
The chapter briefly describes the research and development (R&D) process being used to deliver the
Australian design OHS decision support prototype, before focusing on the novel method of modelling OHS
knowledgethatwillbedeployed.Theadvantagesofthisnovelknowledgerepresentationapproachovertraditional
rulebased systems (such as those deployed by Davison (2003) and in the Singaporean CORENET system) are
discussed.

Theprototypedevelopmentprocess
AnR&Dprojectiscurrentlyunderwaytodevelopaprototypetooltoprovidepractical,userfriendlyOHSadvice,
enablingdesignerstomanagetheriskoffallsfromheightarisingfromtheirdesigndecisions.Theprojectwill:
developamodelof bestpracticereasoningusedby buildingdesignerswhen assessingandreducingtheOHS
riskposedbytheirdesignsthemodelwillinitiallybelimitedtotheriskoffallsfromheightduringtheuse
andmaintenancestagesofabuildingslifecycle
implement the model as a webbased decisionsupport system designers will step through a sequence of
questionsabouttheirdesign,andthesystemwillmakeanassessmentoffallsfromheight risksassociatedwitha
design
trialthedecisionsupporttoolamongasampleofconstructiondesignprofessionalsandevaluatetheoutcomes.
TheR&Dprojectisbeingcarriedoutinthethreestagesbrieflydescribedbelow.
Stage1:Knowledgeacquisition
This stage involves collecting the data that will underpin the decisionsupport tool. Teams of experienced
constructiondesignerswillparticipateinworkshopsfacilitatedbyanOHSexpert.Workshopswillalsobeattended
bygroupsoffacilitiesmanagers,representingbuildingusersandmaintenancepersonneltoensurethattheOHSrisk
experienceandknowledgeofthesepartiesisadequatelycaptured.Theworkshopswillseekto:
identify fallsfromheight hazardsintroducedbydesigndecisions
assesstheOHS riskpresentedbythese fallsfromheight hazards
provideadviceastohowtheriskoffallingfromheightcouldbereducedthroughdesignmodifications.
Oncecollected,thisknowledge willbestructuredtocreateaseriesofargumenttrees.Thesetreesrepresentthe
hierarchy of factors which are believed (by the experts involved in the Stage 1 workshops) to be relevant to the
determinationofOHSriskandthechoiceofriskcontrolmeasure.Theseargumenttreesrepresenttheexpertisethat
willformthebasisofthedecisionsupporttoolanditiscriticalthatallrelevantfactorsarerepresented.Priortothe
developmentofthe decisionsupporttool,theargumenttreeswillbevalidated.Theargumenttreeswillbepresented
toasecondgroupofexpertstoensurethatalltherelevantfactorsthatneedtobeconsideredintheriskassessment
andcontroldecisionsofconstructiondesignersarereflected.Theargumenttreeswillbemodifiedasnecessaryuntil
consensusisreached.

226

Stage2:Prototypedevelopment
Aprototype decisionsupporttoolwillbe built. Initially,withinthescopeofthisproject,astandalonetoolwillbe
delivered, but it is envisaged that eventually the decisionsupport application will be linked to computer aided
design (CAD) applications, such that designs created in CAD applications can be uploaded and subject to an
automaticonlineriskassessment.DesignerswillthenbealertedastothoseOHSrisksthatexceedathresholdvalue
and prompted to reduce these risks according to preferred options in the hierarchy of controls. This hierarchy
arrangesOHSmeasuresinorderofpriorityfromthemosteffectivetotheleasteffective.
Stage3:Evaluationoftheprototype
Finally,agroupofconstructiondesignerswillberequiredtousethetoolandundertakeaformativeevaluationofits
impact.The evaluation will considerissues of userfriendliness, practical benefit and the extentto which the tool
resultsin practicalriskreduction for falls fromheight. Indetermining thetools potential toreduce OHS risks, a
groupofbuildingusers,facilitiesmanagersandmaintenanceworkerswillperformaposthocevaluationofdesign
decisionmakinginaseriesofcasestudyprojects.

INNOVATIONINKNOWLEDGEMODELLING
Limitationsofrulebasedsystems
Despitetheexcitementsurroundingthedevelopmentof earlyexpertsystems,thecommercialdeploymentofrule
basedknowledgebasedsystemshasbeenproblematic.Reasonsforthisliepartlyinthefactthatsuchsystemsare
often cumbersome and slow. Rule sets that underpin realworld problems are typically large (10,000 rules is not
exceptional) and difficult, and timeconsuming to elicit from experts. The development of many early expert
systems washaltedbecause oftheenormoustimerequiredbyknowledge engineerstointerviewexperts,translate
their knowledge into rule sets and validate the resulting rules. Lenat (1983) coined the phrase knowledge
acquisitionbottlenecktodescribethisproblem.Associatedwiththelargenumberofrulesrequiredtoadequately
represent factors influencing realworld decisionmaking was the speed of early, rulebased knowledgebased
systems. Inference engines that chain through large rule sets rapidly enough for realtime and even webbased
applicationsareverydifficulttodevelop.
Problems also ariseas aresult of the fact thatrealworldproblems are often too complex to be adequately
represented in the form of simple if then rules. Rule sets do not easily encode uncertain or discretionary
knowledge and inference engines do not elegantly infer with uncertainty attached to rules. The issue of open
texture (i.e. the indeterminate nature of concepts) presents a particular problem in the use of rules to represent
knowledgerelatingtolegalreasoningandcompliance.
Althoughrulebasedknowledgebasedsystemshavemadeasignificantcontributiontowardsthedevelopment
of computational models of reasoning, itisnow widely accepted thatreasoningrepresentedasrules is applicable
only in highly structured and narrowly contextualised situations. Consequently, knowledgebased systems which
representknowledgeasrulesarenotwellsuitedtotheapplicationofOHSbecausethemanagementofOHSriskis
characterisedbyprofessional judgment anddiscretionarydecisionmaking.

DesignOHSlegislation
OHSlegislationprovidesdutyholderswithconsiderablediscretion.Flick(1979)definesdiscretionarydomainsas
thoseinwhichinwhichadecisionmakerhasthefreedomtoselectoneinterpretationoroutcomefromanumberof
permissible options. Dworkin (1977) proposes two basic types of discretion, which he calls strong and weak
discretion.Weakdiscretiondescribessituationswheredecisionmakersmustinterpretstandardsintheir ownway,
whereas strong discretion characterises those decisions in which decisionmakers are not bound by existing
standardsbutare requiredtocreate theirownstandards.Bothtypesofdiscretionapplytovaryingdegreesinmodern
OHSlegislation.
TheprovisionsofearlyOHSlegislationinBritainandAustraliaweredetailedandprescriptive,allowingfor
littlediscretiononthepartofdutyholders.Thelegislationclearlyspecifiedwhatmustbedoneinordertocomply.
However, in 1972, a British committee of inquiry headed by Lord Robens recommended a reduction in the
prescriptive detailed legislation. These recommendations were followed in 1974 when,in Britain, the Health and
Safety at Work Act was enacted. Under the influence of Robens, prescriptive OHS Acts and Regulations were
replacedbylegislationcontaininggeneraldutiesforthosewhoseactionsimpactuponOHS,includingemployers,
employees, and suppliers of industrial plant and materials. Australia followed the Robens model, with the
introductionofRobensinspiredlegislationinSouthAustralia(1972),Tasmania(1977),Victoria(1981),NewSouth
Wales (1983), Western Australia (1987), Queensland (1989) and the Northern Territory (1986). General duties
provisions now exist in the principal OHS Acts of all Australian states and territories. Most recently, in some
Australian jurisdictions, general duties for construction designers have been added to the OHS legislation. The

227

general duties legislation differs from the prescriptive early legislation in that it does not clearly spell out the
methodsbywhichlegislativecomplianceistobeachieved.Thus,thegeneraldutiesrequireinterpretation,judgment
anddiscretionarydecisionmaking.
Moreover, the general duties arenot absolute, being qualified by vague termslikeso far as isreasonably
practicable. Forexample,section28oftheVictorianOccupationalHealthandSafety Act(2004)requiresthat:
A person who designs a building or structure or part of a building or structure who knows, or
oughtreasonablytoknow,thatthebuildingorstructureorthepartofthebuildingorstructureisto
beusedasa workplacemustensure,so farasisreasonablypracticable,thatitisdesignedtobe
safeandwithoutriskstothehealthofpersonsusingitasaworkplaceforapurposeforwhichit
wasdesigned.
ThestandardforconstructiondesignersOHSdutyisthereforewhatwouldareasonabledesignerhavedoneinthe
situation?Itisreasonabletoexpectthatastherisktohealthandsafetyincreases,thedegreeof effortexertedin
controllingtheriskshouldalsoincrease.Thus,inordertoascertainwhatisreasonableinagivensituationadesign
riskassessmentisnecessary.

Riskmanagement
The riskmanagement process is similarly characterised by professional judgment and discretionary decision
making.AS/NZS4360:2004setsoutthestepsintheriskmanagementprocess.Thesesteps(depictedinFigure26.1)
involveanalysingthecontextinwhichtheriskarises,identifying,analysingandevaluatingrisksanddecidinghow
to treat risks. Risk assessment includes the identification, analysis and evaluation stages in the riskmanagement
process(StandardsAustralia2004).
Figure26.1: TheRiskManagementProcess

(Source:AdaptedfromStandardsAustralia2004)
Riskisunderstoodtobeafunctionoflikelihoodandconsequenceofanundesirableevent,suchasaworkrelated
incident. In most instances, reliable quantitative risk data are not available to undertake objective, probabilistic
assessments of OHS risks. OHS risk assessments are usually qualitative and characterised by considerable
subjectivity. Consequently, the value of a risk assessment is limited by the knowledge and experience of therisk
assessment team. Decisions about risk tolerance and appropriate means for risk reduction are also inherently
subjective (Pidgeon etal. 1993). Whererisksare deemed to be unacceptably high, decisionsmust be made about
how to treat or control these risks. In the case of the most serious risks, a decisionmaker might decide not to
proceedwithanactivity,forexampleeliminatingahazardousdesignelementfromadesign.Anexamplewouldbe
the decision made to stop using asbestos sheeting for the construction of buildings once the risks posed by the
materialbecameapparent.However,inthecaseofmostOHSrisks,stepscanbetakentoreducethelevelofrisk.
Riskreductionmeasuresareselectedaccordingtoanestablishedhierarchyofriskcontrolmeasures,whichholds
thatitisbettertoeliminateariskordesignoutariskthantocontrolitusingmeasuresthatarereliantonsafety
procedures,training,ortheuseofpersonalprotectiveequipment.Anexamplehierarchyfortheriskoffallingfrom
heightisprovidedinTable26.1.

228

Table26.1:ExampleRiskControlHierarchyfortheRiskofFallingFromHeight
Riskcontrol
category
Eliminatethe
hazard
Substitutethe
hazard
Isolatethe
process

Engineering
controls

Safeworking
procedures

Personal
protective
equipment

Controlmeasures
Structuresshouldbeconstructedatgroundlevelandliftedintopositionbycrane(e.g.prefabricationofroofsorsectionsofroofs).

Nonfragileroofingmaterialsshouldbeselected.
Fragileroofingmaterial(andskylights)shouldbestrengthenedbyincreasingtheirthicknessorchangingtheircomposition.
Permanentwalkways,platformsandtravellinggantriesshouldbeprovidedacrossfragileroofs.
Permanentedge protection(likeguardrailsorparapetwalls)shouldbeinstalledonflatroofs.
Fixedrailsshouldbeprovidedonmaintenancewalkways.
Stairwaysandfloorsshouldbeerectedearlyin the constructionprocesssothatsafeaccesstoheightsisprovided.
Railingsand/orscreensguardingopeningsinroofsshouldbeinstalledbeforeroofingworkcommences.
Temporaryedgeprotectionshouldbeprovidedforhighroofs.
Guardrailsandtoeboardsshouldbeinstalledonallopensidesandendsofplatforms.
Fixedcovers,catchplatformsandsafetynetsshouldbeprovided.
Safety meshshouldbeinstalledunderskylights.
Onlyscaffoldingthatconformstostandardsshouldbeused.
Employersshouldprovideequipmentappropriatetotherisk, likeelevatedworkplatforms,scaffolds,laddersoftherightstrengthandheight,and
ensurethatinappropriateorfaultyequipmentisnotused.
Accessequipmentshouldberecordedinaregister,markedclearlyforidentification,inspectedregularlyandmaintainedasnecessary.
Accessandfallprotectionequipmentsuchasscaffolds,safetynets,meshetc. shouldbeerectedandinstalledbytrainedandcompetentworkers.
Workinginhighwindor rainyconditionsshouldbeavoided.
Employersshouldensureregularinspectionsandmaintenanceofscaffoldingandotheraccessequipment,likeladdersandaeriallifts.
Employersshouldensurethatscheduledandunscheduledsafetyinspectionstakeplaceandenforcetheuseofsafeworkprocedures.
Employeesshouldbeadequatelysupervised.Newemployeesshouldbeparticularlycloselysupervised.
Employeesshouldbeprovidedwithinformationabouttherisksinvolvedintheirwork.
Employersshoulddevelop, implementandenforceacomprehensivefallssafetyprogramandprovidetraining targetingfallhazards.
Warningsignsshouldbeprovidedonfragileroofs.
Laddersshouldbeplacedandanchoredcorrectly.
Employeesexposedtoafallhazard,whoarenotprovidedwithsafemeansofaccess,shouldbeprovidedwithappropriatefallarrestequipment
suchasparachuteharnesses,lanyards,staticlines,inertiareelsorropegrabdevices.
Fallarrestsystemsshouldbeappropriatelydesignedbyacompetentperson.
EmployeesshouldbetrainedinthecorrectuseandinspectionofPPEprovidedtothem.
Employeesshouldbeprovidedwithsuitablefootwear(rubbersoled),comfortableclothingandeyeprotection(forexample,sunglassestoreduce
glare).
(Source:AdaptedfromLingardandRowlinson2005)

229

Alternativemodellingapproaches
TheprimaryinnovationinthedevelopmentoftheAustraliandesignOHSdecisionsupportprototypeistheuse
of argumentationtheoryintherepresentationofknowledge.Incontrasttotherulebasedapproachadoptedby
Davison(2003)intheUK,designOHSknowledge willbecapturedandrepresentedasaseriesofargument
trees. An example design OHS argument tree is presented in Figure 26.2. The use of argument trees to
representexpertknowledgewaspioneeredinamodelofreasoningdevelopedbyYearwoodandStranieri(2005)
and has been successfully used to structure and represent knowledge in various fields of legal reasoning,
includingfamilylaw,refugeelawandeligibilityforlegalaid.
InthecaseofthedesignOHSprototype,eachargumenttree willrepresentahierarchyoffactorsrelevant
tothedeterminationofadesignrelatedOHSrisk.The rootofeachtreewillbetheOHSriskratingassociated
withaparticulardesignelementand/oractivity.Theriskratingwillbeinferredwithknowledgeoftwofactors:
the likelihood thataninjury or illness will occur and the likely severity of the consequence of that injury or
illnessshoulditoccur.
Forexample,thedistanceoffallandtheavailabilityofanchoragepointsforfallarrestdevicesarelikely
to be relevant factors that lead to an inference describing the consequence of a fall (i.e. the severity of the
injury).Theavailabilityofanchoragepointsisconceptuallyrelatedtotheconsequenceratherthanthelikelihood
ofafallbecause,inOHStheory,fallarrestequipmentwillnotpreventafallfromoccurringbutwilllimitthe
consequence of a fall if one does occur. The frequency with which workers must go on the roof to perform
maintenance,thenumberofskylights,thestrengthoftheskylightmaterial,theroofpitchandprotectionforroof
maintenancemightbeusedtoinferthelikelihoodthatafallwilloccurduringmaintenancework.Throughout
the argument trees, a linguistic variable value on a parent node will be inferred from values on children
nodes with the use of predetermined and appropriate inference procedures. For example, the risk rating is
inferred using a multiplicative function for numeric variables derived from the values for the children
likelihoodandconsequence nodes.
Argumenttrees are somewhat similarto fault trees and event trees thathave been traditionally used to
represent the interaction of events that have already contributed to safety incidents or which could lead to
adversesafetyoutcomesinthefuture.However,argumenttreesdiffertotheextentthattheydonotbeginwitha
specific incident (fault tree) or map the pathways from an in initiating event to an identified outcome (event
tree). Instead, argument trees are a particular type of logic diagram representing the relevant factors that an
expertwouldconsiderinmakinganassessmentorjudgmentaboutsomething,inthiscaseinassessinganOHS
risk. By specifying values for eachnode in the tree, ariskrating can be inferred, using the samelogic and
reasoningthatanexpertwoulduse.
In argumentationbased KBSs, different inference mechanisms can be used according to the nature of
knowledge being modelled. For example,in theSplit upsystem (described in Stranieri etal. 1999),neural
networkstrainedondatadrawnfromdivorceproperty judgmentswereusedtoinferabouthalfofthe35nodes.
In a different system, known as Embrace, which supported the determination of someones refugee status,
inferences were always left to the discretion of the decisionmaker (Yearwood & Stranieri 1999). In another
system called GetAid, Stranieri etal. (2001)assigned weights to eachlinguistic variable and then summed
theseweightsbeforecomparingtheresultwithapredeterminedthresholdtoinfereligibilityforlegalaid.The
mechanismstobeusedtoinfervaluesontheparentnodesfromvaluesonthechildrennodesinthedesign
OHS prototype have yet to be determined, but itis likely that several different types of inference mechanism
willbeused.
Therepresentation of design OHS knowledge in this way is highly innovative andmuch betterable to
model the subjective and discretionary nature of OHS risk management than the rulebased approaches
deployedinotherOHSknowledgebaseddecisionsupporttools.
Argumenttreesrepresentatemplateforreasoningincomplexsituations.Thus,inadiscussionaboutthe
level of risk posed by a particular design decision, two designers might disagree at the root node level. For
example, one designer may perceive the risk to be high while another perceives it to be moderate. This
differenceinperceptionmayderivefromthedifferentvaluesassignedbyeachdesignertosubordinatenodesin
theargumenttree.Forexample,onedesignermaybelievethattheprotectionprovidedforroofmaintenanceis
adequate, whereas another may not. However, although the two designers disagree, they can both accept the
argumenttreestructureasavalidtemplateforthederivationoftheirsubjectiveriskassessments.
Thus, argument trees are intended to capture a shared understanding of relevant factors in the
determinationofavalue(inthiscasethelevelofOHSrisk).Irrelevantfactorsarenotincludedinanargument
tree. Thus, the colour of the roofing material is not considered relevant by design OHS experts, so is not
representedasanodeinthetree.(Althoughonecanimaginecircumstanceswherecolourisindeedrelevantto
OHS,suchasinthespecificationofemergencyorwarningsignage).
Thesearchforsuitablemeasuresthatwillreducetherisklevelattherootnodeoftheargumenttreecan
alsobeautomaticallyelicitedfromthetreeitself.Forexample,apossiblesolutioncouldbefoundbychanging
leaf node values until the desired level of risk emerges at the root node. Changing the protection for roof

230

maintenancetoadequate,decreasingthenumberofskylightsorprovidingsuitableanchoragepointsforfall
arrestdevicesmayresultinalevelofriskthatisacceptable(forexample,low).Ifnot,thenchangingthevalue
forotherleafnodesmayreducerisktoapredeterminedtolerablelevel.Itisworthnotingthatwhenknowledge
ismodelledinthisway,thesearchspaceofallleafnodevaluecombinationswillprovidealistofallpossible
riskcontrolsolutionstoeachidentifieddesignOHShazard.

231

Figure26.2:ExampleArgumentTreefortheRiskofFallingThroughaSkylightwhileUndertakingRoofMaintenance

Note:Theargumenttreepresentedisanexampleusedtoillustrateaconcept.Itisnotbaseduponvalidateddataandshouldnotbeusedtoassessriskor
selectappropriatecontrolmeasures.

232

The argumenttreeapproach to knowledge representation provides a simple structure for the assimilation of OHS
knowledgeintotheconstructiondesignprocess.Theadvantagesofthisstructureinclude:
Theriskrating(e.g.extreme)isnothardcodedandattachedtoeachrule,buttheendvaluewillbegenerated
viavalidatedinferenceproceduresembeddedwithinthetreeitself.
Possiblesolutionstohighriskissuesarenothardcoded(andthereforerestricted).Rather,asearchprocedure
cangenerateandtestsolutionsbychangingleafnodes(i.e.basefacts)andinvokinginferenceproceduresupthe
treetoultimatelygeneratealowerriskoption.
Manyrulesarereplacedbyasingletree,resultinginasystemthatiseasiertouseandmaintain.Forexample,as
constructiontechnologyadvancesandnewdesignsolutionstoOHSrisksbecomeknown,relevantconceptsand
values can be relatively easily added into the argument trees. Also, where applicable, rule sets may be
embedded in an inference procedure within any level of the tree. However, the use of the tree also enables
mechanismsfordrawinginferences,otherthanrules,tobe deployed.Thisenablestheapproachtointegratea
varietyofexistinginferencemethodsandmorereadilyaccommodateinferencemethodsyettobediscovered.

CONCLUSIONS
Thischapterdescribestheconceptualdesignofadecisionsupporttooltosupportconstructiondesignprofessionals
inintegratingOHSriskmanagementintothedesignprocess.ThisisimportantbecauseexperienceintheUKhas
shownthatconstructiondesignprofessionalsareillequippedtomanageOHSrisksarisingfromthedesignprocess.
OHS is typically not taughtto construction designprofessionalsintertiary institutions within Australiaand, thus,
Australian design professionals may similarly lack the OHS andriskmanagement knowledge, skills and abilities
theyneedto comply withtheirstatutoryOHSduties.TheR&D projectcurrentlyunder wayadoptsaninnovative
approach to modelling knowledge that is better suited to situations of discretionary decisionmaking and
professionaljudgmentthantherulebasedsystemsofthepast.Assuch,theprojectpromisestomakeuserfriendly,
expertOHSknowledgereadilyavailabletoconstructiondesignprofessionals.

REFERENCES
Berrais,A.2005.Aknowledgebasedexpertsystemforearthquakeresistantdesignofreinforcedconcretebuildings.
Expert SystemswithApplications,28:519530.
Bluff,L.2003. RegulatingSafeDesign andPlanningConstructionWorks: Workingpaper 19.Canberra:National
CentreforOccupationalHealthandSafety Regulation,AustralianNationalUniversity.
CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.1993. Safety andHealthintheConstructionSector.Luxembourg:
OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities.
Davison,J.2003.TheDevelopmentofaKnowledgeBasedSystemtoDeliverHealth andSafetyInformationto
DesignersintheConstructionIndustry: Research report 173.Norwich:HSEBooks,HMSO.
Dworkin,R.TakingRightsSeriously. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Entec.2000.ConstructionHealth andSafetyfortheNewMillennium: Health andSafety Executive contract
research report313/2000.Norwich:HMSO.
EuropeanConstructionInstitute.1996. TotalProjectManagementofConstructionSafety,HealthandEnvironment.
London:ThomasTelford.
Flick,G.A.1979. NaturalJustice:Principlesandpracticalapplication.Sydney,Australia: Butterworths.
Hinze,J.andJ.A.Gambatese.1994.Designdecisionsthatimpactconstructionworkersafety.5thAnnualRinker
InternationalConferenceonConstructionSafety andLossControl.Gainsville,Florida,1214October.
Lenat,D.B.1983.Theroleofheuristicsinlearningbydiscovery:threecasestudies. MachineLearning:An
artificialintelligenceapproach, volume1,eds.S.Michaksjum,S.Ryszard,J.G.CarbonellandT.M.Mitchell,
243306.LosAltos:MorganKaufmann.
Lingard,H.andS.Rowlinson.2005.OccupationalHealthandSafety inConstructionProjectManagement.
London:SponPress.
Mantyla,M.1995.KnowledgeintensiveCAD:introductionandaresearchagenda. KnowledgeIntensiveCAD:112.
Martens,N.1998.TheConstruction(DesignandManagement)Regulations1994:consideringthecompetenceof
theplanningsupervisor. JournaloftheInstitutionofOccupationalSafety andHealth, 1:4149.
NationalOccupationalHealthandSafety Commission.2002. NationalOHS Strategy 20022012.Canberra:
CommonwealthofAustralia.
Pidgeon,N.,C.Hood,D.Jones,B.TurnerandR.Gibson.1993.Riskperception. Risk:Analysis,perceptionand
management,ed.RoyalSocietyStudyGroup,89134.London:TheRoyalSociety.
Rigby,N.2003.DesignerInitiative17thMarch2003:FinalReport.UK:ScotlandandNorthernEnglandUnit,
ConstructionDivision,HealthandSafetyExecutive.
Robertson,D.,andJ.Fox.2000.IndustrialUseofSafetyrelatedExpert Systems: Contract research report
296/2000:Norwich:HSEBooks,HMSO.
StandardsAustralia.2004.AS/NZS4360:2004.Sydney:StandardsAustralia.

233

StandardsAustralia.2004. HB2052004OHS RiskManagement Handbook.Sydney:StandardsAustralia.


Stranieri,A.,J.Zeleznikow,M.GawlerandB.Lewis.1999.Ahybridrule neuralapproachfortheautomationof
legalreasoninginthediscretionarydomainoffamilylaw inAustralia. ArtificialIntelligenceandLaw,7(2/3):
153183.
Stranieri,A.,J.YearwoodandJ.Zeleznikow.2001.Toolsforworldwidewebbasedlegaldecisionsupport
systems.8thInternationalConferenceonArtificialIntelligenceandLaw.PLACE,2125May.
Summerhayes,S.2002. CDMRegulationsProceduresManual.Missouri:BlackwellScience.
Williams,M.A.1998. Designingforsafety.HealthandSafety for Engineers,ed.M.Barnard.2338.London:
ThomasTelford.
Yearwood,J.andA.Stranieri.1999.Theintegrationofretrieval,reasoninganddraftingforrefugeelaw:athird
generationlegalknowledgebasedsystem.7thInternationalConferenceonArtificialIntelligenceandLaw.
Norway,1417June.
Yearwood,J.andA.Stranieri.2005.Thegenericactualargumentmodelofpracticalreasoning. DecisionSupport
Systems.(Forthcoming.)
Yip,D.C.,M.C.Law,K.P.Cheng,K.H.LauandS.Barnes.2005.KnowledgeintensiveCAD inproductdesign.
InternationalJournalofKnowledgebasedandIntelligentEngineeringSystems,9:4561.

234

CHAPTER27

DevelopingaCodeofPracticefor
ConstructionOHS:
AResearchAgenda
JanetPillay
MichaelCharles
RachelRyan
TimFleming
INTRODUCTION
Attempts to enhance the currently poor occupational health and safety (OHS) performance of the Australian
buildingandconstructionsectorhasresultedintheintroductionofaraftoflegislativeandregulatoryinnovationsin
recent times (Cole 2003 Durham et al. 2002). Inconsistencies between state and federal OHS regulations have
causedconfusionandcontroversyfordifferentindustrygroups,particularlywithrespecttothemarkeddifficulties
inherentinattemptingtocomplywithsometimesconflictingguidelines(Cole2003).Asaconsequence,anationally
uniform code of practice (COP) that considers the OHS responsibilities of all construction parties and deciphers
existingconstructionandOHSrelatedlegislationhasemergedasapotentiallyusefultoolwithregardtoinitiating
and promoting better safety outcomes. This chapter explores the rationale for the development of a code of this
nature.InconsiderationoftheissuesinherentindevelopingandimplementingaCOP,italsoprovidesaresearch
agendafocusedonimprovingsafetyinallphasesofaconstructionproject,fromconceptthroughtocompletion.The
chapter also considers the development and embedding of a COP throughout the construction industry, from a
project managementlevel through to small to mediumsized enterprises (SMEs), and down to individual owner
operators.Thisreviewconcludesthatstakeholdercollaboration,coordinationandintegrationarecriticalwithregard
to achieving OHS excellence and that, as a concomitant, a COP dealing with OHS in the construction industry
shouldfurtherencouragethedevelopmentofthesetypesofrelationships.

BACKGROUND
BeforethischapterlooksattheproposedbenefitsoftheCOP,itisimportanttoreviewbrieflythefactorsthathave
ledtothecallforanindustrywidecodeofconduct.

EffectofpoorOHSontheconstructionindustry
Healthandsafetyinthebuildingandconstructionsectorisconsiderablypoorerthanthatexperiencedinanyother
Australian industry (Cole 2003 Wild 2005). Indeed, fatality rates in this sector are three times the national
workplaceaverage,whileinjuryratesare50%higherthanthoseexperiencedinothersectors.Constructionworkers
arealso2.4timesmorelikelytobekilledatworkthanthoseparticipatinginotherAustralianindustries(Cole2003
Wild2005).
Inconsiderationofthefactsthatthecommercialbuildingandconstructionindustrywasvaluedat$50bnin
20032004, employs more than 775,000 people and accounts for approximately 6.8% of Australias GDP,
improvementsinworkplacepracticesinthissectorareestimatedtohavethepotentialtogenerate$2.3bnannually,
whichwouldleadtoa1%increaseinGDPanda1%decreaseinthecostoflivingforallAustralians(Departmentof
Employment and Workplace Relations 2005). Safer building sites are also predicted to result, most notably in
reducedworkerdeathandinjuryrates(DepartmentofEmploymentandWorkplaceRelations2005).Theseexpected
outcomes are particularly salient given the hazardous nature of the construction industry (Cole 2002 Lingard &
Rowlinson2005Wild2005).
Incomplete structural connections, temporary facilities, tight work areas, varying work surface conditions,
continuouslychangingworksites,multipleoperations, andcrewsworkingincloseproximitytoeachotherhavebeen
identified as common causes of constructionrelated deaths and injuries (Hislop 1999 Ringen et al. 1995). The
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (2003, 1) notes that the biggest single cause of reported injuries in the UK
constructionindustrywashanding,liftingorcarrying,whilethemostcommoncauseoffatalinjuries,atleastas

235

reported,relatestofallsfromheights.Lackofpreplanning,inadequateselectionofcontractorsandlaissezfaire
attitudesareothercausesofinjuryordeath(Hislop1999).
Other causes of construction workplace accidentshave beenidentified asinappropriate protection,harmful
substances and environment, workers being hurt by falling objects, removal of protection measures, insufficient
physical and mental capacities, distraction from carrying out other tasks, unauthorised access to hazardous areas,
andmechanicalfailures(Chietal.2005).Inadditiontothesecauses,Holt(2001)arguesthatsecondarycausesof
accidentsareoftentheresultofmanagementsystempressuressuchasfinancialrestrictions,lackofcommitmentto
safety,outofdatesafetypolicy,poorstandards,inadequateknowledgeandinformation,restrictedtrainingandtask
selection,andpoorqualitycontrolsystemsresultingfromtheserestrictionsanddeficiencies.Thesameauthoralso
suggests that construction accidents are indirectly caused by social pressures, particularly group attitudes, trade
customs, industry tradition, societal attitudes to risktaking, workplace behaviour norms, and commercial or
financialpressuresbetweencontractors.
The high rate of accidents and injuries inherent in this industry also stem from the hazardous operational
natureofconstructionworkandthepresentinadequacieswithregardtomanagingtheserisks(Durhametal.2002
Lingard&Rowlinson2005).Furthermore,ithasbeenobservedthatsmalltomediumsizedorganisationslackboth
the financial resources and management commitment required to enhance OHS performance (Hasle & Limborg
2006Holmesetal.1999Lin&Mills2001Mayhewetal.1997).Inanacknowledgementofthesetypesofissues,
the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry identified a need for structural and cultural
reform(Cole2003).TheCommissionnotedthatThepowerfulcompetitiveforcesintheconstructionindustrytoo
often work against occupationalhealth and safety (Cole 2003, 41). Italso identified aneed forthe industry as a
whole to work together in order to produce better safety outcomes (Cole 2003). The Commissions
recommendations reinforce the UKbased philosophy, previously advocated by Egan (1998), Latham (1994) and
Robens(1972),ofanintegratedapproachtoaccidentandillnesspreventionthroughregularenforcement,advisory
provisionsandteamwork.

TowardsasharedresponsibilityforOHS
In an acknowledgement that construction safety is as an ambiguous concept, Recommendation 30 of the Cole
Report (2003) specified a need for more comprehensive input across the board in the coordination of safety
procedures.Ithasbeennotedthatsafetyrequiresconsiderationofallaspectsofthedesignandconstructionprocess
(Cole 2001), and that a responsibility for safety should be distributed equitably across all parties involved in a
construction project (Safe Site New Zealand 1999). This sharing of OHS responsibility requires safety roles and
responsibilitiesforclients/principals,architects,engineers,employeeconsultants,headcontractors,employeesand
subcontractorstobestatedinanunambiguousfashion(SafeSiteNewZealand1999).Furthermore,Durhametal.
(2002)and Hislop (1999) contendthatthismultistakeholderapproach to safety not only would provide effective
hazard identificationandcontrol,butalsowouldenhancethequalityofsafetymanagementandpromotion.
Forhealthandsafetytobeintegratedeffectivelyintothevariousstagesoftheconstructionprocess,planning
and coordination of the roles andresponsibilities of the different construction parties is critical. This approach is
claimedtobethemosteffectivesafeguardinavoidinginjuryandminimisingcosts(SafeSiteNewZealand1999).
To achieve similar outcomes, Toole (2002) advocates that all parties involved in a construction project should
clearly and continually communicate their expectations of safety and safety roles throughout the duration of a
project.Briscoeetal.(2004)elaboratefurther.They emphasisetheimportanceofinvolvingsuppliersearlyinthe
constructionprocessinorderto(a)reapthebenefitsof fasterconstruction,(b)facilitateabetterunderstandingof
client needs and project objectives, (c) improve communication, and (d) promote active involvement in value
engineeringexercises.
Thecurrentlackof collaboration andcoordinationamongconstructionpartiesin OHSisattributabletothe
historical fragmentation of project delivery systems, in addition to the contractual and adversarial nature of
construction project relationships (Dainty et al. 2001 Hampson & Brandon 2004). SMEs have traditionally
mistrusted other construction parties and operate on the premise that integrated supply chains cannot provide
mutually beneficial outcomes (Dainty et al. 2001). Instead, SMEs often maintain that existing supplychain
management techniquesseektoenhancetheprofitabilityofthemaincontractorattheexpenseofothercompaniesin
thesupplychain(Milleretal.2004Packhametal.2003).Inordertominimisethesebarrierstoenhanceindustry
collaboration and integration, main contractors must address integration and partnership issues with smaller
companies,inadditiontoclientorganisations(Daintyetal.2001).Leadingcompaniesmustalsoagreetosharethe
benefitsofgreaterintegrationwiththeirsupplychainpartnersandadoptalongtermtimeorientationinorderfor
improvedsafetyoutcomestoensue(Daintyetal.2001).Daintyetal.(2001)holdthat,bycontractuallyemphasising
equality with regard to obligations and responsibilities at each level of the supply chain, better supplychain
relationshipsacrosstheconstructionprocesswillbefacilitated.This,ithasbeenargued,willleadtoenhancedOHS
performance.

236

Aroleforacodeofpractice
PractitionersandscholarsfromvariousnationshaverecognisedthecentralroleofaCOPinconstructionOHSwith
regardtosafetyreform(AustralianProcurementandCompensationCouncil1997Cole2003Durhametal.2002
Kelly2004InternationalLabourOffice(ILO)1992).Whatismore,theILO(1992,2)specifiesthattheobjectiveof
acodeofthisnaturewouldbetooffer:
practicalguidanceonthepolicyandstandardsettinginoccupationalsafetyandhealthforuseby
governments, employers, workersand any other persons involved inthe construction process in
ordertopromotesafetyandhealthatthe nationallevelandatthelevelofenterprise.
Although difficulties remain with establishing a COP for construction safety, Cole (2003) concluded that a
nationally uniform system of OHS that reflects each administrative regulation, many of which are complex and
sometimescontradictory(ashashithertobeensignalled),wouldprovebeneficial.Heoutlinedtheimpracticalitiesof
havingcountlesscodesofpractice,standardsandguidelinesestablishedbydifferentstates,constructioncompanies
and representative groups and recognised, furthermore, the development of a national system as a matter of
priority (Cole 2003, 43). Concurring with Coles recommendation (2003), Durham et al. (2002) propose that a
uniform national system could minimise confusion over the roles and responsibilities of different construction
parties.Inaddition,theeconomicbenefitsarisingfromahomogenous,nationalsystemwouldprovidegainsinterms
of the time and resources expended in order to address different and often conflicting codes and regulations
(Durhametal.2002).
Thus, positive outcomes stemming from a nationally uniform COP for construction OHS are expected.
Despitethis,itisunclearwhethersuchacodeshouldbeprescriptionbasedorbroadprinciplesbased.Otheraspects
arealsouncertainforinstance,thespecificcomponentsthat shouldbeincludedinthecode,themeansbywhichthe
code will be developed, and the way in which the effectiveness of such an instrument should be measured,
particularlyin(a)achievinggreaterindustrycollaborationonOHSrelatedmatters,and(b)producingbettersafety
outcomesforconstructionprojects.Theremainderofthischapterconsiderstheseandotherissuespertainingtothe
developmentandimplementationofaCOPforOHSintheAustralianconstructionindustry.Italso seekstoprovide
aresearchagendainordertoaddressthemoresalientissues.

DEVELOPINGTHECODEOFPRACTICE:ARESEARCHAGENDA
Developmentprocess
For a code of thisnatureto be practicalandrepresentative of broaderindustry concerns, influential parties inthe
building and construction sector should be involved in its development (Durham et al. 2002 Queensland
Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations 2000). In order for the COP to address the safety
issues experienced in industry in an accurate and impartial fashion, a variety of stakeholders employed within a
range of operating contexts should be consulted.These stakeholders would include, but shouldnot be limited to,
individuals working in small, medium and large organisations across the public and private sectors, and those
employed by notforprofit organisations and peak industry bodies. In view of this, the next section outlines the
mainpartiesgenerallyinvolvedinaconstructionproject,considerstheirinfluenceonsafety,andthewayinwhich
theymightcontributetothedevelopmentofaCOP.
Clients
Clientsarethekeydriversofperformanceimprovementandinnovationintheconstructionindustry(Briscoeetal.
2004 Wild 2005). By commissioning design work for a structure (Australian National Health and Safety
Commission2005,6)andappointinganotherpartytooverseeandcoordinateOHSmanagement,clientsappeartobe
in the best position to demand improved safety processes and outcomes. In additionto prioritising safety, clients
havethecapacitytoinfluencethesafetyoutcomesofaconstructionprojectthrough(a)thefinancialspecifications
and contractnegotiations that determine employment conditions, and (b) the specific allocation of funds for the
purposeofimplementingsafetymeasures(Bluff2003,1011).
Practitioners and scholars agree that clients or owners should demonstrate their commitment to safety by
providing adequate resources for safety initiatives, communicating safety in a timely manner, selecting safe
contractors, and participating actively in safety management. In addition to overseeing and facilitating safety
management at all stages of the construction process, the client should establish safety as an integral project
componentbeforeany onsite constructionworkisinitiated(Huang & Hinze2006).
Beforeclientscanfullycapitaliseontheirroleinconstructionandactivelydemandimprovementstosafety,
theymustfirstrecognisetheimportanceofsafetyforallpartiesinvolvedinaconstructionproject.Clientsmustbe
well educated about the different facets of safety and must understand the benefits of prioritising safety from a
profit,sustainabilityandcorporatesocialresponsibility(CSR)perspective.Onceclientsareawareofthepotential
longtermrewardsofasafety focus,theythenneedto beeducatedaboutthevariousmeanstopromotesafety on
constructionprojects.Researchinthisareaislimitedinscopeandscale.Indeed,practitionersandscholarsmerely

237

suggest that clients should be the drivers of safety (Bluff 2003 Briscoe et al. 2004 Huang &Hinze 2006 Wild
2005).Clientphilosophiesoftheroleandimpactof safety,togetherwithanyperceived benefitsofmaintaininga
safety focus,havenotbeenexaminedingreatdepth.Therefore,inthedevelopmentoftheCOP,clientsshouldbe
consultedandengagedinordertoascertainexistingsafetyphilosophies,issuesandoutcomes,anddevelopfeasible
safetysolutionsfortheindustryasawhole.
Clients consulted inthe development of a COP must necessarily reflect the diverse scope and scale of the
construction projects initiated in this country. In addition, both public and private sector clients would need to
becomeactivelyinvolvedinadvancingthewholeindustrytowardsauniformcode.Industryrepresentativegroups,
such as the Property Council of Australia (PCA), in addition to the various relevant government departments
(especiallyintheircapacityasmajorclientsoftheAustralianconstructionindustry),shouldalsobeinvolvedinthis
process.
Projectmanagers
The safety and construction literature suggests that therole of project managers in safety primarily related to the
development of a strong commitment to safety, and then actively demonstrating this commitment to others.
Although planning and control failings have been identified as the root causes of safety incompetence, it is
recognised that management commitment to safety essentially dictates safety performance onsite (Saurin et al.
2004).
From the construction safety literature,itappears that therole of project managers shouldrelate mainly to
working with clients in order to develop a position on safety, and then disseminating this safety stance to other
parties in a construction project. These participants in the project should then, under the guidance of the project
manager,embedsafetyasapriorityintoworkpractices.Projectmanagersfrequentlyinteractandcommunicatewith
all parties in a construction project. In view of this, consultation with this stakeholder in the development of the
COP would prove beneficial. By drawing ontheir experience in coordinatingthe different constructionparties to
work together within specified timeframes and budgets, project managers possess the authority required to drive
collaboration, communication and coordination on safetyrelatedmatters in construction projects. For thisreason,
project managers may be able to provide insight into the means by which safety commitment at both a
philosophicalandpracticallevel mightbeincreased.
In order to gain insight into the OHS needs of project managers, the relevant industry association, the
Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), would also need to be involved in the development of the
proposedCOP.Viewsofcurrentorpreviousprojectmanagersacrossarangeofconstructionprojectsshouldalsobe
solicited.
Designersandconstructors
It has been found that 60% of fatal construction accidents result from decisions made upstream, and that
shortcomings in design and work organisation are the main cause of construction fatalities (The European
FoundationfortheImprovementofLivingandWorkingConditions1991Jeffrey&Douglas1994).Furthermore,
50%ofOHSproblemshavebeenattributabletoinadequatedesignalone(Smallwood1996).Thereisthusastrong
relationshipbetweendesigndecisionsandsafeconstruction.Whatismore,thelackoffocusonsafetyatthedesign
stageisattributabletotheprevailingviewthattheimplementationofsafetypreparationsshouldbedelayeduntilthe
commencementoftheconstructionphase(Szymberski1997).Thefactorsintroducedabovecontributetothecurrent
generalfailuretodesigneffectivelyfortheelimination,avoidanceandreductionofhazards.Asaconsequence,itis
necessary,asSzymberski(1997)argues,toviewconstructionsafetyasanimportantconsiderationintheconceptual
andpreliminarydesignphasesofaproject.
Thenotion of considering safety in the design phase of construction,as espoused by Gambatese (2003),is
gaining momentum on a global scale (Behm 2005). Defined by Behm (2005, 590) as the consideration of
constructionsitesafetyinthedesignofaproject,safety bydesigninvolvesmodifyingthepermanentfeaturesof
theconstructionprojectinordertoensurethat(a)constructionsitesafetyisconsidered,(b)safetyisincludedinthe
site construction plans and specifications, and (c) design tools that can accommodate safety suggestions and
communicatedesignrisksareemployed.
Inviewofthenecessityofdesigningforsafety,designersshouldbeinvolvedinthedevelopmentofaCOP.
Sincemanyofthebestcontrolsforsafetyproblemscanbeimplementedeffectivelyatthedesignandconstruction
planningstages(Durhamet al.2002,9),architectsandengineersare,itseems,bestequippedtoprovideknowledge
relating to this field of endeavour. Peak industry representative groups such as the Association of Consulting
Engineers Australia (ACEA), Engineers Australia (EA) and the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA)
shouldalsobecontactedforinput.
In order to gain insight into the effects of design decisions downstream in the construction process,
engagement with constructors through the Australian Constructors Association (ACA) and Master Builders
Australia(MBA)shouldbefactoredintothedevelopmentoftheCOP.Forsimilarreasons,theviews ofcurrently

238

employedonsiteconstructionworkersshouldalsobesolicited.Inaddition,organisationsoperatingwithinasimilar
contexttotheAustralianCouncilofTradeUnions(ACTU)shouldbeconsulted.

Scopeofthecodeofpractice
Although the literature suggests that arole for anindustrywide COP most certainly exists, it fails to identify, in
specificterms,thoseareasofsafetythatrequireemphasis.Bystatingthatindustrycodesofpracticefocusonkey
hazards within a given industry, the Queensland Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations
(2000,7) provides some broad guidance. Of course, it stands to reason thatthemost significant OHS issues will
surfaceduringdiscussionswithclients,designers,projectmanagersandconstructors.Still,itisperhapsworthwhile
toputforwardsomeideasthat couldguidethedevelopmentofaCOP.Thenextsectionwillattempttodothis.
Safetyrolesandresponsibilities
TherolesandresponsibilitiesofthedifferentconstructionpartieswithregardtoOHShavenotbeenspecifiedinany
existingexegesisonthetopic.Thussafetyinconstructionprojectsremainsanambiguousconcept,especiallywith
respecttotheOHSrolesandresponsibilitiesofdifferentparticipantsworkingonaconstructionproject.Disparity
existsbetweenthemainstakeholders,especiallyconcerningwhichpartyisresponsibleforwhichelementofsafety.
It is important tonote that the RAIA (2004) contendsthat, for safety performance to improve in the construction
industry,definitionsofdesignersandtheirresponsibilitiesforOHSrequirefurtherclarity.
Inviewoftheprevailingambiguity,itisenvisagedthat,followingconsultationwithindustryrepresentatives,
the COP will clearly specify the roles and responsibilities for each of the main parties to a construction project,
namely, clients, project managers, designers and constructors, in addition to what their respective roles and
responsibilitieswillbeateachmajorstageoftheconstructionprocess,whichareprocurement,design,construction
andcommissioning.
Contractorselectioncriteria
Traditionalcriteriaforcontractorselectionhavegenerallyfocusedontendercost(Tookeyetal.2001).Thesetypes
ofconstructionprocurementmethodsareproblematicsincetheyare(a)unabletoraiseproductivitylevelsbeyond
those stated in protocols, and (b) incapable of managing complex multigoal, multidisciplinary and multi
participant scenarios (Kumaraswamy & Dulaimi 2001). Furthermore, by focusing on cost alone, existing
procurementmethodsarenotholisticinnature.Theyarethereforeunabletoaddressparametersofefficiencyand
effectiveness letalonesafety adequately.
In response to the inability of conventional criteria for contractor selection to reflect wholeoflife project
dimensions,projectmanagersareincreasinglyrecognisingtheimportanceofbestvalueprinciples.Asaresult,they
are progressing towards selecting contractors on the basis of criteria that align closely with overarching client
objectives.Tookeyetal.(2001)statethatprojectobjectivesgenerallyfallunderthefollowingrubrics:quality,cost,
time,prestigeandaffordability,andminimalconflict.Otherscholarsclaimthat,withquality,costandtimebeing
generallydeemedcriticaltoaprojectssuccess,thesefactorsshouldcomprisethecoreconsiderationsincontractor
selection(Bennet&Flanagan1983Gransberg&Ellicott1997Walker1996).Yetthereisalsodebateregarding
whethercontractorselectioncriteriashouldextendbeyondlowestpriceinordertoincludeintangibleconsiderations
suchasenvironmentalpreservationandsocialandeconomicsustainability (Choi1999Holt2001Palaneeswaranet
al.2003).Onemightwellwonderwhysafetyshouldnotalso beincluded.Inthisprocess,ithasbeenarguedthat
contractor appraisals should adopt a project wholeoflife value approach in order to evaluate multiple facets of
contractorperformance(Holt2001).
To address the present inadequacies in contractor selection, there needs to be a closer alignment of best
practicecriteriawithclientobjectivesforaproject.Constructionprojectsvaryinsizeandresourceavailability.Thus
thefactorsthatconstitutebestvalueforoneprojectmaynotnecessarilyreflecttheprioritiesofanother.Clientshave
uniqueobjectivesthatunderlieintendedprojectsand,asaresult,theirexpectationsof contractorsandconsequent
project outcomes are likely to vary. For these reasons, project managers and clients should establish goals and
objectives for each construction project at the concept stage of operation. This should include safety. From these
goals,contractorselectioncriteriathatextendbeyondlowestpriceshouldbedeveloped.
TheCOPshouldthusidentifyarangeofsalientcriteriaforcontractorselectiontoguidethedevelopmentof
projectspecificcriteriabyprojectmanagersandclients.ItmayalsobeusefulfortheCOPtoprovidetoolstoassist
in the operationalisation of these criteria, for example, templates of tender documents that assess contractor
performancewithrespecttothedimensionsspecifiedinthecriteria.
Hazardidentificationandcontrol
The formal identification of workplace hazards is fundamental to successful safety management. It is thus an
essentialcomponentofOHSlegislationinAustralia.Still,hazardidentificationremainsaproblematicprocess for
contractors(Trethewyetal.2000).Mostcontractorslackthewillingnesstoidentifyanddocumenthazardsthrough

239

either jobsafety analyses or safeworkmethod statements that identify medium to highrisk threats in the
workplaceandnominateappropriatecontrolsinordertoeliminateorminimisethem(Trethewyetal.2000).
Hazardidentificationandcontrolprocesses would bebettermanagedifprogramstandards,implementation
criteria and monitoring responsibility were clearly defined before any work is contracted (Hislop 1999). As a
consequence,organisationsneedtodevelopproceduresforconductingthesetasks(Gun& Ryan1994).
Inresponsetotheidentifiedneedforsystemicprocessesintheidentificationandcontrolofhazards,theCOP
shouldprovideguidanceinthisarea.Casestudiesofexistinghazardidentificationandcontrolprocessesshouldbe
conducted and complemented with research examining the requirements of clients, designers, constructors and
projectmanagersinhazardidentificationandriskmanagement.Fromthisdata,rolesandtasksshouldbedeveloped
forthesepartiesinorderforthemtocollaboratemoreeffectivelyinthemanagementofconstructionhazards.
Designingforsafety
ForsafetybydesigntobecomeaneffectiveOHSstrategy,theroleandresponsibilitiesofdesignersneedtochange.
Moderndesignersmust(a)developahighregardforsafety,(b)bemotivatedtodesignforsafety,(c)increasetheir
knowledge of the concept, (d) incorporate construction safety knowledge into the designing process, and (e)
consider design for safety modifications (Gambatese et al. 2005). In addition, tools and guidelines that facilitate
safety by design must also be readily available, while liability exposure for designers should be mitigated
(Gambateseetal.2005).TheUKHealthandSafetyExecutive(HSE)(2002)specifiesthatdesignersshouldidentify
significant health and safety hazards likely to be associated with design and, in view of these, either redesign in
ordertoavoidtheidentifiedthreatstosafety,orelseminimisethemagnitudeoftherisks(HSE2002).
Designing for safety principles should thus be embedded in the proposed roles and responsibilities for
designerssectionoftheCOP.Despitethis,itwouldbebeneficialtoreinforcesafetybydesignprinciplesinother
relevant aspects of the code. The operationalisation details of such a strategy may need to be gleaned from
discussions with industry representatives and construction parties. Furthermore, in consideration of the fact that
increased safety awareness, development and continual refinement of safety should be incorporated into design
checklists(Weinsteinetal.2005),thedevelopmentofadesignchecklistthatwillservetoenhancesafetyoutcomes
mustconstituteanotheritemoftheresearchagenda.
Equipment
The wearing of protective clothing and the use of safety equipment is critical inreducing onsiteaccident effects
(Lin&Mills2001).Althoughsafetyequipmentisgenerallyprovided,employeesareoftenreluctanttouseit.Asa
consequence,themereprovisionofsafetyequipmentalonedoesnotwarranteffectiveOHSpractice(Harper1998
Holmesetal.1999).Rather,managementcommitmentisnecessaryinordertoenforcetheuseofsafetyequipment,
inadditiontoacorporateculturethatencouragessuchpractices.Projectmanagersshouldalsoevaluatethemanner
inwhichtheycoordinateworkwithaviewtofacilitatingtheefficientuseofsafetyequipment(Irizarryetal.2005).
The COP may need to stipulate the roles of individual construction parties in the provision, use and
maintenance of safety equipment. As a supporting device, it may also be beneficial to provide equipment log
templates that track the life and maintenance of all construction equipment across all phases of a project.
Consultation with construction practitioners, including safety personnel, and observation of general safety
equipment practices is necessary in order to determine what is realistically feasible in the provision, use and
maintenanceofsafetyequipment.ThisshouldbereflectedintheCOP.
Training
Organisationswithpoorsafetyperformanceofteninappropriatelyassociatesafetytrainingwithsiteexperienceand,
asaresult,adoptinadequateapproachestothepreventionofOHSincidents(Wilson&Koehn2000).Forexample,
in safety practices and processes, designers have been found to be lacking in safety expertise, understanding of
constructionprocesses,andtypicalcontractterms(Toole2005).Furthermore,unsafebehaviourinconstructionhas
beenlinkedtoalackofawareness,whilepoorattitudestowardssafetyandOHStraininghavebeenidentifiedasthe
meanstoreversetheseeffects(Teoetal.2005).
In response to the central role of training in OHS, there is a need for safety training in the construction
industryto bereviewedandredesigned.Formaltrainingprogramshavebeenassociatedwithempoweringstaffto
completetaskseffectively,inadditiontoestablishingpositivesafetyattitudes(Kartametal.2000).Theyarethus
preferabletoinformalapproaches.
Workersmustbeeducatedaboutallaspectsofworksafetyandshouldbeprovidedwiththenecessaryskills
to act upon this knowledge (Garza 1988 Nishgaki et al.1994). Education and trainingstrategies shouldnot only
focus on external control, enforcement and technical inspections but also should emphasise higher management
internalcontrol,humanfactors,safetymanagementandimprovedsafetyculture (Hakkinen1995).
ThetrainingcomponentoftheCOPshouldthereforefocusoneducatingthepartiesinvolvedinaconstruction
projectaboutthemanyandvariedfacetsofOHS.Itshouldstipulatethetrainingneededtoproduceenhancedsafety

240

outcomesand,wherepossible,operationaliseOHStrainingintopracticalandrealistictasksforuseinthebroader
industry.
Safetyreviews,committees,plansandprograms
Safety reviews have been argued to eliminate or mitigateOHS risks during construction. These reviews involve
participation from the owner of the project, design firm, general contractor and the numerous trade contractors
involvedintheconstructionandoperationofaparticularproject(Weinsteinetal.2005).However,ithasalsobeen
acknowledged that such a comprehensive safety review may not be practical in general commercial construction
projects(Weinsteinetal.2005).Asaresult,thedevelopmentofameaningful,practicalandcomprehensivesafety
reviewprocesshasbeengivenpriority(Weinsteinetal.2005).
In consideration of evidence demonstrating that employees tend to have a greater awareness of workplace
hazardsincomparisonwithemployers,LinandMills(2001)suggestthatemployeesshouldbeinvolvedinsafety
programs. Worker participation in programs is thought to allow workers to understand and accept OHS changes
with greater ease (Lin & Mills 2001). Furthermore, regular onsite meetings have also been found to assist the
identification of OHS problems and solutions, something which has contributed to improved accident prevention
(Dedobbeleer& Bland1991Hegazyetal.2001Hinze & Raboud1988Mearnsetal.2003).
In the development of the COP, it may be beneficial to develop a meaningful and practical safety review
processthatisefficientandeffectiveforallparties.Workerparticipationinthedevelopmentandimplementationof
thisprocessshouldbeprioritised.Asseemsobvious,furtherresearchisneededinoperationalisingthisconcept.
Evaluatingtheeffectivenessofthecodeofpractice:Measurementissues
TheliteraturesuggeststhatonesinglereliablemeasureofOHSisbothnonexistentandinsufficientinadequately
evaluatingsafety.ThedifficultiesofmeasuringOHSareexacerbatedbytherangeofmeasurementtoolsemployed
by the various parties involved (Mearns et al. 1997 1998). Commonly used indicators of OHS performance vary
depending on the stakeholderperspective considered. OHS measurementtools include: worker perceptions of the
workplace, communication, workforce involvement, perceived management and supervisor competence, safety
performancesatisfaction,andwillingnesstoreportaccidentsandincidents(Mearnsetal.19971998).
TrethewyandGardner(2000)notethatanimpetusexiststodevelopenhancedsafetyperformanceindicators
that(a)accuratelycapturetheimportantelementsofworkplacesafetyperformance,(b)indicatetheeffectivenessof
safetymanagementproceduresandsystemsimplementedbyprincipalsandminorcontractors,and(c)includebroad
conceptions of safety performance that extend beyond accident and incident frequency rates. These authors also
suggest that multiple OHS measures are required and that, instead of focusing solely on outcomes, OHS
performance indicators must be related to safety management processes and should be simple to understand and
operationalise(Trethewy & Gardner2000).
Both quantitative and qualitative devices should be drawn upon in order to measure OHS performance
(Jaselskisetal.1996).Quantitativemeasuresincludelosttimeandseverityrates,whilequalitativemeasuresreferto
outstanding, average and belowaverage project performances as determined by OHS assessors (Jalselskis et al.
1996). Inaddition,regular examinations of safety compliance, by means of the documentation of work tasksand
safetycontrols,aswellasregularworkplaceinspections,shouldbeconductedtodetect,recordandaddressrepeated
medium tohighriskhazards(Trethewy & Gardner2000).
Durhametal.(2002)maintainthattheeffectivenessofaCOP isdeterminedbyitsrelevancetotheindustryto
which it is applicable. For this reason, the effectiveness of the COPin enhancing OHS outcomes and generating
greaterindustrycollaborationandengagementwillbemultidimensionalinnature.Bothqualitativeandquantitative
approachesshouldbeincorporatedintheCOP,anddiscussionswithindustryrepresentatives willbenecessaryin
ordertoidentifyanddevelopmeasurementtoolsthatarereliable,accurateandfeasible.

IMPLEMENTINGTHECODEOFPRACTICE:CORECONSIDERATIONS
Itispossiblethat,inthenottoodistantfuture,theAustralianconstructionindustrywillbecompelled,onaccountof
legislative and/or regulatory reform, to embrace practices that provide for enhanced safety in the construction
industry.Giventheimpetustoincludeallpartiesinvolvedinaconstructionprojectinanimprovedsafetyregime,it
seems obvious that reforms involving a code of some sort will affect a wide array of industry practitioners. The
question,then,istowhatextentaCOP,asespousedinthischapterandelsewhere,couldprovideaneffectivebridge
betweenthecurrentlaissezfaireattitudestoconstructionsitesafetyandafarmorerigorousgovernmentledreform
ofconstructionprocesses.SuchabridgewouldallowforaneffectivetransitiontoamorerigorousOHSmonitoring
and enforcement environment, and would also ensure that future legislation/regulation would not mean that the
industrycomestoastandstillasaresultofextremeuncertaintyanddraininglegalprocesses.
If government and public sector clients demand that project management firms ensure improved safety
throughoutthe constructionprocess, it stands toreason that such project management companies willnecessarily
embraceaCOPforbothbusinessreasons,andaspartoftheirCSRactivities.Furthermore,privatesectorclients,
in their multifarious forms, will also feel increasingly compelled to include safety in their selection criteria for

241

procurement,perhapsforCSRreasons,orperhapsbecausetheyrecognisethataCOPwillpotentiallyleadtobetter
projectteam integration and harmonisation, and thus a stronger likelihood of sound overall project outcomes. In
view of these considerations, there should be a ready market for a COP, especially in construction activities
focusingonlargescale,highcostandhighlyvisiblefacilities.
Despite thehappy prognostications made above, the means by whicha COP could be sold to construction
firms operating outside the sorts of regimes introduced above needs to be ascertained. One might well wonder
whethersmallerprojectmanagementfirmscoordinatingtheconstructionofasmallsuburbanclusterofshopsora
solitarypetrolstationwouldbecompelledbytheclienttoensurethatsubcontractorsadheretoagreeduponsafety
principles.Andwhatofamasterbuilderhiredbyafuturehomeownertocoordinatetheconstructionofasuburban
dwelling?Inthesecases,theshorttermviewwouldbethatadherencetoaCOPwouldnotyieldanygreatbenefits,
and that its adoption might increase administrative complexity and add to cost. So, if a COP is to provide an
effective bridging mechanism between the present and the future, it is clear that the COP must be embraced
throughout the entire industry, or at least as far as possible. Perhaps target figures should be nominated within a
determinedperiodoftime.
Consideration should also be given to the manner in which the COP should be implemented. Should
compliancewiththeCOPbevoluntaryinnature?Ifso,whatisthebestmeanstoachievebuyinbyconstruction
firms?Incontrast,shouldcompliancewiththeCOPbemandatedbyclientsandprojectmanagementfirms?Ifthisis
thecase,doesanenforcementroleexistforindustryassociationssuchastheRAIA,EA,ACEA,ACAandPCA?
HowwillcompliancewiththeCOPbeassessed?Ismonitoringrequiredand,ifso,bywhom?IftheCOPistobeget
effectivechangeinOHSintheconstructionindustry,thesearethe sortsofissuesthatrequireattention.
Thusaresearchagendaneedsto beestablishedthatwillservetoincreaseourunderstandingofthevarious
barriersandenablersthatwillberelevanttothequesttosellaCOP toindustry, inparticularSMEs andsmallowner
operators.Itiswidelyrecognisedamongpractitionersandscholarsthattheoperatingcontextofthesesmallerfirms
is such that limited economic and human resources are available to implement OHS management systems in an
acceptablemanner.EffortsshouldthereforefocusonensuringthattheCOPis(asfaraspossible)practical,reliable
andinexpensivetoimplementandmaintain.Asafurtherprovision,existingresearchonthediffusionofregulatory
andbusinesspracticesinnovation,includingthatconductedwithintheCRCfor ConstructionInnovation,couldbe
leveraged in order to provide an improved understanding of potential challenges to the uptake of innovative
practices among SMEs. Still, specific research withregardto a COPandits potential uptake by SMEs and small
owneroperatorsmightwellbeundertaken.Whatsellingpointsneedtobedevised forSMEs?Whatwouldbethe
longterm gains? How could these benefits be communicated to SMEs? These questions need to be asked if
widespreadacceptanceofaCOPamongAustralianconstructionindustrySMEsistobecomeareality.
Byundertakingresearchinthedirectionswehavediscussed,themeanstooperationaliseandembedaCOP
forconstructionOHSmightbecomemuchclearertoallinterestedparties.

CONCLUSIONS
A role clearly exists for a COPthatapportionshealthandsafety responsibility across all stages of a construction
project.Asaconduit,suchaCOPhasthecapacitytoachieveindustrycollaborationandagreementonOHSrelated
mattersintheconstructionsector.Atthesametime,itshouldalsoenhanceconstructionsafetyperformance.Despite
these benefits, the scope of the COP remains somewhat illdefined. By providing a research agenda into the
developmentofaCOP,thischapterhasinitiatedtheprocessofidentifyingthoseareasthatarecriticaltoimproving
safetyoutcomes.Theseincludesafetyrolesandresponsibilitiescontractorselectioncriteria hazardidentification
andcontrol designingforsafety equipment training safetyreviews,safetycommittees,plansandprograms and
OHS performance measurement. It also suggests that, for the COP to be both practical and relevant to the
constructionindustry,evaluationofitseffectivenesswillberequired.Furthermore,inordertodevelopameaningful
COP that responds to the OHS issues manifest in the Australian construction industry, consultation with key
industry stakeholders, such as construction clients,project managers, designers and constructors, is essential. The
input of other influential parties in the building and construction sector should also constitute part of this
developmentprocess.
Regardless of the form that the COP eventually takes, it should be nationally significant and should
complementratherthancontraveneexistinglegislationandregulations.Whatismostimportant,ofcourse,isthatit
shouldbefeasibleenoughforindustrypractitioners.ThemeanstoembedtheCOPanditsfundamentalprinciplesin
educationandtrainingregimesalsoneedtobedevised.Indeed,itwillbeofvitalimportancethatoverseastrained
constructionindustrypractitionersbecomefamiliarwiththeCOPbeforetheybeginworkonAustralianconstruction
projects. Finally, research efforts also need to focus on the way in which buy in by construction industry
practitioners(especiallySMEs)mightbeachieved,mostnotablybythosethatcurrentlyviewaCOPofthisnature
as an additional (and unnecessary) administrative and operational burden. These parties must be informed of the
longterm value of adhering to a nationally significant COP that focuses on enhancing construction OHS
performance.

242

REFERENCES
AustralianNationalOccupationalHealthandSafety Commission(NOHSC).2005.OccupationalHealthandSafety.
NOHSCwebsite:http://www.nohsc.gov.au/ (accessed26June2006).
AustralianProcurement andConstructionCouncil.1997. NationalCodeofPracticefortheConstructionIndustry:
Towardsbestpracticeguidelines.DeakinWest,AustralianCapitalTerritory:AGPS.
Behm,M.2005.Linkingconstructionfatalitiestothedesignforconstructionsafetyconcept. SafetyScience,43(8):
589611.
Bennet,J.andR.Flanagan.1983.Forthegoodoftheclient. Building,1(April):2627.
Bluff,L.2003. RegulatingSafeDesign andPlanningofConstructionWorks:Areviewofstrategiesforregulating
OHSinthedesignandplanningofbuildings,structuresandotherconstructionprojects,workingpaper19.
Canberra:NationalResearchCentreforOccupationalHealthandSafetyRegulation,AustralianNational
University.
Briscoe,G., A.Dainty,S.MillettandR.Neale.2004.Clientledstrategiesforconstructionsupplychain
improvement. ConstructionManagementandEconomics,22(2):193201.
Chi,C.,T.ChangandH.Ting.2005.Accidentpatternsandpreventionmeasuresforfataloccupationalfallsinthe
constructionindustry.AppliedErgonomics.36:391400.
Choi,Y.1999. TheDynamicsofPublicServiceContracting:TheBritishexperience.Bristol:ThePolityPress.
Cole,T.2001. OverviewofPrivateMeetingsHeldbetweentheHonourableTRHColeQCandParticipantsinthe
BuildingandConstructionIndustry.Canberra:AGPS.
Cole,T.2002. StatementbytheCommissionerontheFutureConductoftheRoyalCommission.RoyalCommission
intotheBuildingandConstructionIndustrywebsite:
http://www.royalcombci.gov.au/docs/Statement_on_Progress.pdf (accessed21February2006).
Cole,T.2003. FinalReportoftheRoyalCommissionintotheBuildingandConstructionIndustry:Summaryof
findingsandrecommendations,volume1 (ColeRoyalCommissionReport).Canberra:AGPS.
Dainty,A.,G.BriscoeandS.Millett. 2001.Subcontractorperspectivesonsupplychainalliances.Construction
ManagementandEconomics,19(8):841848.
Dedobbeleer,N.andF.Bland.1991.Asafetyclimatemeasureforconstructionsites. JournalofSafety Research.
22(2):97103.
DepartmentofEmploymentandWorkplaceRelations.2005. ReformingtheBuildingandConstructionIndustry.
AustralianGovernment,DepartmentofEmploymentandWorkplaceRelationswebsite:
http://www.workplace.gov.au/building (accessed7February2006).
Durham,B.,J.CulvenorandP.Rozen.2002.WorkplaceHealth andSafetyintheBuildingandConstruction
Industry:Discussionpaper6.Canberra:AGPS.
Egan,J.1998. RethinkingConstruction:ThereportoftheConstructionTaskforce (EganReport).UK:HMSO.
EuropeanFoundationfortheImprovementofLivingandWorkingConditions.1991. FromDrawingBoardto
BuildingSite.Dublin:EuropeanFoundationfortheImprovementofLivingandWorkingConditions.
Gambatese,J.2003. InvestigationoftheViabilityofDesigningforSafety.USA:TheCentertoProtectWorkers
Rights.
Gambatese,J.,M.BehmandJ.Hinze.2005.Viabilityofdesigningforconstructionworkersafety.Journalof
ConstructionEngineeringandManagement,131(9):10291036.
Garza,J.1988.Analysisofsafetyindicatorsinconstruction. JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement.
124(4):312314.
Gransberg,D.andM.Ellicott.1997.Bestvaluecontractingcriteria. CostEngineering,39(6):3134.
Gun,R.andC.Ryan.1994.Acasecontrolstudyofpossibleriskfactorsinthecausationofoccupationalinjury.
Safety Science, 18(1):113.
Hakkinen,K.1995.Alearningbydoingstrategytoimprovetopmanagementinvolvementinsafety.Safety Science
20(2/3):299304.
Hampson,K.andP.Brandon.2004. Construction2020:AvisionforAustraliaspropertyandconstructionindustry.
Brisbane:CRCforConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
Harper,R.1998.ManagingindustrialsafetyinsoutheastTexas. JournalofConstructionEngineeringand
Management.124(6):452457.
Hasle,P.andLimborg.2006.Areviewoftheliteratureonpreventativeoccupationalhealthandsafety activitiesin
smallenterprises.IndustrialHealth,44(1):612.
HealthandSafetyExecutive(HSE).2002. Construction(DesignandManagement)Regulations1994:Theroleof
thedesigner.London:HealthandSafetyExecutive.
HealthandSafetyExecutive(HSE).2003. CausalFactorsinConstructionAccidents:Researchreport156.London:
HealthandSafetyExecutive.
Hegazy,T.,E.ZaneldinandD.Grierson.2001.Improvingdesigncoordinationforbuildingprojects,I:information
model. JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement.127(4):322336.

243

Hinze,J.andP.Raboud.1988.Safety onlargebuildingconstructionprojects.JournalofConstructionEngineering
andManagement.114(2):286293.
Hislop,R.1999. ConstructionSite Safety:Aguideformanagingcontractors.LewisPublishers:USA.
Holmes,N.,H.Lingard,Z.YesilyurtandF.DeMunk.1999.Anexploratorystudyofmeaningsofrisk controlfor
longtermandacuteeffectoccupationalhealthandsafety risksinsmallbusinessconstructionfirms. Journalof
SafetyResearch,30(4):251261.
Holt,A.2001. PrinciplesofConstructionSafety.BlackwellScience:GreatBritain.
Huang,X.andJ.Hinze.2006.Theownersroleinconstructionsafety:guidancemodel. JournalofConstruction
EngineeringandManagement,132(2):174181.
InternationalLabourOffice.1992. Safety andHealthinConstructionCodeofPractice.Geneva:International
LabourOffice.
Irizarry,J.,K.SimonsenandD.Abraham.2005.Effectofsafetyandenvironmentalvariablesontaskdurationsin
steelerection. JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement.131(12):13101319.
Jaselskis,E.,S.AndersonandJ.Russell.1996.Strategiesforachievingexcellenceinconstructionsafety
performance. JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement.122(1):6170.
Jeffrey,J.andI.Douglas.1994.Safety performanceoftheUnitedKingdomconstructionindustry.Proceedingsof
theFifthAnnualRinkerInternationalConferenceFocusingonConstructionSafetyandLossControl,233253.
Gainesville:UniversityofFlorida.
Kartam,N.,I.FloodandP.Koushki.2000.ConstructionsafetyinKuwait:issues,procedures,problemsand
recommendations. Safety Science,36(3):163184.
Kelly,M. 2004.Nationalsafetycodessettomovefewstepscloser. TheAustralian,September9,47.
Kumaraswamy,M.andM.Dulaimi.2001.Empoweringinnovativeimprovementsthroughcreativeconstruction
procurement. Engineering,Constructionand ArchitecturalManagement,8(5/6):325334.
LathamM.1994. ConstructingTheTeam:Jointreviewofprocurement andcontractualarrangementsintheUnited
Kingdomconstructionindustry,finalreport.London:HMSO.
Lin,J.andA.Mills. 2001.Measuringtheoccupationalhealthandsafety performanceofconstructioncompaniesin
Australia.Facilities,19(3/4):131138.
Lingard,H.andS.Rowlinson.2005.OccupationalHealthandSafety inConstructionProjectManagement.New
York:SponPress.
Mayhew,C.,M.QuinlanandR.Ferris.1997.Theeffectsofsubcontracting/outsourcing onoccupationalhealthand
safety:surveyevidencefromfourAustralianindustries. SafetyScience,25(1/3):163178.
Mearns,K.,R.Flin,M.FlemingandR.Gordon.1997. HumanandOrganisationalFactorsinOffshoreSafety
ReportOTH543,OffshoreSafetyDivision.Subdury:HSEBooks.
Mearns,K.,R.Flin,R.GordonandM.Fleming.1998.Measuringsafetyclimateonoffshoreinstallations.Work&
Stress12:23854.
Mearns,K.,S.WhitakerandR.Flin.2003.Safety climate,safetymanagementpracticeandsafetyperformancein
offshoreenvironments.SafetyScience.41:641680.
Miller,C.,G.Packham,D.PickernellandM.McGovern.2004.Buildingforthefuture:thepotentialimportanceof
theconstructionindustryinWelsheconomicdevelopmentpolicy.ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 22
(5):533540.
Nishgaki,S.,J.Vavrin,N.Kano,T.Haga,J.KunzandK.Law.1994.Humanware,humanerror,andhiyarihat:a
templateofunsafesymptoms.JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,120(2):421441.
Packham,G.,B.ThomasandC.Miller.2003.Partnering inthehousebuildingsector:asubcontractorsview.
InternationalJournal ofProjectManagement, 21(5):327332.
Palaneeswaran,E.,M.KumaraswamyandT.Ng.2003.Targetingoptimumvalueinpublicsectorprojectsthrough
bestvaluefocusedcontractorselection. Engineering,ConstructionandArchitecturalManagement,10(6):418
431.
QueenslandDepartmentofEmployment,Training andIndustrialRelations.2000.Health andSafetyintheBuilding
andConstructionIndustry.Brisbane:DepartmentofEmployment,TrainingandIndustrialRelations.
Robens,A.1972. ReportoftheCommitteeonSafety andHealthatWork19701972.London:HMSO.
RoyalAustralianInstituteofArchitects(RAIA).2004. OptionstoImproveOHS OutcomesinAustralia.Submission
totheOfficeoftheNationalOccupationalHealthandSafety.Melbourne:RAIA.
SafeSiteNewZealand.1999.ConstructionSafety ManagementGuide BestPracticeGuidelinesintheManagement
ofHealthandSafetyinConstruction.SafeSiteNewZealandwebsite:
http://www.sitesafe.org.nz/show.asp?Page_ID=Health_mgmt_guide (accessed20May2006).
Saurin,T.,C.FormosoandL.Guimares.2004.Safety andproduction:anintegratedplanningandcontrolmodel.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics,22(2):159169.
Smallwood,J.1996.Theinfluenceofdesignersonoccupationalsafetyandhealth. FirstInternationalConferenceof
CIBWorkingCommissionW99,ImplementationofSafety andHealthonConstructionSites,203213. Portugal:
TechnicalUniversityof Lisbon.

244

Szymberski,R.1997.Constructionprojectsafetyplanning.TAPPIJournal,80(11):6974.
Teo,E.,F.Lingand D.Ong.2005.Fosteringsafeworkbehaviourinworkersatconstructionsites. Engineering,
ConstructionandArchitecturalManagement,12(4):410422.
Tookey,J.,M.Murray,C.HardcastleandD.Langford.2001.Constructionprocurement routes:redefiningthe
contoursofconstructionprocurement. Engineering,ConstructionandArchitecturalManagement.8(1):2030.
Toole,T.2002.Constructionsitesafetyroles.JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,128(3):203
210.
Toole,T.2005.Increasingengineersroleinconstructionsafety:opportunitiesandbarriers. JournalofProfessional
IssuesinEngineeringEducation andPractice,131(3):199207.
Trethewy,R.andD.Gardner.2000.OHSperformance:improvedindicatorsforcontractors. Journalof
OccupationalHealthandSafety:AustraliaandNewZealand.16(6):527534.
Trethewy,R.,M.AtkinsonandB.Falls.2000.Improvedhazard identificationforcontractors. Journalof
OccupationalHealthandSafety:AustraliaandNewZealand,16(6):507520.
Walker,D.1996.Thecontributionoftheconstructionmanagementteamtogoodconstructiontimeperformance:an
Australianexperience.ConstructionProcurement,2(2):418.
Weinstein,M.,J.GambateseandS.Hecker.2005.Candesignimproveconstructionsafety?Assessingtheimpactof
acollaborativesafetyindesignprocess.JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement.131(10):1125
1134.
Wild,B.2005.Occupationalhealthandsafety:thecaringclient.ClientsDrivingConstructionInnovation:Mapping
theterrain,eds.K.Brown,K.HampsonandP.Brandon,2239.Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentrefor
ConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
Wilson,J.andE.Koehn.2000.Safety management:problemsencounteredandrecommendedsolutions. Journalof
ConstructionEngineering andManagement.126(1):7779.

245

Part7
FacilitiesManagement

246

CHAPTER28

FacilitiesManagementinItaly:
BetweenTraditionalandInnovative
Approaches
LorenzoBellicini
AlessiaSalaris
THEITALIANFACILITIESMANAGEMENTMARKET:FEATURESAND
EVOLUTION
InItaly,the facilitiesmanagement(FM) sectorhasonlyrecentlydevelopedincomparisontoothercountries,buthas
grownrapidly inthe past five years.There are three mainreasons for this. First of all, the features of the Italian
production structure are characterised by a widespread presence ofsmall and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs),
which does not facilitate the adoption of an integrated FM approach. Consequently the nonresidential stock
(amountingto1.15billionsquaremetersoftotalfloorarea)isfragmentedintosmallsizebuildings:localunitswith
atotalfloorareaupto500m3 represent29%oftotalstock,whileonly17%ofthenonresidentialstockiscomprised
of local units with a total floor area larger than 10,000m3, mostly concentrated in industry and public sectors
(CresmeManutencoop2005).
Secondly,untilafewyearsago,themostcommonmodelforthedeliveryofnoncoreserviceswasbasedon
inhousemanagement.Thirdly,thepresenceintheItalianmarketofthemostimportantinternationalFMcompanies
isrelativelyrecent(datingbacktothemid1990s)andFMserviceshavebeencarriedoutbyagreatnumberofsmall
providers.
Nonetheless, during the last five years the Italian FM market has recorded a fast growth, owing to a
widespread trend towards the outsourcing of noncore activities both in the public and private sector and to a
restructuringprocess of supply. At present,the Italian FMmarket isaffected by a number of different factors,in
particular,theverylowgrowthratesoftheItalianeconomy,andthe increasingnecessitytoachievecostcuttingand
efficiencyimprovement,includingtheuseofoutsourcingpractices.TheCresmeestimateoftheItalianFMmarket
in 2005 is based on such considerations, combined with the dimension and features of nonresidential building
stock, service prices and some hypothesis on the share of potential market affected by the outsourcing process.
AccordingtothismethodologytheItalianFMmarketisestimatedatbetween24bnand35bn.Themostimportant
demand segments are industry (38%), the public sector (27%) and private services (19%) (CresmeManutencoop
2005).Notallofthemshowthesamedegreeofmaturityandreadinesstodevelopstrategiesofintegratedfacilities
managementbigindustrialgroups,advancedprivateservicesandsomesegmentsofthepublicsectorsseemtobe
themostprepared.
WithregardtoFMsupply,overthepastfewyearstheItalianmarkethasgonethroughaphasecharacterised
by the entry of the major international players (especially the French) and a marked process of mergers and
acquisitions, accompanied by a considerable growth of consortiums and partnerships between service and
constructioncompanies.Atpresent,themarketisledby1015topplayers,comingfromdifferentsectors(energy,
construction,mainindustrialgroups,services),butanimportantroleisplayedby SMEs,especiallyataregionaland
locallevel.
TheimportanceofSMEsinFMsupply,togetherwiththeuniquenessofmostofthebuildingstock,represents
themainpeculiarityoftheItalianmarket.
Two important aspects need to taken into consideration. On the one hand, the SMEs act usually as
subcontractorsthatoperateonbehalfofmajorsuppliers,whichmaintaintherelationshipwiththecustomerandthe
controlfunction.Ontheotherhand,inItalyweobservethecreationofdifferentformsofnetworksbetweensmall
craftbusinessesorcooperativeenterprises,comingfromdifferentsectors(maintenance,cleaning,etc.),inorderto
providetheclientwithdifferentFMservices.
Major players and SMEs networks present different points of strength and weakness. Big FM companies
usually present competitive advantages related to the financial dimension, contractual strength, international
experience, knowhow, and the availability of specific technological tools. Conversely, SMEs networks take
advantage of a full territorial coverage, a more direct contact with local clients, and the possibility to calibrate
servicesaccordingtotherequirementsofasmallandmiddlemarketsegment.

247

Over the past few years, the relations between major players and SMEs have been dialectical and sometimes
difficult,especiallyasfarasthepublicsectorisconcerned.Since2000,marketgrowthhasbeengivenaboostby
CONSIP,apublicinformationservicesagency,completelyownedbytheMinistryofEconomyandFinance,which,
onbehalfofthegovernment,providesthepublicsectorwithconsultancyandassistanceforthepurchaseofgoods
andservicesthroughaneprocurementbusinessmodel.In2001,CONSIPlaunchedanimportantprogramaimedat
the outsourcing of FM services for the office buildings owned by central and peripheral stateadministrations, by
means of a competitive tender worth 720bn, subdivided in seven lots covering the whole Italian territory. The
requirementsforparticipationweresostrictthatthetenderwaswonbybigFMgroups,oftencrowdingoutSMEs.
At present, the relationship between the two kinds of players appear more well balanced, with major
companiesconcentratedonthehighmarketsegmentandSMEsactingassubcontractorsandrepresentingthemain
playersinregionalandlocalmarkets.
Thecasestudiespresentedinthischapterarerepresentativeofthedifferentmarketplayersandofapproaches
adoptedintheItalianFM market,inwhichtraditionalandinnovativeelementscoexist.

FACILITIESMANAGEMENTFORTHEBUILTENVIRONMENTINAN
ITALIANMEDIUMSIZETOWN:THECASEOFRIMINI
In 2005 the public sector accounted for 27% of the total Italian FM market (about 6,6bn),and itrepresents the
secondsegmentafterindustry.Inthe pastfewyears,thedevelopmentofFMinthepublicsectorhasbeenpositively
influencedbystrongpoliciesforcostcutting,carriedoutbycentralandlocalinstitutions,inadditiontothespecific
roleplayedbyCONSIP.
Inthis context,itis of great interestto analyse the outsourcing strategy carried out by the Municipality of
Rimini(atowninnortheastItalyofabout135,000inhabitants),withtheobjectiveofimprovingservicequalityand
citizen satisfaction, of acquiring the availability of technological knowledge tools, of programming management
activitiesandofobtainingahighervalueforitsownassets.In2000thecitycouncildecidedtooutsourcethekey
municipalrealestateauxiliaryservices,inordertoidentify asingleinterlocutorresponsibleforthegovernanceof
FM.In2005thesuccessofthisoperationledthe administrationtorenewthecontractuntil2009.
Theoutsourcingcontractcoversthemanagementofhistoricalbuildings,aswellasofficebuildings,schools,
swimmingpools,sports centres,municipalmarkets,fountains,themunicipalstadiumandthecourtoflaw,foratotal
floor area of more than 250,000m3. The outsourcer derives from a partnership between a leading Italian FM
company, an IT company and an association of local construction sector SMEs. This partnership formed a
consortium(COGEIM)thatprovidestheMunicipalityofRiminiwitharangeofservicesincludinggeneralbuilding
maintenance, emergencyequipment,plumbing,heatingandairconditioningmaintenance,operationalservices,water
andenergymanagement, andsecurity.
ThecaseofRiminiisinterestingfromanumberofdifferentperspectives.Firstofall,itisimportanttonote
thatinrecentyearsacutinrevenuesandpersonnelinthepublicsectorhasactuallyimposedtheimplementation
of outsourcing policies, redefining the role of public organisations from direct service supplier to controller.
Althoughthereisatrendtowardsthepackagingofcontractsforgroupedservices,outsourcinginItalyinthepublic
sectoris,atpresent,stillcharacterisedbysinglecontracts,coveringoneorafewbuildingsatatime.Manypublic
administrationsarestillreluctanttooutsourceaccordingtoanintegratedFM approachforreasons suchas:
higherdependencyonsupplierreliability
potentiallossofknowledgeconcerningpublicrealestate
maintainingtheir responsibilitytocitizensforpublicservicesdeliveredbyexternalsuppliers.
Atthesametime,ithasemergedfromseveralinterviewswithadministrationsandsuppliersinthepublicsectorthat
the potential benefits of an integrated FM approach (among which are having one/few suppliers, reducing
bureaucratic activity, providing services within budget constraints, improving service quality) are not yet fully
recognised.
ThechoiceofRiminiCityCouncilisthereforedoublyinnovativeintheItalianscenario:buildingsandother
facilities were grouped under a single contract one outsourcer has been identified. Such a strategy enables the
municipality to successfully overcome the problem of the fragmentation of demand, by aggregating the building
stockinsuchawaythatthecriticalmassisreachedfortheimplementationofanintegratedFMmodel.Moreover
thisstrategyprovidesaninformationsystemforthebuildingstock,thusfillingtheknowledgegapthattraditionally
marks Italian public administrations and makes it almost impossible to achieve an efficient program of FM
activities.Suchastrategycouldrepresentagoodpracticetobeemulatedintheprivatesector.
From the supply perspective, the Rimini model is innovative because it groups together different kinds of
economic subjects under one consortium, each of them with its own specialisation and knowhow. In particular,
Manutencoop consists of a group of cooperative companies operating primarily in the facilities and waste
managementsector,withanaggregatenumberofemployeesofabout12,000.WithintheconsortiumManutencoop
is the owner of specific FM knowhow, especially developed in thepublic sector,anditrepresents thehead of

248

COGEIM and the interface with the municipality. The IT partner provides software solutions and document
management services for the local public administrations. The CAR consortium is formed of local small craft
business interested in carrying out a common development strategy. The CAR businesses form the legs of
COGEIM,to whichthedelivery ofservicesisdelegated.Theymaintainthedirectcontactwiththeendusers:the
citizensofRimini.
The interesting feature of such an innovative strategy is that the Municipality of Rimini has facilitated an
aggregationprocessofsuppliersthatgoesbeyondthedifferencesinbusinesssize,thusindicatingapossiblewayto
resolve the issue of supply atomisation. It is also to be noted that, thanks to this experience, the small craft
enterprises involved have acquired a new knowhow and have undertaken a structuring process, which is very
uncommonintheItalianconstructionsector.Forinstance,mostofthemhaveincreasedthenumberof employees
from12to78.
In conclusion, some factors appear crucial for a correct development of integrated FM in Italian public
organisations. For instance, the definition of precise performance evaluation criteria and the importance of
strengtheningthecompetences ofhumanresourcesarefrequently cited.Furthermorethecapabilityofdefiningan
outsourcing contract for many buildings rather than just one building should also be considered a fundamental
conditioninordertoreachthecriticalmassnecessaryforefficientFM.Inthissense,theRiminicasestudyshows
howinnovativestrategiesandtraditionalaspectsofItalianconstructionenterprisecanbecombined.

FMANDARCHITECTURALWORKS:THECASESOFPIRELLIRE
HEADQUARTERSANDOFTHEARCIMBOLDITHEATRE
TheothertwocasesstudiesaimatexploringtheconnectionexistingbetweenFMandiconicbuildings.Inparticular,
the analysis tries to ascertain the impact of an important architectural work on FM activities and the differences
regardingthemanagementofanordinary building.Thisissueis ofgreatsignificanceinItaly, wherethebuilding
stockisveryoftencharacterisedbyasignificantartistic,historicalorarchitecturalvalue.Thefirstconsiderationto
bemadeisthatinItalyiconicbuildingsmanagedaccordinganintegratedFMapproacharestillveryhardtofind.
Thisisduetoanumberoffactors:
historicalbuildingsareusuallyownedbypublicadministrations,andinthepublicsectortheFMcultureisnot
yetwidespread
forancientarchitecturalworksthereisagenerallackofknowledgeregardingbuildinginformation(technical
features,equipment,useofspace,etc.)that,atpresent,makesitdifficult tosetoutefficientFM
inmanycases,maintenanceandrestorationactivitiesarecarriedoutonly by veryexperiencedcraftsmenwho
use specifictechniquesandtools
therearestrictregulationsgoverningrestorationandmaintenanceimposedby theMinistryofArtsandCulture.
For these reasons, we preferred to concentrate on two recent architectural works: the headquarters of the Italian
companyPirelli&C.RealEstate, andtheArcimboldiOperaTheatre,bothdesignedbystudiosofGregottiAssociati
(ledbytheItalianarchitectVittorioGregotti).TheyarelocatedinMilan,intheBicoccaquarter,aformerindustrial
site that underwent radical urban regeneration, transforming it into a new urban centre with mixed functions
(residences,researchandeducationcentres,services,leisure).
ThePirelliREheadquarterswerebuiltinthe1990saroundthemonumentalhighcoolingtower,whichisthe
symboloftheindustrialhistoryoftheareaandrepresentsanelementofcontinuity, linkingPirellisoriginalbusiness
(tyre production) with its present diversified activities. It is active in the fields of energy cables and systems,
telephonecablesandsystems,tyres,andrealestate.Inparticular,Pirelli&C.RealEstateisoneof theleadersinthe
Italian market and, through a specialised company, provides FM services both for a captive and a noncaptive
market.The50mtallbuildingincludesofficesandotherspacesforspecialfunctions(anauditorium,anexhibition
area,meetinghalls,etc.)foratotalfloorareaofabout28,500m3.
The Arcimboldi Opera Theatre is a part of the Bicocca project and it is the second largest opera hall in
Europe,dedicatedtosatisfyingthehighdemandfor musicalconcertsandperformancesintheMilanmetropolitan
area.Thetheatre,builtintherecordtimeof27monthsbetween1999and2002,usesadvancedtechnicalsolutions
foracousticqualityandstagedesign.Itcanhost2,480spectatorsandithasaprosceniummeasuring12X18meters
(exactly the same as La Scala Theatre) and total surface area for performances of 11,000 m3. The Arcimboldi,
which also hosted the opera seasons during the renewal of La Scala Theatre, is part of the Teatro alla Scala
Foundation,anonprofitinstitutionsponsoredbybothpublicandprivatesubjects.
In both the two architectural works the FM services could be carried out successfully according to a
integrated approach. However, in fact, only the Pirelli RE headquarters outsourced all services to the group FM
company and developed an integrated FM model with advanced technological solutions, while the Arcimboldi
Theatres FM is covered by single outsourcing contracts for each service. Moreover, some services are not
outsourced,becausetheyareconsideredstrategicforthecoreactivity(alltheservicesstrictlyconnectedtotheatrical
eventsarecarriedoutbyinternalpersonnel).PirelliREFacilityisresponsibleforheatingservices.

249

ThedifferentFMapproachesarenotrelatedtothetechnicalattributesofthefacilities,buttheyarepartlytheresult
oftheirspecificfunctionstosomeextent,andpartlytheeffectoftwocompletelydifferentmanagementcultures
coexisting in the Italian FM market: the company culture, typical of a multinational industrial group, on the one
hand,andthetraditionalmentalityoftheItalianpublicsector,hesitanttooutsourceservicesandtoidentifyasingle
supplierspecialisedinFM,ontheother.Asfarasthetheatreisconcerned,thepresentFMmodeldoesnotappear
the result of eitheran indepth assessment of technical and economicalaspects, or a benchmarking analysis. It is
mostprobablyduetotheextantcontractsinheritedbytheLaScalaTheatreand,inmoregeneralterms,itisthe
outcome of the cultural gap of the public sector in implementing innovative andmore adequate solutions for the
managementofthebuildingstock.

CONCLUSIONS
InItalytheFMsectorisgoingthroughaphaseofradicalandrapiddevelopment,butitisstillcharacterisedbythe
coexistenceoftraditionalandinnovativeelements.Adramaticmarketfragmentation,in bothsupplyanddemand,
and a significant presence of buildings of important artistic, historical or architectural value are the two main
features that influence the evolution of FM in Italy. The three case studies presented in this chapter show the
differentrolesplayedbyclientsindrivinginnovationinFMmodels.InthecaseofRimini,thestrategydeveloped
by the municipality is inducing a remarkable aggregation process of demand, which has positive effects on the
creation of local enterprise networks and an FM company. The Pirelli RE headquarters can be considered
representativeofthemostadvancedsegmentoftheItalianFMdemand,comprisedoflargercompanieswhichhave
themanagementculturetypicalofmultinationalenterprises.Ontheotherhand,thecaseoftheArcimboldiTheatre
indicates that a remarkable architectural project and the presence of advanced technological equipment do not
guarantee in themselves the introduction of innovations in FM, if not accompanied by a parallel progress in
managementculture.

REFERENCES
CresmeManutencoop.2005. IlFacilityManagementinItalianel2005.Roma:CresmeManutencoop.

250

CHAPTER29

FacilitiesManagementServiceQuality
Indicators:BenefitingSupplierand
Customer
HermenJanvanRee
PeterMcLennan
INTRODUCTIONANDOBJECTIVES
While thesignificanceof qualityforafirmscompetitivepositioninthemarketplacehasbeenemphasisedforyears,
thecontributionofqualitytobusinessperformancehasbeenlargelyunexploredandthegapbetweensupplierand
customerperceivedqualityisstilltobeclosed.Thereforeitisimportanttoexaminewhetherandhowqualityaffects
supplierprofitabilityaswellashowitaffectscustomersatisfaction.Theproblemwithserviceshowever,isthatthe
qualitativeoutputsoftheproductivity equationareintangible.Contrarytomanufacturing,whereitisrelativelyeasy
to measure, for example, the conformance of an endproduct, much of the quality in services is in the eye of the
customer.Subsequently,dataonservicequalityistobe obtainedthroughthecustomerandby observationsofthe
processand/ortheresults.
Within the UK business support services sector, outsourced services continue to expand within both the
public and private sectors. Within the public sector central government guidelines on competitive tendering and
private finance Initiatives are key drivers for outsourcing. Within the private sector the drivers include reducing
fixedcosts,increasinglabourflexibility,andsecuringscarceskillresources.MostrecentlytheUKinvestmentbanks
haveidentifiedfacilitymanagement(FM)asasignificantbusinessactivitywithinthesupportservicessector.Their
reportsoutlinethekeyplayersandtheirperformancewithinthe150bnsupportservicesmarketsectorintheUK.
The support services sector ingeneral attracts investors because ithas outperformed the FTSEallshareindex by
29% over thepast few years. This economic growth is described from various perspectives. These sector reports
describe various facets of the FM market depending upon the particular emphasis such as outsourced services
(DeutscheBank2001),totalFM(DeutscheBank2003),orinfrastructureservices(Foster2001).Forthefinancial
community, FM is a significant part of the support services sector. By taking these support services out of the
organisationsdirectcontroltheissueofservicequalitybecomesamorecomplexissuetomanage.Inaddition,the
emphasis in the management literature is predominantly one based on a manufacturing perspective. This
manufacturingperspectiveexcludestheuniquenatureofmanyservicesnotleastofwhichistheimportanceofthe
customerintheserviceprocessascoproducer.Itisservicequalityfromaservicemanagementperspectivethatis
beingaddressedinthisresearch.WithintheUKmarketthisisanincreasinglyimportanttopictoboththepublicand
privatesectorastheypasscontrolovertosupplierswithintheseareas.Thosemostoftenoutsourcedarecleaning,
cateringandsecurity,andthesearethefocusofthisparticularresearchintoservicequality.

DEFININGSERVICEQUALITY
Althoughsupplierstrategiesandcustomerdecisionsarestillextensivelydrivenbyprice,servicequality variables
such as reliability and reputation are believed to becoming more and more important. The focus of research
therefore will be on service quality and to simplify the discussion, we will lump all nonprice attributes into the
singledimensioncalledservicequality anyattributethatincreasesthedemandforthatserviceatafixedprice.

Researchfocusandquestions
Theresearchwillfocusoncleaning,cateringandsecurity,andanswerthefollowing:
Whatqualitydimensionsareimportantforsupplierperformance?
Whatqualitydimensionsareimportantforcustomersatisfaction?
Whichqualitydimensionsarebeneficialtobothsupplierandcustomer?

251

Researchobjectives
Ultimately,theoutcomeoftheresearchshould leadto moreobjectiveservicequalityindicators,consequently
leadingto:
improvedservicedelivery
highercustomersatisfaction
increasedprofitabilityforbothsupplierandcustomer.

THESERVICEPRODUCTIVITYCONCEPT
Whileproductivitymeasuresformanufacturingarewidelyunderstoodandused,productivitymeasuresspecificfor
services have developed more slowly (Mills et al. 1983). This slower development of productivity measures for
services has been attributed to intangibility (Drucker 1974), labour intensity (Flipo 1988) and complexity
(Schmenner1986).Ignoringthesecharacteristics,productivitymanagementintheserviceindustryhasfortoolong
been dominated by the logic of manufacturing (which is less complex, less labour intensive and less intangible).
Whilecomparingproductivitybetweenserviceandmanufacturingoperations,oneofthebasicclaimshasbeenthat
the special characteristics of services demand a more holistic approach including a customer orientation to
productivity(e.g.Grnroos2000).

Conceptualunderpinnings
Because the current debate on service productivityis in its infancy, we must start by elucidating the conceptual
underpinningsofproductivity.Firstwehavetodecidewhatwearetryingtocapturebeforemakinganyattemptto
measure, and a meaningful definition of productivity has to keep the concept analytically distinct from related
conceptslikeeffectivenessandefficiency(Veld1998 Vuorinenet al. 1998).
Organisationaleffectiveness
The classic criterion to evaluate the functioning of an organisation is effectiveness. Effectiveness refers to what
extent the actual result (output in quality and quantity) corresponds to the aimed result. It is expressed as the
following equation:
actualresult(outputinquantityandquality)
aimedresult(outputinquantityandquality)
Note that the closer the actual result approaches the beforehandaimed result, the more the effectiveness of an
organisationincreases.Iftheactualresultisbetterormorethantheaimedresult,thetransformationprocesshasa
socalledovershoot.Iftheactualresultisworseorlessthantheaimedresult,ithasanundershoot.Inbothcases
theorganisationisnotoptimallyeffective.
Organisationalefficiency
Duringthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,efficiencybecamemoreandmoreimportant.Efficiencyreferstothe
ratiobetweentheaimedresourceuse(inputinpeopleandmeans)andtheactualresourceuse,inordertotransform
aninputtoanoutput.Aformaldefinitionis:
aimedresourceuse(inputinquantityandquality)
actualresourceuse(inputinquantityandquality)
Accordingto thisdefinition,the efficiency of an organisation increases as theactualresource usebecomes lower
than the aimed resource use. Therefore, to increase organisational efficiency, it is important to reduce the use of
resourcesasmuchaspossible.
Organisationalproductivity
Increasing prosperity led to a new criterion for organisational focus: productivity. Productivity refers to the ratio
betweentheactualresultofthetransformationprocessandtheactualresourceuse.Aproperdefinitionis:
actualresult(outputinquantityandquality)
actualresourceuse(inputinquantityandquality)
Based on this definition, we can conclude that the organisational productivity is optimal when an organisation
producesasgreataresultaspossibleatthelowestpossibleresourceuse.However,an overshootorundershootis
stillnotdesirable.Soatthe organisationallevel,wecanoptimisetheproductivitythroughsteeringatefficiency,and
thereby reducingtheactualresourceuseasmuchaspossible(vanRee2002).

252

Quantityandqualityaspects
Althoughmanyauthorsstillregardproductivityandqualityasseparateconcepts(e.g.Heskettetal.1994),several
researchers(e.g.Grnroos,2000)arguethatqualityandproductivitycannotbedealtwithseparatelyinthecaseof
services.Consequently,thereseemstobeagrowingneedforathoroughanalysisoftheproductivityconceptinthe
contextofservices.
Quantityaspects
Regarding the quantity aspects of service productivity, the input factors of services are the same means of
productionasinmanufacturing:peopleandmeans.Owingtothelabourintensivenessofserviceproduction,labour
is a key input to productivity as salaries, commissions and social expenses can account for more than 80% of
operatingcosts.Theoutputofthequantitydimensioninservicescanbebasedonservicevolume tobeincreased
bysellingalargervarietyofservicestotheexistingcustomersorattractingnewcustomersegments.
Qualityaspects
Thequalityaspectisadimensionthatisdifficulttodefineobjectively.Inthecaseofmanufacturingproducts,the
quality dimension has usually been operationalised as conformance to specifications and as actual product
performance.However,thisnotionofqualityhasbeenregardedasinadequateinthecaseofservices.Theinputof
thequalitydimensiondependsonemployeeexpertiseandskillsand,toacertainextent,thefacilities.Theoutputof
thequalitydimensioninservicescanbebasedoncustomersatisfaction.
Figure29.1: TheContentofServiceProductivity
quantitativeinput

qualitativeinput

service
produc
tivity

quantitativeoutput

qualitativeoutput
(Source:AdaptedfromVuorinenetal.1998,383)

Itisimportanttorecognisethatthewaycustomersperceiveserviceandhowservicedeliveryisorganisedcannotbe
considered in isolation from each other. Most elements of the quantity and quality dimensions of service
productivity are interrelated. And although difficult to analyse each element one by one in logical order, it is
importanttounderstandtheelementsconstitutingawhole.

Theserviceprofitchain
The widely accepted service profit chain establishes the links between profitability, external service value and
internalservicequality.Intheserviceprofitchain,servicequalityplaysadominantorevenvitalrole.There
are seven fundamental propositions that formthe links of the chain (Heskett et al. 19941997): customerloyalty
drives profitability and growth customer satisfaction drives customer loyalty value drives customer satisfaction
employeeproductivity drivesvalueemployeeloyaltydrivesproductivityemployeesatisfactiondrivesloyalty,and
internalqualitydrivesemployeesatisfaction.
As stated before, the way customers perceive service and how service delivery is organised are not to be
considered in isolation from each other. By combining thechains of supplier and customer, we find that external
service valueinthesupplierchainbecomespartoftheinternalservicequalityinthecustomerchain.Inaddition,
employeesatisfactioninthecustomerchainbecomespartofcustomersatisfactioninthesupplierchain.

253

Figure29.2:FocusoftheResearchisontheDiscrepanciesattheMeetingPointofBothChains

int.service
quality

employee
satisfaction
employee
loyalty
employee
productivity
ext.service
value

customer
satisfaction

int.service
quality

employee
satisfaction
satisfaction

customer
loyalty

profitability
andgrowth

customer
satisfaction

customer
loyalty

Supplierprofitchain
Customerprofitchain

employee
loyalty
employee
productivity
ext.service
value

profitability
andgrowth

On the supplier side, highquality FM services have the potential to improve customer satisfaction and loyalty,
leadingtowinningmarketshare,enhancingsalesand reducingbarrierstoentry.Ontheclientside,highqualityFM
services have the potential to consecutively improve employee satisfaction, loyalty and productivity, ultimately
leadingtoprofitabilityandgrowth.

THEVALUEADDINGFACILITIESCONCEPT
Stiffeningcompetition,causedbyanincreasinglyturbulentcontextualandtransactionalenvironment,forcesmany
organisations toreexamine every way in whichthey canimprove their performance. Asa substantial part of the
resourcesusedduringthetransformationfrominputtooutputwithinofficebasedorganisations,facilitiescanhavea
significantimpact onorganisationalperformance(vanRee2002).

Efficiencyandeffectiveness
Currentlythereareapproximatelyseven millionworkersemployedinoffice buildingsacrosstheUKthisisover
25% of the active labour force. The primary process in officebased organisations consists of receiving (input),
generating, interpreting, processing, editing, managing (transformation), and providing (output) information
(Wentink&Zanders1985).Inthisprocesstheactualtransformationisestablishedthroughcoordinatedinteraction
betweentheproductionfactors:peopleandmeans.
Ifanorganisationisguidedbyprofitability,thetransformationprocessshouldbeeffectiveaswellasefficient
atthe same time. If this isthe case, we can speak of a fruitful orproductive process. As a substantial part of the
resources used during the transformation from input to output within officebased organisations, facilities
(accommodation, services and resources, information technology and FM) can have a significant impact on
organisationalperformance.
Nowadays,therearetwoimportantapproachesby whichfacilitiescancontributetoorganisationalperformance:
achievinggreaterefficiency byreducingtotalfacilitiescosts
achievinggreatereffectivenessbyoptimallysupportingemployeeproductivity.
Inordertomaximisethecumulativeimpactofbothapproaches,andtoavoidanegativeimpactofoneapproachon
theother,atransparentdecisionsupportstructure withcleardefinitionsisdesirable.

254

Theaddedvalueoffacilities
Being part of the resources used during the transformation from input to output, facilities can influence
organisational efficiency and therefore organisational productivity. By relating the accommodation to the
organisationalperformancecriteria,wecantellsomethingaboutitsquality.
Effectivefacilities
Giventhefactthatthemaingoaloffacilitiesaretosupporttheproductivityoftheaccommodatedindividuals,and
that effectiveness refers to the ratio between actual and aimed result or output, a proper definition of effective
accommodationis:
actualcontributiontoindividualproductivity
aimedcontributiontoindividualproductivity
Notethat,contrarytoorganisationaleffectiveness,theeffectivenessoffacilitiesincreasesiftheactualcontribution
totheindividualproductivity exceedstheaimedcontribution.Althoughthisisanovershoot,itiscontributingtothe
organisationalefficiency becausethenumberofpeopleneededinthetransformationprocess frominputtooutput
couldbereduced.However,iftheactualcontributionturnsouttobelowerthantheaimedcontribution,wehaveto
dealwithanundershootthefacilitiesarenotoptimallyeffective.Besidesthat,itmightturnoutthatmorepeople
areneededtofeedthetransformationprocess,whichhasanegativeimpactonorganisationalefficiency.
Efficientfacilities
Efficiencyistheratiobetweentheaimedresourceuseandtheactualresourceused,inordertotransformaninputto
an output. From this point of view we can consider the facilities as a part of the total resource use. A formal
definitionis:
aimedoccupancycost
actualoccupancycost
As in the definition of organisational efficiency, the efficiency of the facilities increases if the actual occupancy
costs are lower than the aimed occupancy costs. So the actual occupancy costs should be reduced as much as
possibletocreateoptimalefficiency.Increasingtheefficiencyofthefacilities,however,canharmitseffectiveness.
Byapproachingfacilitiesfromaproductivepointofview,wecanpreventthis.
Productivefacilities
Productivityreferstotheratio betweeneffectivenessandefficiency.Accordingtothedefinitionsof effectiveand
efficientfacilities,wecandefineproductivefacilitiesas:
actualcontributiontoindividualproductivity
actualoccupancycost
Based on this definition we can state that facilities become optimally productive when the contribution to the
individualproductivityisashighaspossibleatthelowestpossibleoccupancycosts.Itsproductivityalsoincreases
whentheindividualproductivityincreaseswiththesameoccupancycosts,orwhentheoccupancycostsdecreaseat
thesamelevelofindividualproductivity.Moreimportant,byapproachingfacilitiesfromaproductivepointofview,
wegaininsightintotheimpactofefficiencyoneffectivenessandviceversa,thusmakingitcontrollable.

Fromtheorytopractice
Theaveragerunningcostsofa workplaceinanoffice building,includingoperationandmaintenance,areslightly
over 6,400 per year. The yearly costs of labour, including benefits, are around 44,000 per fulltime equivalent
(FTE). Together with the costs of information technology (3,570), the total annual cost of an office employee
averages 64,000. Ifan organisation is guided by profitability, employees should bring inatleast 1.5 times their
annualcosts,whichequals95,000.Theservicesandresourcesofanorganisationcanbemademoreefficientby
looking for possibilities to reduce the 1,700a year spenton them. More effective services andresources means
optimally supporting employee productivity, which corresponds with increasing the 95,000 desired profit per
employee. The problem, however, is that focusing on the efficiency might have a negative impact on the
effectiveness of these services and vice versa. Therefore, the focus should be on establishing productive service
delivery.
Duetothefactthatthe95,000correspondingtothedesiredprofitismuchhigherthanthe1,700spenton
services andresources, the most intelligent way to make them more productive is to focus on doingmore with a
proportionatelysmallerincreaseinresourcesconsumed.Followingthisreasoning,anoverinvestmentofeven10%
onserviceandresources,equalling170,willalreadybecostjustifiedifemployeeproductivity increasesjust0.2%,
whichislessthenhalfadayoflabourperyearorone minuteperday.

255

Thebiggestcontributiontototalorganisationalperformance, however,canbemadeifweareabletomakeservice
deliverymoreefficientandeffectiveatthesametime.

CLASSIFICATIONFORMEASUREMENTPURPOSES
Productivitymeasuresexpressrelationshipsbetweentheoutcomesoroutputsofservicesprocessesand theresources
or inputs required to operate them. Having appropriate definitions of outputs and inputs is critical to meaningful
productivityanalysis. Withouttheright specifications of inputs and outputs derived from careful process analysis
and matched with the right measurement techniques, productivity measurement in services cannot succeed
(McLaughlin& Coffey1990).

Measurementproblems
Both the quantitative and the qualitative input and output indicators for a service delivery process must be
quantifiable if service productivity is to be measured. The problem with services, however, is that most of the
qualitativeinputsandoutputsareintangible,andtheintangibleaspectsofservicedeliveryprocessesdepending
onconsumerinvolvementandcustomisation makeproductivitymeasurementdifficult(Gadrey1988).
Contrarytomanufacturing,whereitisrelativelyeasytomeasure,forexample,theconformanceordurability
of an endproduct, much of the endproduct quality in services is in the eye of the customer (customerperceived
quality). Subsequently, data on service quality is to be obtained through the customer or by observations of the
processand/ortheresults.Researchoncustomerperceptionsofserviceswouldenableustocapturemoreofquality
inanoutput,ensuringthattheattributesbeingmeasuredarecloselylinkedtocustomerdesires.Moreover,services
have many directly observable attributes in terms of waiting time and speed of delivery, physical characteristics
(suchascleanliness,temperatureandcolour),expertise,courtesy andsoon.
All in all, intangibility should not be a reason to avoid productivity analysis, but form a challenge to
tangibilise the intangibles or to establish proxies. To measure the right things right, we must first identify the
productivitymeasuresavailableforservicesanddevelopaclassificationschemeforfacilityservicesandresources
inordertodeterminewhichmeasurementapproachisappropriateforwhichservice.

Currentproductivitymeasures
Currently,avarietyofproductivity measuresareavailableforservices(McLaughlin&Coffey1990).Derivedfrom
traditionalmanufacturing,methodssuchasoutputinputratiosandworkmeasurementmethodsareavailable.The
problem, however, is that outputinput ratios are frequently criticised for their narrowness and that work
measurementmethodsaremostappropriatetoserviceswheretheoutputsandinputsaresimple.
Within the aggregate comparative methods, the most commonly used measures are statistical comparisons
and deterministic models. Although already more useful for service productivityanalysis, statistical comparisons
require arather largenumbers of units arerequired for statistical significance, and deterministic models (such as
dataenvelopmentanalysis)arebettersuitedtodiagnosisthantocontrol.
Among other methods we find practice variation studies and qualityplus techniques, of which the latter
seems the most interesting, because it attempts to make quality a measured output of the service. The service
assessment matrix (SAM) is one interesting approach developed to incorporate aspects of quality into service
productivity measurement. In this approach potentially productive service quality criteria are linked to more
traditionalproductivitymeasures,suchas output/inputratios, throughamatrixtotestinterrelations.

Classificationoffacilitiesmanagementservices
Customer involvement and customisation have often been cited as key characteristics of services. A number of
authorshavesuggestedthemastheclassificationvariablesforservices(Schmenner1986Chase1981Maister &
Lovelock 1982). Using those two dimensions, the measurability of service quality decreases when customer
involvementand/orcustomisationincreases.Servicequalityof services withhighcustomerinvolvementandhigh
customisation is hardly measurable. Here, quality enhancement or improvement ask for commitment from the
people involved (attitude) and their relation (interaction), which depends on a constructive dialogue between
contractorandclient(Vinkenburg1995).
Intheresearchto be performed we will focus on cleaning, cateringand security. The mainreason for this
focusisthatproductivity measurementontheseservicesisrelativelyeasyduetolowcustomerinvolvementandlow
customisation. A secondreason isthat these services are daily experienced by the customer andtherefore have a
relativelyhighimpactontotalperceivedfacilityservicequality.

256

FACILITIESMANAGEMENTSERVICEQUALITYCASESTUDIES
Asinmanufacturing,goodprocessanalysisprecedesgoodproductivityanalysisonehastohaveaclearpictureof
theserviceprocessitselfbeforeundertakinganyproductivitymeasurement.

Procedureforserviceproductivityanalysis
Withaclassificationschemeandknowledgeofavailablemeasurementtechniquesinhand,wecanconsiderhowone
cangoabouttacklingproductivityissuesinservices.Wesuggestthefollowingsteps(afterMcLaughlin&Coffey
1990):
1. Specifythereasonforinvestigatingserviceproductivity.
2. Analysetheservicedeliverysysteminplaceanddecomposeitintoitsprocesssteps/stages.
3. Specifytheservicecharacteristicsthatareofstrategicimportanceateachserviceprocessstep/stage.
4. Specify quantitative inputs (and measures), qualitative inputs (and measures or proxies), quantitative outputs
(andmeasures),qualitativeoutputs(andmeasuresorproxies),aswellaslimitsoftradeoffs.
5. Selectthemethodsofproductivity measurementwhichseemmostappropriatetotheanalyticalobjectives.
Besides the suggested steps it is important to involve implementers all along the way not least because staff
acceptanceofanyproposedproductivity measuresiscriticaltotheirabilitytoenhanceproductivity.

Casestudies
Torepeatanimportanttheme:Thesignificanceofqualityforafirmscompetitivepositioninthemarketplacehas
beenemphasisedforyears,butthecontributionofqualitytobusinessperformancehasbeenlargelyunexploredand
thegapbetweensupplierandcustomerperceivedqualityisstilltobeclosed.Examiningwhetherandhowquality
affectsafirms performanceisanimportantissueforbusinesses,bothonthesupplyandthedemandside.
Customer perceptions on cleaning, catering and security services will be captured through surveying
employeesoftheRoyalBankofScotland.Supplierperceptionsoncleaningwillbeobtainedthroughinterviewing
Lancaster Cleaning, and Mowlem Pall Mall. Perceptions on catering will be captured by interviews at Compass
Group and perceptions on security by interviews at Group 4 Securicor. To obtain larger numbers for statistical
significance,marketsurveyswithinthecleaning,cateringandsecuritymarketaretobeheld.
TheServiceQualityIndicator ProjectstartedinAugust2005andwillbedisseminatedaccordingtoplanin
spring2006.TheresearchisajointeffortbetweentheWorkplaceInnovationCentre(UniversityCollegeLondon)
andGroupProperty(RoyalBankofScotland)aswellasLancasterCleaning,MowlemPallMall,CompassGroup
andGroup4Securicor.

Researchmethods
Byusingqualityplustechniques(serviceassessmentmatrix),qualitycanbecomeameasuredoutputoftheservice
deliveryprocess.Incorporatingcustomersandsuppliersperspectives,thiswillinvolve:
identifyingperceivedservicequalityvariables(groupinterviews)
capturingsupplierperceptions(suppliersurveys)
measuringsupplierbusinessperformance(marketsurveys)
capturingcustomerperceptions(customersurveys)
linkingthequalityvariablestosupplierbusinessperformance(regressionanalysis)
linkingthequalityvariablestocustomerperceptions(regressionanalysis)
derivingmutualbeneficialservicequalityindicatorsfromthetworegressionanalyses.
Bylinkingqualityvariablestosupplierperformanceandcustomersatisfaction,theresearchproposedshouldleadto
clearqualityindicatorsforservicedeliveryconcerningcleaning,cateringandsecurity.
Groupinterviews
Thegroupinterviews,involvingallresearchparticipants,aretodetermineasetofservicequalityvariablesthatare
crucial indicators of service quality and as likely determinants of a firms market and financial performance.
Preliminaryservicequalityvariablesarephysicalcharacteristics,reliabilityandtrustworthiness,responsivenessand
servicerecovery,professionalismandskills,courtesyandattitude,reputationandcredibility,securityandassurance,
accessibilityandflexibility,communicationwiththecustomer,andunderstandingthecustomer
In addition,these interviews are to determine themost important financialmeasures. Preliminary measures
focus on market share and profitability ratios: market share, market share growth, profit margin, profit margin
growth,salesvolume,salesvolumegrowth,returnoninvestment,assets,equity,capitalemployedand/orsales,and
returnoninvestment,assets,equity,capitalemployedand/orsalesgrowth.

257

Supplierandmarketsurveys
From the group interviews we will draft a twopage questionnaire to be sent out to major cleaning, catering and
securityfirmsintheUK.Fromthesequestionnaireswearethenabletodeterminethelinksbetweenservicequality
variablesandorganisationalperformancewithineachsegmentthroughregressionanalyses.
The service quality variables will be measured against strategic importance on a sevenpoint scale from least
important(1)to extremelyimportant (7), andasperformancerelativetomajorcompetitorsonasevenpointscale
from poor (3) to excellent (+3). The financial ratios will be measured objectively on actual values and
subjectivelyonasevenpointscalefromworstinindustry (1)to bestinindustry(7).
Customersurveys
Fromthegroupinterviewswewillalsodraftacustomersurveywithadditionalquestionsundereachservicequality
variable.Thesequestionnairesarefirstlytobesetoutunderthe RoyalBankofScotland employees(andmaybelater
tootherorganisations)todeterminewhatacustomersemployeesseeasthemostimportantvariableswithineach
segment.
The service quality variables will be measured against service performance as well as two levels of
expectations:desiredservice(whatthecustomerbelievestheserviceshouldbe)andadequateservice(theminimal
levelofserviceacceptabletothecustomer)ona sevenpointscalefrompoor to excellent.
Finalanalysis
Bycombiningtheoutcomesofthesupplierandmarketsurveyswiththeoutcomesofthecustomersurveyswecan
finallydeterminewhetherthereissignificantoverlapinsupplierandcustomerperceptionsandexpectations,orthat
there are discrepancies between the two, which then might ask for a strategic redirection in one or more of the
segments.

EXPECTEDRESULTSANDCONCLUSIONS
Atpresenttheresearchisinprogress,buttheresultsfromthefirstinterviewsareconsistentwithpreviousresearch
findings in this area. The interviews have indicated a gap between suppliers perceptions and customers desires,
especially if both parties were not fully involved in the original contract service level agreements for example.
Thereforetheexpectedresultsfromthisinvestigationbasedonthecurrentfindingsincludeagapbetweensupplier
and customerperceived service quality as what is beneficial to the supplier is not always beneficial to the
customertheservicequalityvariableswillbedifferentforeachoftheservicesreviewedcleaning,cateringand
securityandtheexpectedoverlapbetweentheservicequalityvariablescanleadtoimprovedservicedelivery the
frontofhouseserviceisoneexampleofthisissue.
The conclusions from the service quality indicator research project will hopefully underline the continued
importance of research work that looks at service operations from a service perspective. The manufacturing
paradigms do not always generalise well to the service environment and this project begins to indicate the
limitationsoftakingthismanufacturingapproach.Theprojectthenseekstoprovideanumberofinsightsintothe
servicequalityframework.

REFERENCES
Chase,R.B.1981.Thecustomercontactapproachtoservices:theoreticalbasesandpracticalextensions. Operations
Research,29(4):698706.
DeutscheBank.2003. TowardsTotalFacilityManagement. London:DeutscheBank.
DeutscheBank.2001. UKOutsourcing.London:DeutscheBank.
Drucker,P.1974. Management:Tasks,responsibilities,practices. NewYork:HarperandRow.
Flipo,J.P.1988.Ontheintangibilityofservices.TheServiceIndustriesJournal,8(3):286298.
Foster,J.2001. Infrastructure Services:Sectorreview.London:RobertW.BairdLtd.
Gadrey,J.1988.Rethinkingoutputinservices.TheServiceIndustriesJournal,8(1):6776.
GrnroosC.2000. ServiceManagementandMarketing:Acustomerrelationshipmanagementapproach.
Chichester:JohnWileyandSons.
Heskett,J.L.,W.E.Sasser,andL.A.Schlesinger.1997. TheServiceProfitChain.NewYork:TheFreePress.
Heskett,J.L.,T.O.Jones,G.W.Loveman,W.E.Sasser,andL.A.Schlesinger.1994.Puttingtheserviceprofitchain
towork. HarvardBusinessReview,MarchApril:164174.
Maister,D.H.,andC.H.Lovelock.1982.Managingfacilitatorservices.SloanManagementReview,23(4):1931.
McLaughlin,C.P.andS.Coffey.1990.Measuringproductivity inservices.InternationalJournalofService
IndustryManagement,1(1):4664.
Mills,P.,R.B.Chase,andN.Margulies.1983.Motivatingtheclientemployeesystemasaservice productivity
strategy.AcademyofManagementReview,8(2):301310.

258

Parasuraman,A.,L.L.BerryandV.A.Zeithaml.1988.SERVQUAL:Amultipleitemscaleformeasuringcustomer
perceptionsofservicequality.JournalofRetailing,64(1):1240.
vanRee,H.J.2002.Theaddedvalueofofficeaccommodationtoorganisationalperformance.WorkStudy:A
journalofproductivityscience,51(7):357363.
Schmenner,R.W.1986.Howcanservicebusinessessurviveandprosper? SloanManagementReview,27(3):21
32.
Veld,J.1998. AnalysevanOrganisatieproblemen,eenToepassingvanHetDenkeninSystemenenProcessen.
Houten:EducatievePartnersNederlandBV.
Vinkenburg,H.H.M.1995.StimulerentotPerfectie,KritiekeFactorenbijhetVerbeterenvan
Dienstverlening..Deventer:KluwerBedrijfswetenschappen.
Vuorinen,I.,R.Jrvinen,andU.Lehtinen.1998.Contentandmeasurementofproductivity intheservicesector.
InternationalJournalofServiceIndustryManagement,9(4):377396.
Wentink,T.andH.Zanders.1985. KantoreninActie. Deventer:Kluwer.

259

CHAPTER30

FacilitiesManagementastheCatalystto
AcceleratetheEvolutionaryChangesin
WorkplaceArchitecture
AgustinChevez
GuillermoArandaMena
PeterEdwards
INTRODUCTION
InAustraliatheincreasinguseof new technologyisdramaticallychangingthewaypeopleliveandwork(Martino
2001).
New technology is transforming almost everything we do in a fashion that is modifying our society by
changing our value systems, power structures, everyday routines and environment (Linturi 2000). Advances in
technology are having a major impact on shaping the office environment and the way we work (Stallworth &
Kleiner1996Robertson2000).
Thetraditionaldefinitionofanofficeastheplacewherepeopleread,think,write,andcommunicatewhere
proposals are considered and plans are made where money is collected and spent where business and other
organisationsaremanagedisshiftingastechnologyischangingthewayweperformsuchactivities(Giuliano1985).
Further,officeworkisnolongerconfinedtoanofficeenvironment,asmobiletechnologyallowspeopletoworkas
effectivelyfromhome,airportsorcafs(Stocks1998).Asaconsequence,workplacearchitectureneedstoevolve.
These rapid and drastic changes in technology are creating an imbalance in the organisational ecology
whichposes a challenge to office workers, business managers, facility managersandarchitects. Becker and Steel
(1995)describeorganisationalecology asthemannerinwhichorganisationleaderselecttoarrangetheiremployees
inspaceandtimeinordertopursuealongtermcompetitiveedge.Thethreekeyelementsoforganisationalecology
arethephysicalsettingsinwhichworkiscarriedout,theprocessesusedforplanninganddesigningtheworkplace
system,andthewayspace,equipment,andfurnishingsareallocatedandusedovertime.Thesethreeelementsare
affectedbythenatureoftheworkandbusinessprocesses,organisationalculture andcorporatevalues,costofspace,
operationalhealthandsafetyrequirementsandworkforcedemographics.Achangeinanyofthemislikelytoalter
such ecology. It is this holistic approach that differentiates organisational ecology from traditional organisational
behaviourdisciplines.
Some changes in office buildings are more evident than others. For example, whilst in 1892 the Masonic
Temple in Chicago reached 20 storeys, todaytheTaipei 101 building is 509m tall (About, Inc. 2006). However,
office buildings are not just taller. More importantly and often overlooked is the fact that their organisational
ecology hasevolvedasaconsequenceofthetechnologyadoptedintheworkplace.
Giuliano(1985)maintainsthat newtechnologyinevitablyaffectstheorganisationofwork andidentifiesthree
stages of office organisation characterised not only by technology but also by style of management, personal
policies,hierarchyofsupervisoryandmanagerialstaff,standardsofperformanceandhumanrelationsamongstthe
people involved in the office and their clients. According to Giuliano (1985) there are three different office
organisations:
1. Thepreindustrialofficedependsontheperformanceoftheindividuals,withoutmuchbenefitfrommachines.
Thereislittlesystematicorganisation.Eachpersonworksindependently,physicallymovingaroundtoretrieve
a file. Individualshave different styles of work andhuman relations and values are important. However, the
onlywaytoovercomeanincrease intheworkloadisbyhiringmoreemployees.
2. The industrial office is a response to the limitations of its predecessor and introduces the principles of work
simplification, specialisation, and timeandmotion efficiency. It is essentially a production line, where even
personal interaction is standardised. Work moves from desk to desk as parts move along an assembly line,
making jobs simple,repetitive and unsatisfying. The fragmentation of responsibility created bureaucracy and
proliferationofpaperwork.Workersmaynotknowtheoveralltasktowhichtheyarecontributing.Everyone
hastoworktogetherduringthesamehoursinthesameofficetosustaintheflowofpaper.
3. The informationageoffice combines systems and machines to the benefit of workersand clients, but tries to
maintainthevaluesofthepreindustrialoffice.Itexploitsnewtechnology,yetitreturnstopeoplecentredwork
rather than machinecentred work. The machineis paced to the needs andabilities of the person who works

260

withit.Insteadofexecutingasmallnumberofstepsrepetitivelyforalargenumberofaccounts,oneindividual
handlesallcustomerrelatedrecords.Staffreductionofasmuchas50%iscommon.Informationisupdatedasit
becomes available, and there is no uncertainties related to the work in process. Productivity is no longer
measuredbyhoursofworkornumberofitemsprocessed,butbycustomersatisfaction.
ItisunclearwhatwillfollowGiulianos(1985)informationageoffice,butMarmotandEley(2000)gofurtherby
questioning the need for office buildings in the future. They argue that while technology once acted as a glue
forcing people to be ina specific place in orderto share equipment typewriters,addingmachines, etc. and
interact with their workmates, todays technology is actingas a solvent which eliminates suchneed and allows
people to use mobile technology and interact from different places. Moreover, they maintain that whilst offices
flowered as a building form and a social structure for a short, yet intense period, this could be a shortlived
phenomenon,atransitionalstageineconomicrevolution.Hence,itisuncertainwhattypeofofficebuilding,ifany,
willberequiredinthefuture.

ALTERNATIVEWAYSOFWORKING
Since 1964, when IBM introduced a magneticcardrecording device into a Selectric typewriter, the future of the
officeandourexpectationsofit,changedforever.Thefeelingoftechnologydominationthatwasfeltafterthepost
industrialinnovations(1960s1970s)madeusbelievethatofficesinthefuture,thatistoday,wouldberunbyrobots
whilstworkerswouldenjoyfreetime(Dowdy2000).Thisbeliefwassostrongthatsocialscientistsworriedabout
the vast amount of leisure time the workforce would have, and ignited fears of a jobless society(Castells 1996).
Nevertheless,inJapantherewere160officialcasesof karoshi, deathfromoverworkin2002,and43morepeople
committed suicide because of overwork. The French government is assessing lengthening its 1998 workweek
arrangement(Tischler2005).EvenSpainsproudsiestatraditionisthreatenedbytodaysworkinghabits(Pogash
etal.2005).InAustralia,thenumberofemployeeswho regularly workovertimeincreasedtonearly three millionin
2003(AustralianBureauofStatistics2003).
Althoughnotintheexpectedtimeframe,alternativewaysofworkingarechangingthewayweworkandthe
wayweunderstandwork(Austinetal.2001).
Alternativeworkplacesemergedasaresponsetotraditionaloffices.Ontheonehand,traditionalofficesare
designed in accord with longheld and unspoken beliefs about the nature of work in order to support production
ratherthaninnovation.Traditionalofficearrangementsarecentralised,focusonstatus,andassumethatemployees
will be in their assigned location during fixed hours. On the other hand, alternative workplaces have fewer
preconceivednotionsaboutwhatconstitutescorrectworkplacedesign,yettendtoincludeavariety ofcentraland
dispersedworklocations.They balanceproductionandinnovationwork,includeworkflexibilityabout whenand
whereworkisdoneandminimisedesignattributesthatexplicitlydisplaystatus(Austinetal.2001).Questionslike:
Do certain people need to come to the office? Does the office need to take a certain form? Can we do things
differently and more efficiently? are redefining the way we work by offering a new array of flexible working
options(Stocks1998).
Therearenumerousmodelsofalternativewaysof workingsuchasteleworking,hotdesking,virtualoffice,
hotelling,motelling,caves,commons,cottaging,guesting,justintimeoffice,touchdowncarrels,andsoon(Stocks
1998Marmot&Eley2000Austinetal.2001).Whilstafullexplanationof eachofthese optionsis beyondthe
scopeofthischapter,theysharecommontraitslikeincreasedflexibilityinworkplaceandworkingtimeaswellasa
moreefficientuseofspace.Alternativewaysofworkingnotonlyrepresentbenefitstoindividuals,companiesand
cities,buttheyalsoreflectbenefitstotheenvironment (ITAC2004James2004).
Companiesthatimplementflexibleworkingcanreduce,oreveneliminate,theneedforbuildingsatall.Ina
study done by James (2004), 12 out of 30 companies needed less office spaceas a result of teleworking,and an
additional three were expecting such a benefit in the near future. A UK company closed its central office.
Alternativewaysofworkingcanalsohelptoreducetheneedforcommuting includingtheenvironmentalimpact
thatderivesfromit (Nilles1998).
Unfortunately,inpracticeitiseconomicsratherthanenvironmentwhichisthemaindriver(James2004,
23).Still,astudydonebyActiumConsultandCassBusinessSchool(2003)intheUKprovesthatfromafinancial
point of view alternative ways of working make sense, since rent represents nearly 50% of total office cost.
Therefore,considerablesavingscanbeachievediftheamountofspacerequiredbyeachemployeecanbeusedina
more efficient fashion,reduced or simply eliminated.Thesame study argued that, throughalternative working,a
mediumsizedbusiness500staffcanmakeasavingof0.77mperannumonpropertycosts.However,itis
importanttonoticethatflexibleworkingaltersthetraditionalratioof65%propertycostsand35%ITcosts,to55%
propertyand44%IT.Theremaining1%isthecostofchangeinmanagementrequiredtobalancetheorganisational
ecology.

261

ADOPTIONOFALTERNATIVEWAYSOFWORKING
Poor implementation of alternative ways of working has resulted in costly mistakes with an impact on adopters
trust whichhave slowed down the adoption process. One of the most representative and wellknown cases is the
endeavourundertakenbyJayChiat,whotransformedamultimillion dollaradvertisingagencyintothelaughing
stock of the industry whilst trying to go virtual (Tsuchiya & Vithayathawornwong 2005). After a painful
implementationprocesses,Chiatsvirtualofficeprojectwasdeclaredofficiallydeadandpeoplemovedbacktothe
paperfactory,hardwiredphoneandadeskperpersonoffice(Marmot& Eley2000).
Whilst the specific causes of failure in the Chiat Day case were poorly planned integration, intransigent
policies,notenoughresourcesandlackofpersonalspace(Berger1999Tsuchiya &Vithayathawornwong2005),
theimplementationofalternativewaysofworkingacrosstheboardisfullofchallenges.

Paradigmchange
Thefirstofthesechallengesistheinertiaofoldparadigmsfuelledby our inherentresistancetochange.Toquote
WalterBagehot(1872):
One of thegreatestpains tohumannatureisthe pain of anew idea. It makes you thinkthat
after all, your favourite notions may be wrong, your firmest beliefs illfounded Naturally,
therefore,commonmenhateanewidea,andaredisposedmoreorlesstoilltreattheoriginalman
whobringsit.

Culturalchange
Another hurdle to overcome is the strong cultural role that the oldfashioned office building still plays. Giuliano
(1985) describes the attributes ofa physical office as home for organisations,a place to meet face to face, anda
workorientedenvironmentawayfromhome.
Paralleltothis,arethenegativesideeffectsofalternativewaysofworking.Forexample,hotdeskingtakes
awaythesenseofbelonging,whichisaverysecuresymbolforpeople,andteleworkingjeopardisesthecherished
boundariesbetweenhomeandoffice (Dowdy2000Marmot & Eley2000Lake2005).

Changesinpowerandcommunicationamongstdisciplines
Asuccessfuladoptionofalternativewaysofworkingrequireseffortfromavarietyofdisciplinesincludinghuman
resources(HR),informationtechnology (IT)andfacilitymanagement (FM).
However,asnotedbyRobertson(2000)thesegroupsrarelyinteractwitheachotherandaremainlyconcerned
abouttheirownareaofresponsibility.TheHR groupisseenasthegroupthatfocusesoninitiativesthataregoodfor
the employees, but without clearly adding real business value. The FM group is regarded as only interested in
cuttingrealestatecostsbyrelyingonoldparadigmsforexample, reducingthesizeofworkstationsandrarely
dotheyofferleadingedgesolutionstospacechallenges.Finally,theITgroupseemstodelivertechnologyforthe
sakeoftechnology,withoutfullytakingintoconsiderationpeopleormanagementissues.

APROPOSEDMODELTOACCELERATEALTERNATIVEWAYSOF
WORKING
Due to the fragility of the organisational ecology and the challenges inherent in adopting alternative ways of
working,amethodisproposedtofacilitatetheimplementationprocesswithinindividualcompaniesandaccelerate
the process of adoption on a global scale. To achieve this, the proposed method relies on timely adoption and
tailored solutions based on FM principles as well as Rogerss diffusion of innovation theory. Figure 30.1
summarisesthestepsandidentifiesthekeyplayersoneachofthem.
Figure30.1:ModeltoAccelerateAdoptionofAlternativeWaysofWorking

262

Step1:Facilityassessment
Thefirststepistoidentifywhenthefacilityisdueforcapitalrenewal. Capitalrenewal differsfrommaintenanceand
repairinthattheformerisacomprehensiveactiontocompletelyreplaceanexistingasseteventotheextentof
changingits functionality or location whereas maintenance andrepairare interventions just to ensure an asset
reachesitsoptimalservicelife (CICA1989Vanier2001).
Matchingthetimewhenafacilityrequirescapitalrenewalwiththeadoptionofanalternativewayofworking
willprovidetheflexibilityrequiredtoredesignthespaceandfunctionalitytohostthenew workingenvironment.
Facilitymanagersplayacrucialroleinthisstepastheyareresponsibleformanagingthesubstantialmaintenance,
repairandrenewalworkandareinaconstanttechnicalchallengetoweightthecostofthesedecisionsversusthe
technicalandfunctionalbenefitsofimplementingasolution (Vanier2001).
GordonandShore(1998)identifythreeplaninghorizonsforassetmanagementbasedontheirprojectioninto
thefuture:
1. operationalplanning:withina twoyeartimeframe
2. tacticalplaning:withina twoto fiveyeartimehorizon
3. strategicplanning:planningbeyondthefiveyearterm.
Becausemostbuildingcomponentsorsystemshaveservicelivesrangingfrom5to35years(HAPM1995Vanier
2001)itisinthestrategicassetplanninghorizonthatcapitalrenewalisplanned.However,becausenotenoughis
spentonmaintenanceandrepair,ownersareaccumulatinganeverincreasingmaintenancedeficit,whichleadsto
prematurefailuresandprematurerenewals(Vanier2001).
The capitalrenewal cost in the USA isapproximately $US370bn. Although this figure includes alltype of
infrastructure,notonlyofficebuildings,itdenotesthemagnitudeofthechallenge.Proportionally,similarscenarios
are shared by Canada and Australia (Vanier 2001). It is estimated that the infrastructure renewal liabilities for
Victoria,Australia,areintheorderof$A23bn(Burnsetal.1999).
Step2:Enduserprofile
Oncethefacilityisdueforcapitalrenewal,theenduserprofileofsuchfacilitycanbematchedtooneofthefive
types of adopters depending on their readiness and capability to adopt an innovation as per Rogerss (1995)
diffusionofinnovationtheory.
Rogerssdiffusionofinnovationtheorydescribetheprocessbywhichaninnovation,inthiscasealternative
waysofworking,iscommunicatedthroughcertainchannelsoveraperiodoftimeamongstthemembersofasocial
system.Suchprocess startswiththeawarenessstage,followedbytheintereststage,theevaluationstageandtrial
stagetoculminateintheadoptionstage.Throughtheawarenessstagetothetrialstagetheindividualhastheoption
to reject the innovation. Once adopted, the innovation can be discontinued by disenchantment or by replacement
(Rogers1995).
Rogersclassifiestheunitofadoption,inthiscasethe endusers, into:
Innovators:Therisktakers.Theyhavetheabilitytounderstandandapplycomplextechnicalknowledgeandto
copewithahighdegreeofuncertaintyabouttheinnovation.Butmostofall,theycontrolsubstantialfinancial
resourcestoabsorbpossiblelossfromanunprofitableinnovation.
Early adopters: They are successful and respected by peers. Their high degree of opinion leadership affects
mostsystemsandtheyserveasrolemodelforothermembersorsociety.Theyplayakeyroleintheadoption
processdeterminingthetimeandextentinwhichaninnovationwillbeadopted.
Earlymajority:Whilsttheydonottakeasmuchriskastheirpredecessors,theydoacceptaninnovationbefore
the average person. They interact frequently with peers, yet seldom do they hold positions of opinion
leadership.Theydeliberatebeforeadoptinganewidea.
Latemajority:Theireducationandincomearelimited.Beingscepticalandcautious,theywillusuallyadoptthe
innovationundereconomicorpeerpressure.
Laggards:Theypossesnoopinionleadership,areisolatedorsurroundedbyotherlaggards.Theirresourcesare
limited.Theirpointofreferenceisthepast,thereforearesuspiciousofinnovationsandfrequentlybythetime
theyadoptaninnovationthereisanewonealreadystartingtotakeitsplace.
Step3:Matchingenduserprofilewithalternativewaysofworking
The process of selecting an alternative way of working is complex. It depends on the type and size of business,
managementstyle,andstructureandphilosophyofworkamongstothervariables.However,thismethodarguesthat
thetypeofalternativewayofworkingandthefashioninwhichitisimplementeddependonthetypeoftheenduser
asdescribedinstep2ofFigure30.1.
For example, two similar companies intype, size, structure, etc., but one being an early adopter andthe
otheralatemajoritywilldifferintheratioofadoptionand/orinthesuitabletypeofalternativewayofworking.
That is, a company with an enduser profile of early adopter will be betteroff with an adoption rate of 60%

263

traditionaland40%alternative,whereasalatemajorityendusertypecompany willbenefitfromarateof80%
traditionaland20%alternative.
Step4:Balancingtheorganisationalecology
Finally,ajointeffortfromFM,HRandIT,togetherwiththearchitect,isrequiredinordertodesignthenewspace
thatwillhostthenewactivitiesinbalancewiththepeopleandtechnology.
Thetimedandtailoredadoptionsofalternativewaysofworkingassuggestedbythismethodareproposedto
collectivelyacceleratetheglobaladoptionprocess.

CONCLUSIONS
Thereisanevolutioninworkplacearchitectureandorganisationalecologyasaresultofalternativewaysofworking
fostered by new technology. New technology is revolutionising the way we work, how we work and where we
work.
Thefutureoftheofficeisuncertain.Theofficeandtheworkplaceareinconstantchangeandtheirdirection
willdependtoalargeextentonthetimeandmannerbywhichalternativeworkpracticesareadoptedbycompanies,
organisationsandsocietyatlarge.
Aplanned,integratedandmultidisciplinarymethodofadoptionofalternativewaysofworkingisproposed
toincreasethesuccessratewithinindividualimplementationsandtoacceleratetheprocessofadoptionataglobal
scale.
Matching the implementation of alternative ways of working with the capital renewal will minimise the
implementation costs. Facility managers, therefore, play a crucial role as the agents that provoke the change. In
parallel,Rogerssdiffusionofinnovationtheoryhelpsacceleratetheadoptionprocess.
Byapplyingtheproposedmethod,anacceleratedadoptioncanbeachievedbyreachingthesamepopulation
inlesstime(t2<t1).Suchaccelerationwillcapitalisesooneralltheeconomicandenvironmentalbenefitsof
alternativewaysofworking.

REFERENCES
ActiumConsultandCassBusinessSchool.2003. TheTotalOfficeCostSurveySummaryJuly2003.
http://www.regus.com/assets/enus/research/1000053B_tocs_2003.pdf (accessed23May2006).
Austin,J.,A.Bain,P.Heath,J.Ratekin,E.M.Reilly,E.RichertandC.Ross.2001.Alternativeworkplaces.Facility
Design andManagementHandbook,ed.E.Teicholz.8.119.0.Sydney:McGrawHill.
AustralianBureauofStatistics.2003. WorkingArrangements,Australia,Nov2003.Canberra:AustralianBureauof
Statistics.
Bagehot,W.1872. Physics andPolitics.Chicago:IvanR.Dee.
Becker,F.andF.Steele.1995.Workplacebydesign:mappingthehighperformanceworkscape.SanFrancisco:
JosseyBassInc.
Berger,W.1999.Lostinspace.WiredMagazine. 7(2):
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.02/chiat.html?pg=5&topic=&topic_set=(accessed18May2006).
Burns,P.,D.HopeandJ.Roorda.1999.Managinginfrastructure forthenextgeneration. Automationin
Construction,8(6):689703.
Castells,M.1996.TheInformationAge:Economy,societyandculture.UK,BlackwellPublishersLtd.
CanadianInstituteofCharteredAccountants.1989. AccountingandRepairingforPhysicalAssetsbyGovernments.
Toronto:CanadianInstituteofCharteredAccountants.
Dowdy,C.2000.Workinglife:officesequippedwiththecomfortsofhomearetheonesthatattracttalentedstaff.
Design Week, 15(25):2023.
Giuliano,V.1985.Themechanizationoftheoffice.TheInformationTechnologyRevolution,ed.T.Foster.Oxford:
BasilBlackwell.
Gordon.A.R.andK.R.Shore.1998.Lifecyclerenewalasabusinessprocess.APWAInternationalPublicWorks
Congress:NRCC/CPWASeminarSeriesInnovationsinUrbanInfrastructure.LasVegas,1417September.
HousingAssociationPropertyMutual.1995. Life SpansofBuildingComponents:Technicalnote6.London,
HousingAssociationPropertyMutual.
ITAC.2004.Resultsofthe20032004AmericanInteractiveConsumerSurvey.USA:ITAC.
Lake,A.2005.Thirdpartyhotdesking. http://www.flexibility.co.uk/index.htm (accessed23May2006).
Linturi,R.2000.Theroleoftechnologyinshapinghumansociety.TheJournalofFutureStudies,Strategic
ThinkingandPolicy 2(2):183188.
Marmot,A.andJ.Eley.2000.OfficeSpacePlanning:Designingfortomorrow'sworkplace.NewJersey:McGraw
Hill.
Martino,V.D.2001.TheHighRoadtoTeleworking.Geneva:InternationalLabourOrganization.

264

Nilles,J.1998.Thoughtsonthefutureoftelecommuting.
http://www.davidflemingltd.com/commentary/Jack%20Nilles.htm(accessed23May2006).
Pogash,C.,R.McLean,J.LeeandJ.Gorman.2005.Isthesiestaover?NewYorkTimesUpfront,137(12):4.
About,Inc.2006.Taipei101TowerinTaipei,Taiwan.
http://architecture.about.com/cs/greatbuildings/p/taipeitower.htm (accessed23May2006).
Robertson,K.2000.Worktransformation:integratingpeople,spaceandtechnology.Facilities, 18:376382.
Rogers,E.M.1995.DiffusionofInnovations.NewYork:FreePress.
Stallworth,O.andB.Kleiner1996.Recentdevelopmentsinofficedesign. Facilities14(1/2):3442.
Stocks,M.1998.Thevirtualoffice:puttingmanagementaheadoffacilities. Facilities16(1/2):2933.
James,P.2004.IsTeleworkingSustainable?Ananalysisofitseconomic,environmentalandsocialimpacts.
Brussels:EuropeanCommunities.
Tischler,L.2005.Extremejobs.FastCompany (93):5560.
Tsuchiya,M.andS.Vithayathawornwong.2005. IdeaBook#3AlternativeOfficing:Aninquisitivefocusonthe
virtualoffice:theconceptandtheimplementation.
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/dea453_653/ideabook1/3tsuychia_vithay/ideabook3_1.htm (accessed23
May2006).
Vanier,D.J.2001.Whyindutryneedsassetmanagementtools.JournalofComputinginCivilEngineering, 15(1):
4543.

265

Part8
IndustryDevelopment

266

CHAPTER31

GovernmentPolicyandPromoting
CollaborationintheAustralian
ConstructionIndustry
NealRyan
MichaelCharles
KeithHampson
INTRODUCTION
Australian construction industry stakeholders appear keen to retreat from the adversarial model. The problem, of
course,isprovidingtherightconditionsforatrulyrelationshiporientedandcollaborativemodeltotakeroot.There
remainsaperception,howeverdebatable,thatpartneringonly benefits clientsandprojectmanagementfirms,and
thatsmallandmediumsizedenterprises(SMEs) thelifebloodoftheconstructionindustry willcontinuetobe
shortchanged(Crane2005Daintyetal.2001).Inviewofthis,thequestionthatthischapterwillattempttoanswer
is whether government, as collectively a major client of the Australian construction industry, can play a more
prominentroleinshapingconditionsthatwillallowprojectmanagementfirmsandtheircontractors,suchasSMEs,
tohavegreaterconfidencewithregardtogreaterengagementandmeaningfulcollaboration.Thischapterwillmake
use ofdatacollected fortherecentConstruction2020projectundertakenbytheCooperative ResearchCentrefor
Construction Innovation (CRC CI). While it is clear that government can only do so much to promote the
appropriateindustryenvironmentandrequisitelevelsofcollaboration,thischapterwillseektopositthemeansby
whichAustraliangovernmentscanhelptopointtheindustryintherightdirection.
It is widely recognised that sharing core competencies and exchanging process technologies can lead to
greatercompetitiveness.Muchhasbeenwrittenontheimportanceofcollaborationasadriverofbusinesssuccess,
yet the Australian construction industry still suffers from a reputation not altogether unwarranted of being
adversarial and uncommitted to the establishment of longterm partnerships (Hampson &Brandon 2004, 16). As
seemsevident,collaborativeagreements,suchasformalalliances,jointventuresandpartnering,canonlysucceedin
anenvironmentthatfacilitatestrustandthetimelyexchange ofinformation(Cox&Townsend1998).Ingeneral,
componentsofaconstructionindustrysupply chainhavenotdemonstratedagreatpropensityto worktogetherin
ordertoeffectmutualgain.Milleretal.(2001)havesuggestedthatthissituationisduetodivergentcorporategoals,
differentrolesinthesupplychain,perceivedlackofcompatibility,andageneralunwillingnesstocommittolong
termrelationships.The Australian construction industry is notalonein this. Rather, alack of engagementamong
constructionindustry supplychaincomponentsisaworldwidephenomenoninOECDcountries(Latham1994).
Despitethisinitiallygloomyprognosis,constructionbusinessesofallsizeshavecometorealisethatamore
streamlined and relationshiporiented business model, especially in procurement, outsourcing and contracting
labour, can have benefits for the whole industry, and especially the supply chains that constitute it. As a
consequence,itshouldnotsurprisethattherecent Construction2020 surveyindicatedthat lessadversarialbusiness
relationshipswasoneofthetopprioritiesoftheAustralianconstructionindustry.Inaddition,thefragmentedand
adversarial industry structure was the most frequently selected barrier to improvement, with 166 of the 285
respondentsreplyinginthismanner.Ofthose166industryrespondents,31%viewedtheindustrystructureasthe
mostsignificantbarriertochange.

THEIMPORTANCEOFTHESUPPLYCHAIN
Inabusinessenvironmentwhereoutsourcingisverymuchtheindustrynorm(Bragg&Kumar2003Dayanand&
Padman 2001) and interest in vertical integration has markedly declined in recent years (Grossman & Helpman
2002Rasheed&Gilley2005),itisobviouslyimportantfororganisationsthatworkwithandrelyuponother
organisationstoengagewitheachotherinaharmoniousandequitablefashion.
The Construction 2020 project highlighted the Australian construction industrys acknowledgement of the
importance of outsourcing and offsite manufacture as a means of driving down costs. In essence, outsourcing
represents the decision to contractout valuecreating activities that were once carried out inhouse (Lei 2005
Rasheed&Gilley2005,522).Thestrategicmanagementrationalebehindthisisthatoutsourcingallowsthefirmto
concentrate on those activities at which it excels, that is, the core competencies of the organisation (Allen &

267

Chandrashekar 2000 Quinn 1992). With the construction industry, this means that project management firms
concentrateoncoordinatingtheconstructionproject,whilstotherfirmsarecontractedinordertocarryoutspecific
tasks(Dessetal. 1995).Byactinginthisway,projectmanagementfirmsareallowedtoleveragetheirowninternal
knowledgetobestadvantage(Quinn1992,72).
As a result, a greater engagement of all supplychain components has become increasingly imperative,
especially since studies estimate that subcontracting normally amounts to approximately 80% of contract
expenditure in OECD nations (Packham et al. 2001). The failure of supplychain constituents to engage in an
effectivefashionthusleadstocostlymisunderstandingsthatultimatelyreducetheintendedsavingsthatshouldbe
generated from an offsite manufacturing and outsourcing approach (Grossman & Helpman 2002). In particular,
reworkhasbecomethegreatbaneoftheconstructionindustry(EngineersAustralia2005).Thekeytoreducingtotal
systemcost,whichiswhatanoutsourcingandoffsitemanufacturingapproachpromisestoachieve,istopromotea
morerelationalandlesstransactionorientedindustry(Milleretal.2001).While144of the285respondentsfeltthat
this needs to be effected with some urgency, industry itself has found it difficult to move beyond the idealistic
rhetoric.
Variousimpedimentsneedtobetakenintoaccount.TheAustralianconstructionindustryisdominatedbya
relatively smallnumber of highprofile project management firmsresponsible for overseeing themost financially
significantprojects.Theseorganisationscontractoutsectionsoftheirprojectstosmallerandmorespecialisedfirms.
Theimplicationisthat,sincesubcontractorsaddmostofthevalue,theyshouldhavealargerroleinthemanagement
of the construction process (Saad & Jones 1998). What is more, it is posited that they should be recompensed
accordingly.AnoutcomeoftheConstruction2020surveyisthatconstructionindustrystakeholderswouldliketo
see a regulatory, financial and procurement framework which encourages longerterm thinking and returns, a
sharing of ideas and innovations between stakeholders, and a fair distribution of risks and returns (Hampson &
Brandon2004,16).Theinverseofthisisthecurrentadversarialsystemcharacterisedbyfragmentationandlowbid
tendering,althoughthelattermindsetisslowlychanging.Still,theUKstudyofWongetal.(2000)revealedthat,
despite moves towards using project specific criteria, price still dominated contractor selection, especially in the
publicsector.
TheAustralianconstructionindustryisoneofthenationslargestemployers.Accordingtotheconservative
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) definition, the industry currently remains the fourth largest contributor to
Australias GDP across all industries and comprises 340,000 businesses, which employ 716,000 persons (ABS
2005seealsoABS20032002).OnestudypertainingtothebroadlysimilarUKconstructionindustryholdsthat
foreverypersonemployedinconstruction[intheofficialfigures]anotherhalfofapersonisinselfemployment
(Milleretal.2004,534).Recentdatasuggestthat94%ofAustralianconstructionbusinessesemployfewerthanfive
peopleeach(Hampson&Brandon2004,10).Indeed,mostAustralianconstructionbusinessesaresmall,withover
90%havinganannualturnoveroflessthan$1m (ABS200520032002).
Despitethefiguresquotedabove,conventionalmodelsofeconomicgrowthplaceSMEsinasecondaryrole
andstressthewayinwhichtheysupporttheactivitiesoflargerfirms(Reynoldsetal.1999).Morerecentstudies,
however,contendthatthefacilitationofentrepreneurship(andthuslowerechelongrowth)amongSMEscanhave
an important impact on a nations economy (Miller et al. 2002 Miller et al. 2004). As a consequence, it seems
obviousthatfacilitatingSME growthintheconstructionindustryshouldbeofgreatpoliticalimportance.
In addition to the domestic situation, globalisation of the business environment is acknowledged as an
importantdriverintheAustralianpropertyandconstructionindustry(Hampson& Brandon2004,2).Inviewofthis,
itisclearlyinthenationalinteresttoreducetheadversarialnatureoftheindustrysothatitcaneffectivelyrespond
toachangingmarket.Inshort,afragmented,adversarialandbarrierfilledindustrywillfinditdifficulttowithstand
the pressure of increased competition. Likewise, the present situation does not bode well for the provision of an
environment suitable for fostering the development of companies based in Australia (or subsidiaries of offshore
basedcompanieswithAustralianinterests)withrespecttocompetinginoverseasmarkets.

REINVENTINGTHEROLEOFGOVERNMENT
Inviewofthemacroconsiderationsoutlinedabove,itiswidelyviewedthatgovernmentanditsmanifoldagencies
shouldplaysomesortofroleinpromotingamorecollaborativeandrelationshiporientedAustralianconstruction
industry.Ofcourse,theproblemrelatestowhat,exactly,governmentshoulddo.
Itishighlysignificantthatlocal,stateandfederalgovernmentsremainsomeofthemosthighprofileclients
of the Australian construction industry. Whatis more, government interaction withthe constructionindustryalso
setsabenchmarkorindustrystandardthatisgenerallyfollowedbyprivateenterprise(Milleretal.2004,538).Asa
consequence, it has been argued that government clients should be responsible for ensuring that this benchmark
servestheconstructionindustryasawholeand,by extension,thenationaleconomy,insteadofmerelyimmediate
politicalinterests (Latham 2004). To achieve this, a change in public procurement mindset beyond mere rhetoric
seemstoberequired.
Government must devise the means to communicate the longterm benefits of commissioning marginally
highercost (but more valueformoney) projects to the general constituency (Latham 2004). Qualitative data

268

gleaned from Construction 2020 make it clear that client education is a requisite for an improved construction
industry, especially since it allows betterinformed clients to make betterinformed decisions regarding their
buildingsandotherformsofinfrastructuresuchasroads,bridgesandtunnels.Indeed,91ofthe285questionnaire
respondents selected lack of informed client leadership as a barrier to change. This view is supported by other
studies(e.g.Milleretal.2004).Thusgovernmentmustmakeagreatercommitmentintermsofdeterminingwhat
theywantoutofabuildinganditsenvironment (SurveyRespondent2004).
Australian construction industry stakeholders would appear to support this view. One Construction 2020
respondent succinctly put forward a general view that government interest in shortterm political gains in
infrastructure often resulted in longterm cost to the industry and community. Likewise, another stakeholder
urgedthatpoliticsberemovedfromthedecisionmakingprocess.Thecombinationofpoliticsandprocurementhas
becomeparticularlymanifestinthewakeofpublicsectoragenciesbecomingmorecloselyalignedtothepolitical
agendaofthegovernmentoftheday,andthemoveto embraceawholeofgovernmentperspective(Brownetal.
2003Waterhouseetal.2001).Accordingtotheprevailing newpublicmanagement(NPM)mindset,thenotionthat
providersofpublicservicesshouldbechosenbycompetitivetendering(Smyth1997,21),withtheemphasison
shortterm cost savings (Smyth 1997, 25),has prevailed largely to the detriment of the industry as a whole
(Hampson &Brandon 2004). Thishas been reflected in entrenched subcontractingregimes (Bresnen &Marshall
2000).
Thus governments have traditionally been concerned, for political reasons, to deliver projects on time and
underbudget.DibbenandHigginsargue(2004)thattoleranceformistakesislimitedsincethepublicsectoroperates
inapublicenvironment.Thishasoftentimesbeentothedetrimentofqualityandvalueformoney,especially inthe
overall lifecycle of the constructed facility (Low & Tan 1996). As a recent Engineers Australia report (2005, 3)
points out, More often than not, the work has been awarded on price rather than value and capability. The
phenomenonofboundedrationality,togetherwithvagueselectioncriteriaanduncleardeliveryrequirements,results
inbidsatalowerthanoptimumprice(Erridgeetal.1999,37).Whentendersarecalledforanewgovernment
project, applicants often feel that they must present an application that will meet client expectations in the short
term, butatminimal cost (Low&Tan 1996). This sets an industry standard. As a consequence, the construction
industryinOECDcountries,despiteattemptstoincorporatesoftcriteriaintocontractor selection(Gransberg&
Ellicott 1997 Palaneeswaran etal. 2003), is still characterised by lowbid tenderingmainly on account of the
greaterweighting accordedtoprice.
Of interest is that 108 of the 285 Construction 2020 respondents listed current (presumably tight or
inequitably shared) industry profit margins as a barrier to change. Yet this data may not represent an especially
accuratereflectionofactuality,especiallysincetheparticipantsfromprojectmanagementcompanieswereheavily
outweighedbyotherindustrystakeholders.Whilepreviousliteratureliststightmarginsasaconstrainingfactorfor
SMEs(e.g.Gillenetal.2004),thisworkisperhapsnowoutdated,oratleastnotespeciallyrelevanttothepresent
Australianconstructionindustry.Althoughtheeffectsoflowmarginsappeartobeoverstated,oneshouldstillbear
inmindtherelativelyhighdegreeofdaytodayuncertaintyintheindustryandthatsmallsubcontractingfirmscan
oftenbecharacterisedaspricetakers(OFarrell& Hitchens1988Milleretal.2001),particularlyintimesofslow
growth(aninevitablepartofthetraditional boomandbust natureoftheindustry).
Thusthelowbidmindsetdoesnotinitselfnecessarilyhindercollaborationthroughoutthesupplychainon
accountoflowmarginsenforceduponSMEs(contraryto whatmanyauthoritiesandindeedindustrypractitioners
wouldhaveusbelieve).Rather,thelowbidmindsetoftenmanifestsitselfintheconstructionoffacilitiesthatdonot
adequatelymeetclientneeds,arepoorlybuiltandthusrequireadditionalwork,ordepartradicallyfromtheintended
design owing to inadequate interpretation of the design work. This inevitably leads to substantial rework, which
itselfpromotessignificantdistrustandraisesoverallprojectcosts(generallytothedetrimentofanindividualfirms
profit),orelseresultsinfinanciallydraininglitigationthatdoeslittletopromoteconfidenceorenhancelongterm
relationshipsbetweenprojectmanagementorganisationsandcontractedfirms,manyofwhichareSMEs(Engineers
Australia 2005). Interorganisational distrust on account of greater contractor risk and onerous contractual
obligations should also be adduced (Packham et al. 2003 Miller et al. 2004). As might be imagined, these
considerations have hindered the development of more integrated relationships throughout construction industry
supplychains.
The Australian construction industry is eager to stress the advantages of a clientdriven approach to
innovation and change. In this context, public sector clients have the opportunity to become powerful opinion
leaders.Suchopinionleaders,owingtotheirinfluentialstatusandhighprofile,canhaveatremendousimpacton
the decisions taken by people or agencies looking for direction (Edquist et al. 2000). Manseau & Seaden (2001)
point out that policy can positively influence the uptake of innovative practices in the construction industry. It is
well known that government policyon procurementand contracting often becomes an industry norm. In view of
this,theConstruction2020dataindicatedthatleadershipbygovernmentwouldberequired.Publicsectorclients
should thus be able play an important role in changing the damaging lowbid mindset by opting for bestvalue
solutionstoinfrastructureprovision(Low&Tan1996).Apushtowardsoverallandlongtermquality,i.e.avalue
formoney solution rather than merely a cheap and shortterm votewinning option, should allow for greater

269

flexibilityinthesupplychain,andlessfinanciallydraininganddisruptivelitigationandrework.Problems,however,
stillremainindefiningandcapturing value(Choi1999Palaneeswaranetal. 2003).
If construction firms currently operating in the Australian market are to remain competitive in a more
globally orientedmarket,theyneedtoplanforthefutureratherthanmerelyattendtopresentdayconcerns.If entire
supplychainsaretobeleveragedforsuchapurpose,thesuccessfulAustraliabasedprojectmanagementfirmneeds
to ensure that potential subcontracted firms operating within Australia are at the forefront of technological
innovation.Suchinnovationisviewedasacleardesideratum(Brandon2005Hampson& Brown2005).Moreover,
theliteratureemphasisesthatgovernment,asanimportantclient,hasanextremelyimportantroletoplayintermsof
drivinginnovationthroughdemand(Milleretal.2004,539).Innovation,however,usuallycomesatapremium.In
the present industry climate, companies burdened by rework, litigation and burdensome contractual obligations,
such as many SMEs, may be unwilling to commit the financial resources needed to effect technological change.
Smallcontractedfirmsdowanttoinnovatesomuchisclear(Lefebvreetal.1997OFarrell&Hitchens1988),
yetthesefirmsoftenfailtodosoonaccountofotherpressures.
Thus,inanindustryenvironmentwherelargeprojectmanagementcompaniesareoftenabletoskimmuchof
the cream (to the relative detriment of smaller contracted firms), only the larger players have the resources to
incorporatecuttingedgepractices.Yet,fromastrategicmanagementperspective,oneoftheestablishedbenefitsof
outsourcingforsuchfirmsisthattheyareabletodevolvetheriskofinvestinginfrontiertechnologiestosmaller
subcontracting firms (Rasheed & Gilley 2005). However, if SMEs fail to innovate owing to financial pressures,
perceived or otherwise, the overall efficacy of outsourcing is substantially reduced. This situation is clearly of
benefittonobody.
AstheConstruction2020dataappeartoindicate,increasedgovernmentregulationisnotalwaysespecially
useful in promotinganimproved business environment. Rather,itis posited that a change in policy willresult in
positiveeffectsforallstakeholders.In short,amovetowardsbestpossibleprojectsolutionsoverthelifecycleof
the facility (Hampson & Brandon 2004, 17) would allow greater savings in the long term, that is,in suitability,
facilitiesmanagement andsustainability.
Thechangeinmindsetoutlinedaboveshouldseepotentialprojectmanagementfirmsputtingforwardtenders
that are reasonable in terms of cost, but are still likely to entail a project solution that serves if not in some
aspects exceeds the present demands of the client. The emphasis, therefore, should be on value and good
design(Latham1994,5)thatis,thetenderwillscoreashighlyonthe softcriteriaasitdoesforthe hardones,
such as price and time taken to complete the project. If, as is forecast, a less adversarialatmosphere between the
various links in the supply chain is developed, a more appropriate environment for greater collaboration will
conceivablyeventuate withfurtherbenefittocompetitivenessand innovation.

FURTHERINGSUPPLYCHAININTEGRATION
Although major construction companies operating in Australia have recently shown a greater propensity to form
consortiums with a view to bidding for highprofile projects and sharing the high risk associated with such
undertakings, greater collaboration needs to exist in the vertical plane so that the industry might become more
flexibleandresponsive(Spencer2005).
It is now something of a truism that construction projects generally involve temporary multiorganisations
that fall by the wayside after project completion (Cherns&Bryant 1984 Winch 1989). What thismeans, from a
projectmanagementperspective,isthatprojectparticipantsspendagooddealoftimeadjustingtonewpartnering
situations.Thustherealisationofleanconstructiongoalsandtherapidharmonisationofpracticesrarelytakesplace
as desired (Miller et al. 2001 Stewart et al. 2003). A lack of the appreciation of the benefits of open
communication hasalsobeencitedasadetrimentalfactorinthequestforrapidharmonisation(EngineersAustralia
2005,4).Asseemsevident,timespentharmonisingrepresentsmoneywasted.
Inordertomovetowardsamoreresponsiveindustry,largefirmsneedtoengagemorereadilywithSMEsand
offsite manufacturers. Likewise, SMEs and offsite manufacturers need to engage more readily with their
equipment, materials or labour suppliers (Briscoe et al. 2004). As Rasheed and Gilley (2005, 526) point out,
outsourcing and offsite manufacturing cannot continue as armslength market transaction(s), although Lei
(2005)pointsoutthatthisisthemostusualmethod.Furthermore,SMEsneedtobeabletosetasidetheirdifferences
inordertocollaboratemoreeffectivelyandthusbroadentheirbargainingpower.Inthepresentcontractingscenario,
largerfirmsarewellgearedtosurviveonalongtermbasis,butsmallerfirmsareclearlynotsowellblessed(Miller
etal.2004).
Greater collaboration between individual components of construction industry supply chains will be a
necessarycomponentofthischange.Effectivecollaborationcanonlytakeplaceinanatmosphereofinformation
sharing.Truestrategicpartnershipscanbedefinedasmultifaceted,goaloriented,longtermpartnershipsbetween
two companies in which both risks and rewards are shared (SimchiLevi et al. 2003, 147). Such arrangements,
which often become symbiotic in nature, are common in related industries such as logistics and supplychain
management,wherethirdpartylogisticsproviders(3PLs)mayberesponsibleforthe entire logisticalneedsofmajor
retailchains.Yetthesamecannotbesaidabouttheconstructionindustry.This,ofcourse,naturallyhassomethingto

270

do with theprojectbased nature of the industry (Dainty et al. 2001).Even so, a change in culturetowards more
longtermrelationshipswouldmeanthatconstructionindustryfirmsshouldbeabletoenjoyfullythebenefitsthat
strategicalliancesbringtofirmsoperatinginalliedindustriessuchasmanufacturingandlogistics.
Information that flows in a timely fashion throughout the supply chain is a requisite element in true
collaboration(Briscoeetal.2004).Thissortoftransparencyallowssupplierstomakeintelligentdemandforecasts,
which helps to reduce total systemwide cost (a concomitant of stockouts and carrying excess inventory). Such
information, which can be harnessed by ICT systems, can quickly allow other members of the supply chain to
produceandsupplytherightamountofproductormaterial,therebyreducinginventorycosts,depreciationandlead
times(Briscoeetal.2004Sadarangani&Gallucci2004).Similarinformationcanbetransmittedevenfurtherup
thesupplychainsothatrawmaterialsneededformanufacturingprocessesaretherewhenneeded(Hannon2003).
Whileevery demand forecast is, to some degree, inherently inaccurate,advanced meanshave been developed by
which this inaccuracy can be minimised (Mentzer & Moon 2004). Thus the symbiotic nature of a supply chain,
when viewed as a system, needs to be taken into account (Mentzer & Moon 2004, 40). Once again, genuine
collaborationand,whatismore,acommitmenttosuchcollaborationisthekey.Atpresent,theadversarialnatureof
the industry seems to forestall this possibility, although Tookey et al. (2000) point out the need to incorporate
generictypesofbestpractice,suchassupplychainmanagement andpartnering,intotheconstructionindustry.

PROMOTINGCONFIDENCEINTHEINDUSTRY
Whilethis all sounds attractive in theory, it seems clear that Australian construction industry businesses will not
wholeheartedly move towards such collaborative models in the present environment of open distrust, cutthroat
competitionanddivisivelitigation(EngineersAustralia2005).TheConstruction2020dataappeartoindicatethat
governmentisexpectedtomakeanincreasedefforttoprovidetheappropriateframeworkforgreatercollaboration
totakeplace.Ashasbeennoted,thisneednotnecessarilyrefertofurtherlegislationorincreasedregulatoryactivity,
although some streamlining might prove useful in certain areas. The Australian construction industry is generally
describedasriskaverse(Hampson&Brandon2004).Inviewofthis,governmentneedstocreateanenvironment
thatwillpromotemoreconfidence,especiallysince thedisseminationofinformationandtheresultantefficienciesis
afunctionoftrustandalongtermmindset(Packhametal.2001).
Thelastthingthatindustrywantsisafurthersetofregulations.Whatitdoesappeartodesire,asfarasone
cantell fromthe Construction2020data,isaclearerandmoreuniformsetofguidelinesthatwilldetermineindustry
best practice for collaboration between firms of all sizes, from the designer of the facility to the electrician or
plumber. Inaddition,a more functionaland equitable disputeresolution system would need to be put in place in
order to provide a fallback should a collaborative exercise come undone. A recent UK study has revealed that
subcontractingfirmsfeelthattheyarevulnerabletobullyingbymaincontractors(Packhametal.2001,12).Itis
imperative, therefore, that peak industry groups and government establish and communicate guidelines to effect
interaction (and arbitrate or resolve matters where necessary) in order to foster greater confidence. This would
providefurtherguidanceonbestpracticewithrespecttocollaboration.Thus,governmentcanhelptoalleviatesome
of the uncertainty (especiallyfor SMEs).Only then will the kind of collaborative models discussed previously in
thischapterreachtheirfullpotentialintheAustralianconstructionindustry.
Research conducted in the United Kingdom by Stewart et al. (2003) suggests that government (especially
regional government)hasanimportantrole to play interms of allowing SMEs to engagemorereadily with each
other.Again,thisrelatesto policy ratherthanlegislativeorregulatorychange.Peopleandfirms,itisassumed,often
donotwanttocollaborateinthemoretraditionalindustries.Inahypotheticalsituationinwhich,iftwoSMEswere
toworktogether,oneofthemwouldgain15%moreasaresultandtheother10%more,thelattercompanywould
normallyprovereluctanttoproceedonthebasisthattheotherfirmissecuringagreateradvantage.Government,of
course, cannot make these firms work together. However, it can provide a conduit that will allow such firms to
interactmorereadilyanddevelopthetrustrequiredtodeepentheircommitmenttocollaboration.
Of course, construction firms can do much themselves to promote further engagement, especially between
projectmanagementfirmsandcontractedSMEs.Thebusinessadvantageofsuchinteractionneedstobepointedout
perhaps by peak organisations and certainly by government agencies so that recalcitrant firms are more
preparedtoengageingreatercollaboration.Publicpolicy hasanimportantparttoplay inthisby makingsurethatit
becomesmorewidelyrecognised.Inparticular,thelargeranddominantfirmsobviouslyneedtounderstandbetter
thedegreetowhichtheydependonflexible,responsiveandinnovativeSMEs.
Atpresent,governmentisgreatlyconcernedwithdrivinghealthandsafetyintheconstructionindustry.There
is evidence to suggest that greater workplace pressure for small owneroperators, which, as has been argued, is
closely tied to the present industry environment, increase the risk of safety incidents (Engineers Australia 2005
Gambatese et al. 2005 Mayhew et al. 1997 Saurin et al. 2004). These considerations should further prompt
governmentagencies,asimportantclients,toreconsidertheirpositioninlowbidtenderingandthewayinwhichthe
adverserepercussionsofthismilitateagainstlongtermcooperation(Zohar2002).Kartametal.(2000)foundthat
thecompetitivenatureoftheconstructionindustry,inwhichcontractorsgenerallysubmittendersthatmayformthe

271

basis of contracts, resulted in safety costs not being considered unless specifically recognised by the contract
documents.
A continued failure to address the concerns of SMEs could prove highly detrimental to the industry as a
whole.Intime,areducedpoolofconstructionindustrySMEscouldallowsmallerandtraditionallypricetaking
firms(OFarrell&Hitchens1988Milleretal.2001)toraisetheircontractfeesorlabourcosts.This,inturn,could
affect the performance of the larger firms and thereby bring the existing industry members into an undesirable
position. Such a situation could perhaps encourage even greater intrusion into the Australian property and
constructionmarketplace somethingwhichthecurrentstateoftheindustrymayfinddifficulttoabsorb.

CONCLUSION
Insum,themindsetofcheapestequalsbest,whichhasleadtoacultureoflowcosttenderinganddevolutionof
risktosmallerparties,needstobechanged.Theoverarchingdesireforshorttermprofitandquickfixhorizons
(Hampson&Brandon 2004,13)mustbeerasedfromthemindsofseniorpublicserviceexecutives,inadditionto
themindsoftheministerswhomtheyserve.Whilequickreturnsongovernmentdollarsmaywinshorttimevotes,
thepressurethatitputsontheindustryasawholeishighlydetrimental.Amorecollaborativeconstructionindustry
willleadtoastrongerandmoreflexibleconstructionsector,andonebetterpositionedfortheimpendingrigoursof
operatinginamoretrulyglobalandthusmorecompetitivemarketplace.
Governmentagencies clearly have an importantrole to playin bringing about amorerelationshiporiented
industrycharacterisedbylongtermcollaborationthroughoutthesupplychain.Tighterlegislationandmorerigorous
industry regulation will not bring about more meaningful industry integration. Indeed, the prosecution of such a
program could have adverse repercussions. Greater regulatory control may also give construction industry
businesses a sense of greater constriction, which would hardly promote investment at a firm level. Rather,
governmentanditsagenciesmustleadthewaybymeansofmoreappropriatepolicy,especially intheirownactions
asindustryclients,inadditiontoprovidingtheappropriatedisputeresolutionmechanismsandaccompanyingsafety
nets.Thuspublicsectoragencies,asimportantclientsoftheconstructionindustry,needtorealisethat,inorderfor
theAustralianindustrytoremainasignificantemployerandwealthgenerator,theymustdomoretoencourageand
promotethecreationofamoreappropriatebusinessenvironment.

REFERENCES
Allen,S.andA.Chandrashekar.2000.Outsourcing services:thecontractisjustthebeginning. BusinessHorizons
43(2):2533.
AustralianBureauofStatistics.2005. 5206.0of2005.Canberra:AustraliaBureauofStatistics.
AustralianBureauofStatistics.2003. 8777.0of2003.Canberra:AustraliaBureauofStatistics.
AustralianBureauofStatistics.2002. AustralianBusinessRegisterData.Canberra:AustralianBureauofStatistics.
Bragg,R.andS.Kumar.2003.Buildingstrategicpartnerships.IEIndustrialEngineer 35(6):3944.
Brandon,P.2005.Vectors,visionsandvalues:theessentialsforinnovation. ClientsDrivingConstruction
Innovation:Mappingtheterrain,eds.K.Brown,K.HampsonandP.Brandon,1321.Brisbane:CRCfor
ConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPty Ltd.
Bresnen,M.andN.Marshall.2000.Partnering inconstruction:acriticalreviewofissues,problemsanddilemmas.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 18(2):229237.
Briscoe,G.,A.Dainty,S.MillettandR.Neale.2004.Clientledstrategiesforconstructionsupplychain
improvement. ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 22:193201.
Brown,K.,J.WaterhouseandC.Flynn.2003.Changemanagementpractices:isahybridmodelabetteralternative
forpublicsectoragencies? TheInternationalJournalofPublicSectorManagement, 16(3):231240.
Cherns,A.B.andD.T.Bryant.1984.Studyingtheclientsroleinconstructionmanagement. Construction
ManagementandEconomics, 2(3):177184.
Choi,Y.1999. TheDynamicsofPublicServiceContracting:TheBritishexperience.Bristol:ThePolityPress.
Cox,A.andM.Townsend.1998. StrategicProcurement inConstruction. London:ThomasTelfordPublishing.
Crane,A.2005.Drivingforwardthemovementforchange. ConstructionManager, 5(7):810.
Dainty,A.,G.BriscoeandS.Millett.2001.Subcontractorperspectivesonsupplychainalliances.Construction
ManagementandEconomics, 19:841848.
Dayanand,N.andR.Padman.2001.Projectcontractsandpaymentschedules:theclientsproblem. Management
Science, 47(12):16541667.
Dess,G.G.andA.M.A.Rasheed.1995.Thenewcorporatearchitecture. AcademyofManagementExecutive, 9(3):
719.
Dibben,P.andP.Higgins.2004.Newpublicmanagement:marketisation,managerialismandconsumerism.
ContestingPublicSectorReforms,eds.P.Dibben,G.WoodandI.Roper,2637.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.
Edquist,C.,L.HommenandL.Tsipouri.2000.Policy implications.PublicTechnologyProcurementand
Innovation,eds.C.Edquist,L.HommenandL.Tsipouri, 301311.Boston:KluwerAcademic.

272

EngineersAustralia.2005.GettingitRighttheFirstTime:Aplantoreversedecliningstandardsinprojectdesign
documentationwithinthebuildingandconstructionindustry.Brisbane:EngineersAustralia,QueenslandDivision
TaskForceontheQualityofDocumentation.
Erridge,A.,R.FeeandJ.McIlroy.1999.Anassessmentofcompetitivetenderingusingtransactioncostanalysis.
PublicMoney&Management,JulySeptember:3742.
Gambatese,J.,M.BehmandJ.Hinze.2005.Viabilityofdesigningforconstructionworkersafety.Journalof
ConstructionEngineeringandManagement, 131(9):10291036.
Gillen,M.,S.Kools,J.Sum,C.McCallandK.Moulden.2004.Constructionworkersperceptionsofmanagement
safetypractices:aqualitativeinvestigation. Work, 23:245256.
Gransberg,D.D.andM.A. Ellicott. 1997.Bestvaluecontractingcriteria. CostEngineering, 39(6):3134.
Grossman,G.M.andE.Helpman.2002.Integrationversusoutsourcing inindustryequilibrium. QuarterlyJournal
ofEconomics, 117(1):85120.
Hampson,K.andP.Brandon.2004. Construction2020:AvisionforAustraliaspropertyandconstructionindustry.
Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation.
Hampson,K.andK.Brown.2005.Mappingtheterrain. ClientsDrivingConstructionInnovation:Mappingthe
terrain,eds.K.Brown,K.HampsonandP.Brandon,16.Brisbane:CRCforConstructionInnovation,Icon.Net
PtyLtd.
Hannon,D.2003.Demandforecastingrisesonlogisticiansradarscreens.Purchasing, 132(12):5556.
Kartam,N.,I.FloodandP.Koushki.2000.ConstructionsafetyinKuwait:issues,procedures,problemsand
recommendations. Safety Science, 36:163184.
Latham,M.1994. ConstructingtheTeam:Finalreportofthegovernment/industryreviewofprocurementand
contractualarrangementsintheUKconstructionindustry.London:HMSO.
Lefebvre,L.,R.MasonandE.Lefebvre.1997.TheinfluenceprisminSMEs:thepoweroftheCEOsperceptionon
technologypolicyanditsorganisationalimpacts. ManagementScience,43(6):856878.
Lei,D.2005.Outsourcing. TheBlackwellEncyclopediaofManagement,vol.III,Entrepreneurship,eds.M.A.Hirt
andR.D.Ireland,196199.Malden,Ma:Blackwell.
Low,S.P.andW.Tan.1996.Publicpoliciesformanagingconstructionquality:thegrandstrategyofSingapore.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 14(4):295309.
Manseau,A.andG.Seaden,eds. 2001. InnovationinConstruction:Aninternationalreviewofpublicpolicies.New
York:SponPress.
Mayhew,C.,M.QuinlanandR.Ferris.1997.Theeffectsofsubcontracting/outsourcing onoccupationalhealthand
safety:surveyevidencefromfourAustralianindustries. SafetyScience, 25(13):163178.
Mentzer,J.T.andM.A.Moon.2004.Understandingdemand. SupplyChainManagementReview,8(4):3845.
Miller,C.J.M.,G.A.PackhamandB.C.Thomas.2001. HarmonisationandLeanConstruction:Acknowledgingthe
roleofthesmallsubcontractingfirm:WEIworkingpaper15.Pontypridd:WelshEnterpriseInstitute/Universityof
GlamorganBusinessSchool.
Miller,C.J.M.,G.A.Packham,D.PickernellandL.Morse.2002. IncreasingEntrepreneurialCapacityThrough E
learning:AnopportunityforsmallconstructionfirmsinSouthWales:WEIworkingpaper28.Pontypridd:Welsh
EnterpriseInstitute/UniversityofGlamorganBusinessSchool.
Miller,C.J.M.,G.A.Packham,D.G.PickernellandM.McGovern.2004.Buildingforthefuture:thepotential
importanceoftheconstructionindustryinWelsheconomicdevelopmentpolicy.ConstructionManagementand
Economics, 22(5):533540.
OFarrell,P.N.andD.M.W.N.Hitchens.1988.Alternativetheoriesofsmallfirmgrowth:acriticalreview.
EnvironmentandPlanning, 20:13651383.
Packham,G.A.,B.ThomasandC.J.M.Miller.2001. Partnering intheWelshConstructionIndustry:A
subcontractingperspective:WEIworkingpaper19.Pontypridd:WelshEnterpriseInstitute/Universityof
GlamorganBusinessSchool.
Packham,G.A.,B.ThomasandC.J.M.Miller.2003.Partnering inthehousebuildingsector:asubcontractorsview.
InternationalJournalofProjectManagement, 21(5):327332.
Palaneeswaran,E.,M.KumaraswamyandT.Ng.2003.Targetingoptimumvalueinpublicsectorprojectsthrough
bestvaluefocusedcontractorselection. Engineering,ConstructionandArchitecturalManagement, 10(6):418
431.
Quinn,J.B.1992. IntelligentEnterprise:Aknowledgeandservicebasedparadigmforindustry.NewYork:Free
Press.
Rasheed,A.A.andK.M.Gilley.2005.Outsourcing:nationalandfirmlevelimplications.Thunderbird
InternationalBusinessReview,47(5):513528.
Reynolds,P.D.,M.Hayand S.M.Camp.1999. GlobalEntrepreneurship Monitor:1999ExecutiveReport.
Singapore:KauffmanCentreforEntrepreneurialLeadership.
Saad,M.andM.Jones.1998.UnlockingSpecialistPotential:Amoreparticipativeroleforspecialistcontractors.
Reading:ReadingConstructionForum.

273

Sadarangani,N.andJ.A.Gallucci.2004.Usingdemanddriversforacollaborativeforecastingsuccess.Journalof
BusinessForecastingMethods&Systems, 23 (2):1215.
Saurin,T.,C.FormosoandL.Guimares.2004.Safety andproduction:anintegratedplanningandcontrolmodel.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 22:159169.
SimchiLevi,D.,P.KaminskyandE.SimchiLevi.2003. DesigningandManagingtheSupplyChain:Concepts,
strategiesandcasestudies,2ndedn.NewYork:McGrawHillIrwin.
Spencer,B.J.2005.Internationaloutsourcing andincompletecontracts. CanadianJournalofEconomics,38(4):
11071135.
Stewart,R.A.,C.J.M.Miller,S.MohamedandG.A.Packham.2003. Sustainable DevelopmentofSmall
ConstructionEnterprises:IT impedimentsfocus:WEIworkingpaper32.Pontypridd:WelshEnterprise
Institute/UniversityofGlamorganBusinessSchool.
Smyth,J.D.1997.Competitionasameansofsecuringpublicservices:lessonsfortheUKfromtheUSexperience.
InternationalJournalofPublicSectorManagement, 10(1/2):2146.
Tookey,J.,M.Murray,C.HardcastleandD.Langford.2001.Constructionprocurement routes:redefiningthe
contoursofconstructionprocurement. Engineering,ConstructionandArchitecturalManagement, 8(1):2030.
Waterhouse,J.,K.BrownandC.Flynn.2001.ThePacificMotorway:acasestudyexaminingpublicsector
managementdilemmas. TheJournalofContemporaryIssuesinBusinessandGovernment, 7(1):2128.
Winch,G.1989.Theconstructionfirmandtheconstructionproject.ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 7
(4):331344.
Wong,C.,G.HoltandP.Cooper.2000.Lowestpriceorvalue?investigationofUKconstructionclientstender
selectionprocess.ConstructionManagementandEconomics,18:767774.
Zohar,D.2002.Theeffectsofleadershipdimensions,safetyclimateandassignedprioritiesonminorinjuriesin
workgroups. JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,23(1):7592.

274

CHAPTER32

PublicPoliciesandInnovationinthe
ConstructionIndustry
KristianWidn
INTRODUCTION
InvariousreportsandstudiesinEuropeancountriestheconstructionindustryhasbeensaidtoworkinefficiently,
beingregardedasaslowadopterofnewtechniquesandseenasdisinclinedtowardsinnovation(Latham1994Egan
1998Nringsdepartementet2000).
Increasinginnovativenessintheconstructionindustryhasbeenoneofthecornerstonesinthesereportsasa
means for improving the overall performance of the industry. There are many different factors influencing the
ability to innovate (Dodgson & Bessant 1996 Widn 2002). Central to this improvement is the need for the
industrys firms to raise productivityand thus reduce outturn costs. In order to be innovative, there needs to be
motivation for both inventors and adopters (Porter 1998). One incentive is to raise added value, for example,
throughincreasingcompetitiveadvantage,loweringproductioncostsandimprovingtheproductorserviceprovided.
Motivationtoinnovatecanalsocomeasaresponsetolegislationorpolicies,butisoftenthereactiontoathreat.
Thepublicsectorisahighlyinfluentialparticipantintheconstructionindustry,asitexercisesamajorrolein
severalways.Itis,forexample,policymaker,legislatorandclient(Andersson2003)and,insomecases,performs
services directly (Andersson 2004). The public sector, as client, can influence and motivate other actors to a
significantextent(Edquistetal.2000).Publicpolicies,lawsandprogramsareotherwaysinwhichgovernmentscan
influenceinnovationintheindustry (Manseau& Seaden2001).
Theconstructionindustryisoneareainwhichpublicpoliciesandinterventionshavebeenkey,longstanding
featuresofbusiness.Fromtheperspectiveofinnovation,therearetwoconditionsthatneedtobefulfilledforpublic
involvement: a problem must exist and the public sector must have the ability to solve or mitigate the problem
(Edquist2002).Theactionsofpublicclientsaretoalargeextentdefinedbythemandateshandeddowntothemby
thestate.Overall,theserelationshipsconstituteanimpliedsystemofinnovation.Itneedstobemadeexplicitsothat
itiscapableofcloserstudywithaviewtopromotingimprovedinnovationcapability.
There have been studies of public innovation policies in some countries (see, for example, Manseau &
Seaden 2001)) but no analyses of their effects are to be found. In a related field, that of construction business
systems, studies have been reported in detail (Winch 2000 2002). Even though there are similarities between
businesssystemsandinnovationsystemstherearealsosomeimportantdifferences.First,thereisastrongerfocus
onhistoryininnovationsystemsand,second,thereisafocusonlearninginthecontextofinnovationsystemsthat
doesnotexistinbusinesssystems(Lundvall1999).Thepositionisoneofanincompletepicture.
Theaimofthischapteristoidentifydifferentmodelsthatcanbeusedtoanalysetheeffectsofpublicpolicies
andactions,withthepurposeofinvestigatingtheirapplicabilitytothespecificcaseoftheconstructionindustry.
Theidentificationofmodelsisachievedthroughadesktopstudy ofrelevantresearchliterature.Inorderto
analysetheirapplicabilityinthecontextofconstruction,thecharacteristicsoftheliterature needtobeisolated.The
modelsare evaluatedintermsoftheirabilitytohandlethesaidcharacteristics.

CHARACTERISTICSOFCONSTRUCTION
Thespecificcharacteristicsof constructionarefrequentlydescribedintheliterature.Inthissectionofthechapter
some important characteristics of the construction industry are discussed and differences within manufacturing
industries are highlighted, especially in the context of innovation and development. The industry covers a wide
scopeofactivitiesitinvolvesagreatvarietyofactorsanditisexternallyinfluencedbyitsmarketandinstitutional
environment. Construction includes such diverse economic activities as new production and repair/maintenance,
itinerant production and stationary manufacturing, the production of buildings and other construction, and it
involvesalargenumberofactorsrepresentingdifferentprofessionsandtypes,e.g.companies,publicutilitiesand
privatepersons(Andersson2003).

275

Productsaretypicallysingleunitswithalonglifespanthatrequirealterationand
maintenancethroughouttheirlife
Construction,typically,dealswiththecreationofsingle/uniquestructures(Briscoe1988).Thesestructuresusually
have a long life that needs to be maintained throughout (Manser 1994). In manufacturing, products are typically
madeinlargebatchesandthecostofinnovationanddevelopmentcanbespreadovereachproduct.Inconstruction,
innovation and development work must typically be carried by each project, yet few projects have the economic
basetocarrythelevelofcostinvolved.

Asystemicnatureoftheformationoftheindustry
The construction process is inherently complex and, to a large extent, fragmented with many actors working
together in everchanging project organisations (Winch 1998). Diversified client categories such as households,
firmsandgovernmentaddtothedifficultyofachievingsystemsthatwouldfiteveryone (Brchner2001).

A shortterm process perspective and a systemic nature manifested by the


formationofprojects
Theproject focusoftheconstructionprocessthatresultsinamixoftightlyandlooselycoupledsystemshampers
innovation (Dubois & Gadde 2002). It also explains the difficulty the construction industry has shown in
implementing strategies and procedures adapted in more traditionally organised industries. The contractual
framework,aswellastheprocurementformsusedintheconstructionindustry,isbuiltverymuchonexperience.
Thosepartsthatarenot,arelargelyderivedfromprojectmanagementtheoriesthatarepractitionerbased(Engvall
2003).Alltoooftenitisthesymptomsshownintheprocessthathavebeenstudiedinsteadoftheproblemscausing
thesymptoms.

Separationbetweendesign,productionandmaintenance
Inmanufacturingindustry,designandproductionistypicallycarriedoutwithinthesameorganisation.Comparedto
theconstructionindustrythiscreatestwodistinctdifferences:
1. itisdifficulttointegrateproductionknowledgeintothedesign
2. designorganisationsinconstructioncannotinfluencesuppliersinthesamewayasinmanufacturing,astheyare
notthepartiesthatprocuresuppliers.
Innovations in the constructionindustry often become a part of more than one company involved in the process,
makingitharderforasinglecompanytoadoptsomethingnew(Slaughter1998).Quitewherethedecisiontoadopt
technological change is taken is often difficult to isolate, as different organisations are designing, producing and
payingforproductsandservices.

Sectoralinfluencebytheinstitutionalframework
The construction industry is highly influenced by the institutional framework (Andersson 2003 Winch 1998).
Buildingcodes,otherregulations,publicpolicies,professionalinstitutionsetc.influenceconstruction.Demandvery
much depends on the general market and results in itinerant production and the derived nature of demand (Bon
1989).Itisalsoshownthatpoliticalsystemswillaffecttheconstructionindustryandthewayitworks(Manseau&
Seaden2001).
Asaresultofthedifferencesbetweenmanufacturingindustriesandconstruction,thetheoriesofinnovation
developed for manufacturing industries cannot be used as they are. The contextual disparity is too large. For
example it will be more important to study construction with a sectorlevel approach than from a company
perspectiveasthecompanysabilitytoinnovatewilllargelydependonexternalorganisationandrelationsthanin
traditionalmanufacturingindustries.

MODELSOFINNOVATION
In a CIB (International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction) task group study of
nationalinnovationpolicies,fourmodelsofinnovationwereidentified(Manseau&Seaden2001):
1. technologypushorsciencebasedmodel
2. marketpullmodel
3. complexproductsystems(CoPS)
4. firmcentredknowledgenetworks.
Technology push dates back to World War II where there was a major implementation of new science and
technology.Itisalinearmodelwhichassumesthattheprocessgoesfrombasicresearchviaappliedresearchand
experimentaldevelopmenttoanewproduct(Manseau&Seaden2001).

276

The marketpull model is also a linear model. To make innovative products or processes they use various
knowledgesources.Themodelisdependentoncontactwiththesesourcesandfeedbackloopsareusedfrequentlyin
thedevelopmentprocess(Manseau&Seaden2001).
DesigningandproducingCoPSisusuallyseenasaprojectwiththeaimofcreatingasystem.Theemphasis
ofproductionisondesign,projectmanagement,systemengineeringandsystemintegration(Hobday1998).Notwo
systemsarealike,andtheychangeasdemandrequiresthemtodoso.Thespecificationsdecidethescopeandthe
objective of the system, andhow to achieve the objectives (Iansiti1995).Every system is built up of subsystems
designedtofulfilacommongoal.Often,thefinishedproductcanbeseenasasystemandsubsystems.Thereneeds
tobeagoodunderstandingofhoweachsystemaffectstheothers(Hobday1998Senge1999).Aseachsystemcan
be divided into subsystems the main project can be divided into subprojects. The more complex a product is the
morecomplexthesystembecomesandthelargertheriskthatsomethingmaygowrong(Nightingal2000).
Firmcentred knowledge networks were developed by the OECD for measuring innovative activity. The
focus is on the single firm and itsrole in the centre of anenablingnetwork of suppliers, competitors, clientsand
otherresources(OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment (OECD)1997).
None of these four models are suitable for analysing the effects of public actions and policies on the
construction industry. The technologypush and the marketpull models are too simple to cope with any of the
characteristics.Thelinearityofthetwomodelsinhibitsthemtodealwiththedynamicsofmoderndayinnovation,
forexample,aspectssuchasfeedbackloops.Firmcentredknowledgenetworksarenotsuitablebecausetheyfocus
on a specific firm and its interactions with the environment, so that the importance of a holistic systemic
understanding becomes obscured. As the term implies, complex product systems would deal well with the
complexityofconstructionproductsandprocesses.Itwouldalsodealwiththelonglifeoftheproductsaswellas
the separation between design, production and maintenance. It does not, however, capture the complexity of the
industry so much, since the focus is on single products and thus projects. Neither does it capture theinstitutional
effectsontheindustryforthesamereason.AsCoPSembraceverycomplexproducts,therearemanyconstructsthat
willnotfallunderthatdefinitionandthosecharacteristicsneededarenotcoveredeither.Forexample,projectsthat
are complex enough to fall within the definition are usually of such an economic value that innovation can be
attemptedandfinancedwithintheproject.Thisistypicallynotthecaseontheaverageconstructionproject.
There are important aspects that can be learnt from the development of these models, especially CoPS.
Unravelling the complexity of dynamic, projectbased organisations in order to understand their propensity to
innovateandthusthefactorsthatencourageorinhibitinnovationhavebeenpresentedbyHobdayetal.(2000).Of
particular relevance to this research is the finding that innovation differs markedly from much conventional
innovation knowledge derived from studies of massproduced goods. If applied without modification, it can be
misleadingbothconceptuallyandintermsofmanagementstrategyandpractice.Moreover,thereisthefundamental
characteristicoftimescalethatisgearedtothedeliveryofaspecificendproduct,withoftenlittleprospectofrepeat
ordersorotherfollowon.
Anothermethodthathasgainedalotofinterestinrecenttimesissystemsofinnovation.Thismethodtakes
a holistic approach to the aspects affecting innovation. Not only industry or companyspecific characteristics are
considered,butalso,forexample,institutions,educationandtherelationshipbetweenthevariousorganisations.The
reason for adoptinga systemic approachto the issue of innovationis thatas technology becomes more complex,
linear innovation models become obsolete (Park 1999). Systems of innovation are thus a useful tool for
understanding how innovative activities are generated and disseminated (Archibugi et al. 1999). Innovation is,
however,morethanaseriesofdiscreteeventsforexample,nationspecificfactorsplayanimportantroleinshaping
technological change (Archibugi & Michie 1997). They are particularly useful for understanding demandside
innovation policy instruments, such as public technology procurement (Edquist & Hommen 1999). Systems of
innovationhavethepotentialtobecometools fornationalandlocalpolicymakingastheyprovideanew way of
organisingapplicableknowledgeinotherwords,theyareameansforanalysingthesupportstructureandpolicies
neededtoenableinnovationtotakeplace.Innovationpoliciescannot,therefore,betreatedinisolationasotherkinds
of policy may affect actors too: thinking in terms of systems of innovation can be useful in identifying the
interrelationshipsbetweendifferentpolicies(Mytelka2000).

SYSTEMSOFINNOVATIONANDCONSTRUCTION
Earlyon,theconceptofnationalsystemsofinnovationwasdefinedasthesetofinstitutionalactorsthatplaysa
major role in influencing innovative performance nationally (Nelson & Rosenberg 1993). According to Edquist
(2002, 182) systems of innovation = the determinants of innovation processes = all important economic, social,
political, organisational, institutional, and other factors that influence the development, diffusion, and use of
innovations.Systemsofinnovationcanbeappliedatvariouslevels,forexample,national(Lundvalletal.2002),
regional(Cookeetal.1997)andsectoral(Malerba2002Carlssonetal.2002).Thereisalsoadistinctionbetween
narrow systems, concentrating on the institutions deliberately promoting acquisitions and dissemination of
knowledgeandwhicharethemainsourceofinnovation,andbroadsystems,whichrecognisethatthenarrowsystem
isembeddedinamuchwidersocioeconomicsystem(Edquist& Hommen1999).

277

Onanationallevel,systemsofinnovationconsistoftwomaincomponents:organisationsareactorsandinstitutions
aretherulesofthegame,forexamplelaws,commonhabitsandnorms (Edquist2002).
Regionalsystemsofinnovationrelatetheregionstotheircompetencecapacity,theirdegreeofautonomyetc.
and,fromaregionalismapproach,focusonitsculturalbase.
Sectoralinnovation systemsarebuiltontheunderstandingthattherearespecificcharacteristicsdefiningan
industrialsectorsabilitytoinnovate (Carlssonetal.2002).Itisdefinedasasetofnewandestablishedproductsfor
specific uses and the set of agents carrying out interactions for the creation and sale of those products (Malerba
2002,261).
To use systems of innovation within construction any of the above could suffice, depending on what one
wantstostudy.Ingeneral,sectoralinnovationsystemsseemtoencompasstheveryheartoftheaspectneededtobe
studied.Oneaspecttoconsideristhattheapproachesdonotsupportconsiderationofthelonglifeofproducts.Inthe
literature about systems of innovation the discussions do not go beyond the point of sale. One of the key
characteristicsofconstructionisthecontinuousneedformaintenanceandrefurbishment.Anotheraspectisdealing
with the separation of design, productionandmaintenance. Inthe systems of innovationliterature therehave not
been many advances on the question of the extent and the features of intraindustry firm heterogeneity and the
structureandchangeinrelationshipsamongagents(Malerba2002).Theseparationofdesignandproductionneeds
tobetreatedcarefully,asitisoneaspectthatseparatesconstructionfrommany otherindustries.Intheliterature,
designandproductionissimplycharacterisedasproduction.
AccordingtoEdquistandHommen(1999,165),systemsofinnovation:
placeinnovationandlearningprocessatthecentreofinterest
adoptaholisticandinterdisciplinaryperspective
employhistoricalperspectives
stressthedifferencesbetweensystems,ratherthantheoptimalityofsystems
emphasiseinterdependenciesandnonlinearity
encompassproducttechnologiesandorganisationalinnovations
emphasisethecentralroleofinstitutions
arestillassociatedwithconceptualdiffuseness
areconceptualframeworksratherthanformaltheories.
The first three of these characteristics support the useof systems of innovation in analysing the effects of public
policiesandactiononinnovationintheconstructionindustry.Thereisanemphasisoninnovationandthisallows
foranunderstandingofthecomplexityoftheindustryaswellasexplainingthehistoryofwhythesituationisasit
is. Systems of innovation approaches are good for creating understanding of nonlinear development knowledge
basesasafunctionofcommunicationbetweenindependentactorsand,inparticular,forunderstandingdemandside
innovation policy instruments (Edquist & Hommen 1999), which is very important for the varying nature of the
constructionindustry.Thekeybenefitofsystemsofinnovationisthefocusoninstitutionalfactors.Theconstruction
industryisinitselfhighlyaffectedbyitsinstitutionalcontextandmanyofthepublicpoliciesandactionssetoutto
betheobjectsofanalysisbytheseapproacheswillineffectcreatechangestotheinstitutionalframework:itisthose
changesthatneedtobestudied.Thestressondifferencesbetweensystemsratherthandependenciescouldproveto
beaproblem.Itwould bepossible,however,tocreateanewsystem withthenewproposedpolicy oractionand
comparethatwiththeexistingand,thus,createanunderstandingwhethertogoaheadornot.
Onecentralaspectof systems ofinnovation istheneedforrelativestabilityandasmoothevolutionofthe
systems(Qur2004).Thismeansthatthecomponentsandtheirrelationsneedtobestablewithchangesoccurring
toalargeextentovertime.Asconstructionhasashorttermprocessperspectiveandasystemicnaturemanifested
bytheformationofprojectsthisisamajorobstaclefortheuseofsystemsofinnovationasanapproachtopredicting
andanalysingtheeffectsofpublicpoliciesandactions.

DISCUSSION
Noneofthemodelspresentedhereareaperfectmatch.Technologypush,marketpull,complexproductsystemsand
firmcentredknowledgenetworkshavelimitedapplicability.Whatneedstoberecognisedistheinsightoncontext
dependencydevelopedin,especially,CoPS.
CoPSwillbeusefulinthosecaseswhereconstructionprojectsarelarge,complexandeconomicallyviablein
supportinginnovation.Suchprojectsdoexist,butthemajorityofconstructionprojectsarenotofthistypeandneed
tobestudiedinrelationtootherprojects.Thiscallsforamorecomprehensivesectorapproach.
Whenstudyingtheeffectsofpublicsectorpoliciesandactionsoninnovationintheconstructionindustryitis
likelythatoneofthemoreimportantaspectswillbetheinstitutionalframework,whichisonefocusareaforsystems
ofinnovation.That,togetherwiththefactthatitisnecessarytostudytheeffectsontheconstructionindustryasa
whole, suggests that systems of innovation would be preferred. However, they could not be used in their current
form.Adaptationtofitthecontextofconstructionisnecessary.Suchanadaptationhasalreadybeenperformedin
another field of construction industry analysis. A CIB task group created sector system analyses permitting a

278

bettercomparisonofconstructionindustriesacrosscountries(Andersson2003).Afirstattempttomergethatmodel
withsystemsofinnovationhasbeenmade,butisnotfinishedanddevelopmentiscontinuing.Thismaybeoneway
togo,buttheremaybeotherwaysofadaptingsystemsofinnovation.
One other aspect is the inability of these models to measure the effects of change. In traditional
manufacturingindustrythisisusuallydonebycountingpatents.Astheindustrysfirmsseldompatentanythingthat
does not seem to be a valid measure, benchmarking exercises such as those offered by the UKs Constructing
Excellence might be one solution. If the same benchmarking is performed continuously a relative measure is
obtainedwhenresultsarecompared.

CONCLUSIONS
Theaimofthischapterwastoidentifypossiblemodelsthatcouldbeusedtoaddresstheeffectspublicpoliciesand
actions have on the construction industry and to assess their applicability. Of five models described, only one,
systemsofinnovation,canbeseenasapotentialmodelforusetoanalysethesectorasawhole.Itcapturessomeof
theimportantaspectsthatneedto beanalysed, forexampletheinstitutionalframeworkandaholisticview ofthe
industry.
There are some issues that need to be resolved before future use. The two main aspects that need to be
adoptedforuseintheindustryareaninabilitytohandletheseparationofdesignandproductionandtheshortterm
perspectiveofprojects.Methodstomeasuretheeffectsofchangearealsoneededtobedeveloped.
CoPShaveaparticularuseinanalysinginnovationinlargeandcomplexprojects,butthemajorinputofthis
model is its creation of understanding that innovation in industries is contextdependent. Construction differs
markedly in its context from manufacturing industry and this has to be considered, not only in the context of
innovation,butforeverythingthatisdevelopedformanufacturingindustryandthenputtouseinconstruction.

REFERENCES
Andersson,N.2003. AMesoeconomicAnalysisoftheConstructionSector.DivisionofConstructionManagement.
Lund:LundUniversity.
Andersson,N.2004.TheSwedishconstructionsector:itseconomicandsocialrole. TheConstructionSectorSystem
Approach:An internationalframework:CIBreport,ed.J.Carassus.154174.Rotterdam:CIB.
Archibugi,D.,J.HowellsandJ.Michie.1999.Innovationsystemsinaglobaleconomy.TechnologyAnalysisand
StrategicManagement, 11(4):527540.
Archibugi,D.andJ.Michie.1997.Technologicalglobalisationornationalsystemsofinnovation? Futures,29:121
137.
Bon,R.1989. BuildingasanEconomicProcess.EnglewoodCliff:PrenticeHall.
Briscoe,G.1988. TheEconomicsoftheConstructionIndustry.London:Mitchell.
Brchner,J.2001. TillvxtmjligheteridetSvenskaByggrelateradeInnovationssystemet.Chalmers: Institutionen
frServiceManagement.
Carlsson,B.,S.Jacobsson,M.HolmnandA.Rickne.2002.Innovationsystems:analyticalandmethodological
issues.ResearchPolicy, 31:233245.
Cooke,P.,M.G.UrangaandG.Etxebarria.1997.Regionalinnovationsystems:institutionalandorganisational
dimensions. ResearchPolicy, 26:475491.
Dodgson,M.andJ.Bessant.1996. EffectiveInnovationPolicy:Anewapproach.London:ITP.
Dubois,A.andL.E.Gadde.2002.Theconstructionindustryasalooselycoupledsystem:implicationsfor
productivity andinnovation. ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 20:621631.
Edquist,C.2002.Innovationpolicy:asystemicapproach,TheGlobalizingLearningEconomy,eds.D.Archibugi,
andB.A.Lundvall.219238.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Edquist,C.andL.Hommen.1999.Systemsofinnovation:theoryandpolicyforthedemandside. TechnologyIn
Society, 21:6379.
Edquist,C.,L.HommenandL.Tsipouri.2000.PublicTechnologyProcurementandInnovation. Boston:Kluwer
Academic.
Egan,J.1998. RethinkingConstruction:Thereportoftheconstructiontaskforce (EganReport).London:HMSO.
Engvall,M.2003.Noprojectisanisland:linkingprojectstohistoryandcontext. ResearchPolicy,32:789808.
Hobday,M.1998.Productcomplexity,innovationandindustrialorganisation. ResearchPolicy, 26:689710.
Hobday,M.,H.RushandJ.Tidd.2000.Innovationincomplexproductsandsystems. ResearchPolicy, 29:793
804.
Iansiti,M.1995.TechnologyIntegration:Managingtechnologicalevolutioninacomplexenvironment. Research
Policy, 24:521542.
Latham,M.1994. Constructingthe Team:Jointreviewofprocurement andcontractualarrangementsintheUK
constructionindustry(LathamReport).London:HMSO.

279

Lundvall,B..1999.Nationalbusinesssystemsandnationalsystemsofinnovation.InternationalStudiesof
ManagementandOrganization,29:6077.
Lundvall,B..,B.Johansson,E.SlothAndersenandB.Dalum.2002.Nationalsystemsofproduction,innovation
andcompetencebuilding. ResearchPolicy, 31:213231.
Malerba,F.2002.Sectoralsystemsofinnovationandproduction. ResearchPolicy, 31:247264.
Manseau,A.andSeaden,G.2001.InnovationinConstruction:Aninternationalreviewofpublicpolicies, New
York:SponPress.
Manser,J.E.1994. Economics:Afoundationcourseforthebuiltenvironment. London:E.&F.N.Spon.
Mytelka,L.K.2000.Localsystemsofinnovation inaglobalizedwordeconomy.IndustryandInnovation, 7:1532.
Nelson,R.R.andN.Rosenberg.1993.Technicalinnovationandnationalsystems.NationalInnovationSystems:A
comparativeanalysis, ed.R.R.Nelson.322.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Nightingal,P.2000.Theproductprocessorganisationrelationshipincomplexdevelopmentprojects.Research
Policy, 29:913930.
Nringsdepartementet.2000.FrnByggsekttillByggsektor.Stockholm:Nringsdepartementet.
OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment.1997. ProposedGuidelinesforCollectingand
InterpretingTechnologicalInnovationData OsloManual. Paris:OECD.
Park,Y.T.1999.Technologydiffusionpolicy:areviewandclassificationofpolicypractices.TechnologyinSociety,
21:275286.
Porter,M.E.1998.TheCompetitiveAdvantageofNations.NewYork:TheFreePress.
Qur,M.2004.Nationalsystemsofinnovationandnationalsystemsofcorporategovernance:amissinglink?
Econ.Innov.New Techn, 13:7790.
Senge,P.M.1999.Thefifthdiscipline:theartandpracticeofthelearningorganization.NewYork:Doubleday.
Slaughter,E.S.1998.Modelsofconstructioninnovation. JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,
124:226231.
Widn,K.2002. InnovationintheConstructionProcess:Atheoreticalframework.Lund:LTH.
Winch,G.1998.Zephyrsofcreativedestruction:understandingthemanagementofinnovationinconstruction.
BuildingResearchandInformation, 26:268279.
Winch,G.2000.ConstructionbusinesssystemsintheEuropeanUnion. BuildingResearchandInformation, 28:88
97.
Winch,G.M.2002.Globalconstructionbusinesssystems.BuildingResearchandInformation, 30:390391.

280

CHAPTER33

MeasuringtheTechnicalCompetenceof
RepeatPublicSectorConstruction
Clients
KarenManley
StephenMcFallan
INTRODUCTION
Technical competence is defined by Prahalad and Hamel (1990, 81) as the corporatewide technologies and
production skills that empower individual businesses to adapt quickly to changing opportunities. According to
Walsh and Linton (2002, 64), this is the most widely used definition in the literature. The focus on adaptability
throughtechnologiesandskillshighlightstheroleofinnovationinunderpinningtechnicalcompetence.Hence,this
chapter takes an innovationcentred view of technical competence, with it being defined here by four indicators:
R&D investment, innovation novelty, adoption of advanced practices, and innovation impact on business
effectiveness.TheseindicatorswereselectedfollowinganalysisoftheCommunityInnovationSurvey(CIS)which
isbasedontheOECDs OsloManual (OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment (OECD)1997).
The CIS wasimplementedin 1992, 1996and2001 by European Union member states (similar surveys have also
been implemented in Australia, Canada and New Zealand). The survey represents best practice in the design of
innovationindicators(Pattinson2003).
InviewofNamandTatums(1997,259)widelycitedresearchconclusionthattechnicalcompetenceisan
utmostprerequisiteforeffectiveleadershipforconstructioninnovation,theresearchquestiondrivingthisstudyis:
AreAustralianrepeatpublicsectorconstructionclientstechnicallycompetent?Theresultsreportonanimportant
elementoftheleadershippotentialofclients.

METHODS
The study covered nonresidential building and civil work, in the Australian states of New South Wales (NSW),
Victoria(Vic)andQueensland(Qld).Thesethreestateshavethehighestgrossstateproductacrossthesevenstates
and territories in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2005). The less than full coverage of the
Australianconstructionindustrywasdrivenbytimeandcostconstraints.
Descriptive statisticalmethods were employed to give an indication of the relative level of technical competence
heldbyrepeatpublicsectorclientscomparedwithothergroupsintheindustry.Theindustrywasdefinedbroadlyto
includefivegroupsmaincontractors,tradecontractors,consultants,suppliers,andclientsfromthepublicsector
whoundertake ongoingwork.
Data were collected via a largescale mail survey covering 38% of key construction organisations in the
population. Overall, 1317 questionnaires were distributed, with 383 useable responses returned, equating to a
responserateof29%,whichcanbeconsideredagoodresponseforavoluntarymailsurvey(Ling2003,642).The
highresponseratehelpstominimisenonresponsebias,andispartlytheresultofeffectivesampleandquestionnaire
design,asdescribedbySekaran(1992).Statisticaltestingalsoindicatednosignificantdifferencebetweenearlyand
late respondents, indicating the likely absence of nonresponse bias. Although the data is the result of self
assessment,whichmayhavebiasedestimatesoftechnicalcompetence upward,thisisunlikelytohaveimpactedthe
relativeperformanceofrespondents,whichisthekeytotheargumentpresentedhere.
The sampling unit was at organisational level. Key organisations were defined as government clients,
membersofeightselectedindustryassociations,andorganisationsappearingontheprequalificationlistsofclients.
Theassociationschosenforsurveyingwereidentifiedthroughanindustry workshopinBrisbanein2004asthose
thatmadethemostsignificantcontributiontoconstructionprojects.
The survey was distributed through the post, rather than electronically via email or the internet. The
electronicoptionsweredeemedtobesuboptimalfortheAustralianconstructionindustry,giventherelativelypoor
performanceofpreviouselectroniceffortscommunicatedbyCRCfor ConstructionInnovationresearchassociates
andprojectmanagers.Thesurveysweresenttothecontactpersonontheindustryassociationmembershiplistsand
governmentagencyprequalification lists. These people were mainly managers. For thegovernment clients, forms
weresenttomanagersinthecivilandbuildingagenciesofthethreestates.Theresultspresentedherearefromthe
survey questions on therelative technical competenceof clients, comparedto therest of theindustry. Table 33.1
showskeysurveydata.

281

Table33.1:KeySurveyData

Industrysector

No.
sent

Useable
no.back

Response
rate

Population Population
size
definition

Percent
sampled

Allsectors

1317

383

29%

3476

38%

1.MAINCONTRACTORS
Nonresidentialbuilding
contractors
Civilcontractors

300

93

31%

1122

32%

150

55

37%

740

Prequalifiedfirms 20%

Random

150

38

25%

382

Prequalifiedfirms 39%

Random

2.CONSULTANTS

409

130

32%

1549

150

48

32%

675

Prequalifiedfirms 22%

Random

150

52

35%

874

Random

109

30

28%

200

Prequalifiedfirms 17%
Firmlevel
association
55%
members

44

23

52%

44

Nonresidentialbuilding
consultants
Civilconsultants
Quantitysurveyors
3.CLIENTSPUBLIC
SECTOR*
Civil Qld

14

14
6

Sampling
method

26%

Random

100%
Districtdirectors
Regional
managers
Regional
managers
Keygovernment
clients

100%

Census

CivilNSW

CivilVic.

Nonresidentialbuilding Qld

NonresidentialbuildingVic.

11

4.TRADECONTRACTORS

236

74

31%

346

68%

Electricalandcommunication
contractors

172

48

28%

282

Majorassociation
61%
members

Census

Airconditioningand
mechanicalcontractors

64

26

41%

64

Majorassociation
100%
members

Census

5.SUPPLIERS

328

63

19%

415

Glass

150

23

15%

222

Allassociation
members

Clientresponseswere
notcodedforlocationor
sector.

6
7
11

Keygovernment
clients

100%

Census

100%
100%
100%

Census
Census
Census

79%
68%

Random

100%

Census
basedon
Yellow
Pages

100%

Census

Plaster

139

21

15%

139

Plaster/plaster
boardsuppliers/
manufacturers

Asphalt

26

15

58%

26

Allassociation
members

Steel

13

31%

28

Majorassociation
46%
members

Census

282

RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
Four technical competence indicators are reviewed here: R&D investment, innovation novelty, adoption of
advancedpractices,andinnovationimpactonbusinesseffectiveness.
Figure33.1:BusinessesInvestinginR&D,% ofSectoralRespondents,AustralianConstruction
Industry,2004
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Clients

Suppliers

Consultants

Main
Contractors

Trade
Contractors

Figure33.2:NewtoIndustryTechnologicalInnovation,% ofSectoralRespondents,Australian
ConstructionIndustry,2004
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Trade
Contractors

Clients

Suppliers

Main
Contractors

Consultants

Figure 33.1 shows that the client sector has the highest incidence of R&D investment, by number of
agencies/businesses investing, with at least twice the incidence compared to other sectors (ChiSq=23.14 df=4).
ThismayreflecttheemphasisplacedbyAustraliangovernmentclientagenciesontechnicaldevelopment,andthe
reversalinrecentyearsofdownsizinginthe1980sand1990s.Italsoarisesbecausetheclientpercentagescomeoff
alowbasewiththerebeingonly44clientorganisationsinthesurvey.Manyoftheseorganisationsweredistrict
officesintheroadsectorandtheresultsareinpartexplainedbytheirtriallingandtestingactivities.Theliterature
contains empirical evidence suggesting such internal R&D programs improve the ability to exploit external
knowledge sources (Gambardella 1992). Foray (1997) argues that R&D together with knowledge openness
improvesthe paceofinnovationacrossorganisations.
Figure33.2showsthattradecontractorsaremorelikelythanclientstodevelopinnovationsthatarenewto
the industry, although client performance exceeds that of all other sectors. The dominance of trade contractorsin
this measure may reflect their role in adapting existing broad ideas to fit the specific needs of the construction
industry.

283

Figure33.3:NewtoWorldTechnologicalInnovation,%ofSectoralRespondents,Australian
ConstructionIndustry,2004
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Consultants

Suppliers

Clients

Trade
Main
Contractors Contractors

Consultants(ChiSq=11.23df=4)andsuppliersaremorelikelytoimplementnewtotheworldinnovationthan
clients.Theseresultsarenotparticularlysurprising,assuppliersareknownfortheirabilitytocontinuallyinvestin
R&D, compared to projectbased organisations, such as contractors, while consultants are paid to generate new
ideas.Atthesametime,clientsarealsoshowntobestrongperformers.
Compared to trade contractors, suppliers and consultants, it may be that clientsinvest more inincremental
improvements,whichhavecumulativevaluewithoutbeinghighlynovel.Incrementalinnovationisconsideredinthe
literaturetobeakeycomponentoftechnicalcompetenceleadingtogrowthopportunitiesoftenasconsiderableas
thosearisingfrommoreradicalinnovation(Thorburn& Langdale2003).
Figure33.4:AverageNumberofAdvancesAdopted,bySector,AustralianConstructionIndustry,
2004
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Clients

Consultants

Main
Trade
Contractors Contractors

Suppliers

Figure33.4isbasedon20technologiesandadvancedpracticesintheconstructionindustrythatwerelistedinthe
survey,asshownbelowinTable33.2:

284

Table33.2:TechnologiesandAdvancedPracticesListedinSurvey
3DCAD
Alliancecontracts
Computernetworks(LANorWAN)
Computerisedprojectmanagement
Computerisedsystemsforestimating,inventorycontrol,modelling,assetanalysis,projectmanagement,etc.
Designandconstructcontracts
Design/build/fund/operate(DBFO)contractsorpublicprivatepartnerships(PPPs)
Digitalphotography
Documentationoftechnological/organisationalimprovementsdevelopedbyyourbusiness
Intelligentsystems
Longtermcollaborativearrangementswithotherbusinesses
Managingcontractor
Onlineremoteconstructionmanagement
Partneringonprojects,orotherrelationshipformsofcontract
Qualitycertification(e.g.ISO9000)
Risksharing/performanceincentivecontracts
Stafftrainingbudget
Website
Writtenevaluationofnewideasinordertodevelopoptionsforyourbusiness
Writtenstrategicplan

TheseadvancesrepresentanupdatedversionofthoseemployedbyStatisticsCanadaintheirlargescaleinnovation
surveyconductedin1999(Anderson &Schaan2001).Theirlistwasmodifiedinviewof findingsfromanexpert
focusgroupworkshopcomprisingseniorclientrepresentatives,conductedinBrisbanein2004.
Client performance in terms of the average number of advances adopted exceeds that of the other sectors.
Thisresult,inconjunctionwithclientsstrongR&Dperformance,supportsthefindingsoftheabsorptioncapacity
literature, that internal R&D capacity provides the capability necessary to successfully adopt and modify
innovationsthathavebeendevelopedexternally(Cohen& Levinthal1990).
The survey also measured the impact of each organisations most successful innovation between 2002 and
2004.Figure33.5showsthatclientsweremorelikelytohavehadasignificantorgreatimpactfrominnovationon
effectiveness/profitabilitythanothersectors,althoughonlymarginallysocomparedtotradecontractors.Thefinding
thattradecontractorsachievegoodresultsfrominnovation,yetare theleastlikelysectortoinvestinR&D,supports
findingsintheliteraturethatdespitethestronghistoricalfocusonR&D,itisonlyoneofmanyfactorsthatinfluence
innovationoutcomes.
The relevant survey question asked businesses about profitability, and government agencies about
effectiveness, as the agencies are not interested in profit. This difference may have biased the client results
upwardcomparedtothehurdlepresentedtobusinesses,yetthevalueprovidedbyinnovationtoclientsissignificant
regardless,withover20%ofagenciesreapingasignificantorgreatimpactoneffectiveness.
In summary, theR&D and adoptioninnovation measuresreveal clientsto be the dominant performers
comparedtotheothergroups,whiletheothertwomeasuresnoveltyandeffectiveness/profitabilityalsoshow
strongclientperformance.
Figure33.5:BusinessesAchievingSignificantorGreatImpactonEffectiveness/Profitabilityfrom
Innovation,%ofSectoralRespondents,AustralianConstructionIndustry,2004
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Clients

Trade
Consultants
Main
Contractors
Contractors

Suppliers

285

CONCLUSIONS
Understanding the level of technical competence held by repeat clients in the construction industry is of great
importancetothefutureoftheindustry.ThepredominantviewofcontemporaryanalystsinAustraliaandoverseas,
fromacademiaandwithintheindustry,isthatclientleadershipisthekeytoimprovingindustryperformance(Gyles
1992CIDA1995Nam&Tatum1997NatBACC1999Gann2000PWC2002Cole2002DISR2004Briscoe
etal.2004).Technicalcompetenceisanimportantinputtoeffectiveclientleadership(Nam & Tatum1997).
Such leadership is seen to be essential for greater integration of the supply chain and part of an effective
responsetotheproblemsconfrontingtheindustry.YetIvory(2005)cautionsustoadoptacriticalapproachtoclient
leadership.Clientsarenotautomaticallygoodleaders.Theyneedtobewillingtoassumesucharoleandtheyneed
tobecapableofeffectivelyexecutingit.Boththeseissuesareproblematic.Manyrepeatpublicsectorclientspoint
to the manufacturing industry and the apparent lack of client leadership there. Why should they assume such
responsibility? The answer lies in the size, complexity and uniqueness of construction projects. In general,
constructionclientshavealotmorepoweroversuppliersthanhave consumersofmanufacturedgoods.AsNamand
Tatum(1997,263)note,
Whereasinmanufacturing,thebuyersroletakesthegenerallypassiveformofmarketdemands,
intheconstructionindustrytheroleofthebuyer(i.e.owner)isgenerallymoreactive.Ratherthan
beingjustbuyersoffinishedproducts,owners,particularlyinthebuildingandheavysectorsofthe
constructionindustry,areoftenmajorparticipantsintheprojects.
Further research may be necessary to convince construction clients that they have a legitimate role to play in
industrydevelopment.
The second requirement for effective client leadership is that clients are able to assume such a role. A
prominent consideration in this respect is the clients level of technical competence (Ivory 2005). The research
reportedherehasshownthatAustralianrepeatpublic sectorclients(fornonresidentialandcivilwork,inNSW,Qld
andVic.)haveahighleveloftechnicalcompetencecomparedwithothergroupsintheconstructionindustry.This
finding,combinedwiththeestablishedlinksbetweentechnicalcompetenceandeffectiveinnovationleadership,will
benefit government client agencies seeking to protect and extend their resourcing levels. This research also has
immediate benefits in giving the construction industry more confidence in the quality of leadership shown by
governmentclients.
The findings of the present study reliably represent the population studied, given the robust sample size,
subsector distribution and response rate. However, further research would be necessary to investigate client
competenceintheotherAustralianstatesandtheresidentialconstructionsector.Additionally,itmightbeinteresting
to compare technical competence in the civil and building sectors in future work, to draw out differences. The
currentstudyalsoprovidesthebasis forfurtherresearchexaminingthelinkbetweenthetechnicalcompetenceof
clients and industry perceptions of client leadership. Finally, the evidence that trade contractors reap significant
benefits from innovation, in the absence of significant investment in R&D, may reflect the importance of non
technicalinnovationanddeservesfurtherstudy.
Readers interested in the drivers of technical competence, particularly when it is defined as innovation
capacity,are referredtoManleyandMcFallan(2005).Thatstudyfoundthatinvestinginresearchanddevelopment,
protectingintellectualpropertyandbusinessnetworkingwereimportanttogrowcompetence.Differencesbetween
clients,contractors,consultantsandsuppliersintermsofinnovationcapacityareexaminedinManley(2005),asare
linkages between supplychain partners and the research infrastructure. Nevertheless, there is scope for further
researchontheeffectivenessofdifferentmeansofdiffusingoutcomesfromresearchinstitutionstotheindustry.

REFERENCES
AustralianBureauofStatistics.2005. Australian National Accounts:State accounts.Canberra:AustralianBureauof
Statistics.
Anderson,F. andS.Schaan.2001.Innovation,AdvancedTechnologiesandPracticesintheConstructionand
RelatedIndustries:Nationalestimates. Canada:StatisticsCanada.
Briscoe,G.H.,A.R.J.Dainty,S.J.MillettandR.H.Neale.2004.Clientledstrategiesforconstructionsupplychain
improvement. ConstructionManagementandEconomics,22(2):193201.
ConstructionIndustryDevelopmentAuthority.1995.Aconstructionindustrystrategy.JournalofProjectand
ConstructionManagement,1(2).CIDA.
CohenW.andD.Levinthal.(1990)Absorptivecapacity:anewperspectiveonlearningandinnovation.
AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, 35(1):128152.
Cole,T.2003. FinalReportoftheRoyalCommissionintotheBuildingandConstructionIndustry:Summaryof
findingsandrecommendations,volume1 (ColeRoyalCommissionReport).Canberra:AGPS.
DepartmentofIndustry,ScienceandResources.2004.BuildingandConstructionIndustriesActionAgenda
EvaluationReport.Canberra:DISR.

286

Foray,D.1997.Generationanddistributionoftechnologicalknowledge:incentives,normsandinstitutions. Systems
ofInnovation: Technologies, institutionsandorganisations,ed.C.Edquist.6485.London:Pinter.
Gambardella,A.1992.Competitiveadvantagesfrominhousescientificresearch:theUSpharmaceuticalindustryin
the1980s. ResearchPolicy,21:391407.
Gann,D.2000. BuildingInnovation:Complexconstructsinachangingworld.London:Telford.
Gyles,R.1992. RoyalCommissionintoProductivity intheBuildingIndustryinNewSouthWales.Sydney:AGPS.
Ivory,C.2005.Thecultofcustomerresponsiveness:isdesigninnovationthepriceofaclientfocusedconstruction
industry? ConstructionManagement&Economics,23(8):861870.
Ling,F.2003.Managingtheimplementationofconstructioninnovations. ConstructionManagementand
Economics, 21: 635649.
Manley,K.2005. BRITEInnovationSurvey.Brisbane:CRCforConstructionInnovation.
Manley,K.andS.McFallan.2005.Theimpactofbusinessstrategiesandbusinessconditionsoninnovation.
CreatinganEntrepreneurialEconomy:Theroleofenterpriseandinnovation,internationalresearchconference.
UniversityofWaikato,Hamilton,NewZealand,7 8July.
Nam,C.andC.Tatum.1997.Leadersandchampionsforconstructioninnovation. ConstructionManagementand
Economics,15(3):259270.
NatBACC.1999. ReportforGovernmentbytheNationalBuildingandConstructionCommittee.
http://www1.industry.gov.au/library/content_library/BCNatBACC.pdf (accessed2September2005).
OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment.1997. ProposedGuidelinesforCollectingand
InterpretingTechnologicalInnovationData(OsloManual).Paris:OECD.
Pattinson,W.2002. DevelopingaStrategyforInnovationStatistics/EstablishingUserRequirements.Canberra:
AustralianBureauofStatistics.
Prahalad,C.andG.Hamel.1990.Thecorecompetenceofthecorporation.HarvardBusinessReview,3:7991.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers.2002. InnovationintheAustralianBuildingandConstructionIndustry:Surveyreport.
Canberra:AustralianConstructionIndustryForum.
Sekaran,U.1992. ResearchMethodsforBusiness.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Thorburn,L.andJ.Langdale.2003. EmbracingChange:CasestudiesonhowAustralianfirmsuseincremental
innovation tosupportgrowth.Sydney:DepartmentofIndustry,TourismandResources,AdvanceConsultingand
Evaluation,andMacquarieUniversity.
Walsh,S.andJ.Linton.2002.Themeasurementoftechnicalcompetencies.TheJournalofHighTechnology
ManagementResearch,13:6386.

287

CHAPTER34

UnderstandingtheInnovationAdoption
ProcessofConstructionClients
AndreasHartmann
GeertDewulf
IsabelleReymen
INTRODUCTION
Recentresearchshowsthatinnovationforconstructionfirms,similarly tootherindustries,offerstheopportunityto
enhance performance, gain higher profits and attain competitive advantages over respective rivals (Ling 2003
Sexton&Barrett2003Seadenetal.2003).However,thecommonperceptionofconstructionisthatofanotvery
innovativeindustry.Indeed,comparedtoothersectors,constructionstruggleswithaslowdiffusionofnewproducts,
processesandservices(Reichsteinetal2005).Severalstudieshaveaimedatrevealingthereasonsforthislowrate
of innovation adoption. The projectbased character of construction has been identified as a major barrier to an
increaseddiffusionspeed(Pries&Janszen 1995Winch1998Gann&Salter 2000).Althoughprojectsallowthe
directed allocation of resources to meet the specific requirements of clients, their oneoff nature leads to
discontinuitiesinthedevelopmentandtransferofknowledge withinandbetweenorganisations(Dubois&Gadde
2002).Theprojectbasedcharacterofconstructionresultsadditionallyinafragmentedanddecentralisedstructureof
theindustryexpressedthroughagreatnumberofsmallfirmsfromdifferenttradesandprofessions.Assoonasan
innovative solution exceeds the level of being incremental and becomes systemic, the implementation of such a
solutionusuallyrequirestheinvolvementandatleastthecommitmentofarangeofprojectpartiesthatpossesstheir
own logic, language and interests (Slaughter 2000 Taylor & Levitt 2004). Here the role of clients seems to be
essential.Constructionclientsareabletostimulateinnovationnotonlybydeterminingbuildingspecificationsand
demandinghigherbuildingandprocessperformance,butalsobyestablishingandcontrollingthemechanismsthat
accountfortheextentofcollaborationandcommunicationofprojectparticipants(Blayse&Manley2004Dewick
& Miozzo2004). Moreover,a clientsrisksharing, commitmentto innovation andleadershipin project planning
andexecutionisconsideredtobevitalforthesuccessfulimplementationofconstructioninnovation(Nam&Tatum
1997). However, strong client leadership does not necessarily result in innovative projects. Quite contrarily, it is
arguedthatinnovativeconstructionprojectsledbytheclientareexceptionsratherthanthenormduetothedesireof
clientstoavoidtherisksassociatedwithinnovativesolutions(Ivory2005).
Despite the ambiguous role clients seem to play for the diffusion of innovation in construction,up tonow
littleresearchhasbeendoneontheirinnovationadoption behaviour.Morespecifically,notmuchisknownabout
the process that forms their attitude towards innovation and leads to the decision to implement a new idea. This
chapterreportsonanongoingresearchproject,theaimofwhichistoshedmorelightonthatsomewhatneglected
butimportanttopic.Mainquestionsthattheresearchtriestoanswerinclude:
Howdoestheinnovationadoptionprocessofconstructionclientstakeplace?
Howcantheprocessbeimprovedsothatinnovationdiffusioninconstructionisaccelerated?
The intention of this chapter is to develop a conceptual framework describingtheinnovationadoption process of
constructionclients.Thefocusoftheframeworkisonthefirstprocessphasesleadingtothedecisiontoadoptornot
toadoptanewidea.Furthermore,thechapterpresentstheresultsofafirstcasestudythatcoverstheimplementation
ofatemporaryconstructionforthemaintenanceofamotorwaybridge.Carryingoutthecasestudy,andanalysing
anddiscussingthefindingsarebasedonthedevelopedframework.

THEORETICALBACKGROUND
Although there is a large body of knowledge on innovation diffusion, investigations on innovation diffusion in
constructionarescarce.Thus,ourtheoreticalconsiderationsdepartfromtheworkofRogerswhichhasservedasthe
basis of many surveys and which has constantly been developed further (Larsen 2005). Our thoughts are
summarisedinaconceptualframeworkforthefirstthreephasesoftheinnovationadoptionprocessofconstruction
clients,depictedinFigure34.1andexplainedinthenextsections.

288

Figure34.1:ConceptualFrameworkoftheInnovationAdoptionProcessofConstructionClients
CommunicationCharacteristics
Source
Mode
Quality

Environmental
Context

PerceivedInnovationAttributes

Characteristics
ConstructedFacility
ClientInvolvement
ProjectConstraints

Organisational
Context

RelativeAdvantage
Compatibility
Complexity
Trialability
Observability

Experienceand
Competence
CultureandStrategy
SocialNetwork

Technological
Context
Knowledge

Persuasion

Decision

DegreeofNewness
PreviousUse
Readinessfor
Application

AdoptionProcess

Communicationandperceptionofinnovationattributes
Rogers(2003,5)definesdiffusionasaprocessinwhichaninnovationiscommunicatedthroughcertainchannels
overtimeamongthemembersofasocialsystem.Thediffusionspeedismeasuredasthenumberofmembersof
thesystemwhoadopttheinnovationinagiventimeperiod.Thus,diffusionmayalsobeconsideredasaseriesof
adoptions.Throughtheseprocesses,
anindividual(orotherdecisionmakingunit)passesfromfirstknowledgeofaninnovation,tothe
formationofanattitudetowardtheinnovation,toadecisiontoadoptorreject,toimplementation
anduseofthenewidea,andtoconfirmationofthisdecision(Rogers2003,20).
Consequently, five stages may be used to conceptualise the adoption process: (1) knowledge (2) persuasion (3)
decision (4) implementation, and (5) confirmation (Rogers 2003). It should be noted that such conceptualisation
simplifiesrealitytoacertainextent.Innovationrelatedactivitiesnormallydonotfollowasequentialpathwaybut
continue along a nonlinear cycle of feedback and feedforward loops (Tornatzky and Fleischer 1990). In the
followingourfocusisonthefirstthreephases.
Thefirststepoftheadoptionprocessaimsatseekingandprocessinginformationtoreducetheuncertainty
abouttheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofaninnovation.Thelikelihoodofadoptionincreasesifbenefitsandvalues
ofanewproductorserviceexceedthatofalternatives.Thus,thecharacteristicsofinformationexchangebetween
membersofasocialsystemareseentosubstantiallyinfluencetheadoptionbehaviouroftheindividualadopterand,
consequently, the adoptionrate (Nilakanta &Scamell 1998 Lee et al. 2002). More precisely, the communication
characteristicswithinasocialsystemstronglyaffect whether aninnovationbecomesknowntoapotentialadopter
andhowthisorganisationorindividualperceivestheattributesoftheinnovativesolution(Frambach& Schillewaert
2002).Thatis,itispossibletodistinguishbetweeninformationleadingtotheawarenessthatanewideaexistsand
information explaining the function and usage of this idea (Attewell 1992 Rogers 2003). The former is a
prerequisite for triggering the adoption process or reaching the knowledge stage. Unless potential adopters know
aboutaninnovationanditspossiblebenefits,thenewideaisunlikelytobeimplemented.Thelatterisvitaltoattain
afavourableattitudetowardsaninnovation.Understandingthefunctionalprinciplesofanewideaandthewayto
useitproperlyincreasesthe likelihoodofadoption,astheadopterismoreabletojudgetheeffectivenessoftheidea
(Attewell1992Rogers2003).Consequently,theperceptionofinnovationattributesaffectstheevaluationofanew
idea and thelikelihood of its adoption. Besides the relative advantage of covering economic and social benefits,
Rogers (2003) has extracted four other innovation characteristics that may explain adoption behaviour:
compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. Compatibility refers to the consistency of an innovation
with existing values, past experiences, and needs of a potential adopter. The extent to which an innovation is
difficulttounderstandanduseiscoveredbyits complexity.Whetheraninnovationmay beexperimentedwith is

289

embodied in its trialabilty. Finally, observability is the degree to which the outcomes of an innovation become
visibleforothers.
Communication characteristics that are seen to play a crucial role in raising awareness and developing
perception of innovation attributes include the source, the mode and the quality of communication (Mohr &
Spekman 1994 Agarwal & Prasad 1998 Lee et al. 2002). Main sources of information encompass stakeholders
such as clients, suppliers or business partners, independent third parties such as government agencies or research
institutions,andpersonalsourcessuchasfriendsornearpeers(Souitaris1999Leeetal.2002).Leeetal.(2002)
differentiate between two modes of communication, written and oral. Written communication uses print media,
lettersoremails,whereasoralcommunicationmayoccurviatelephoneorfacetoface(Leeetal.2002).Itisargued
that interpersonal contacts and wordofmouth communication have a greater effect on the development of
perceptions, whereas mass media and written information better facilitate the creation of awareness (Agarwal &
Prasad1998Leeetal.2002Rogers2003).Weassumethatthequalityofcommunication,thatisaspectssuchas
theaccuracy,timeliness,adequacyandcredibilityofinformation(Mohr& Spekman1994),alsoaffecttheperceived
attributes.

Thecontextofinnovationadoption
Both factors, communication characteristics and perception of innovation attributes, indicate that the adoption
processisnestedwithinaspecificsocialcontextorsystem.Wearguethattheadoptionbehaviourofconstruction
clients may be mainly traced back to the links between context, communication and perception. That is, which
sources of information are appropriate or how certain attributes are perceived depends on a range of contextual
factors that may be assigned to three context levels: the environment, the organisation and the technology
(Tornatzky& Fleischer 1990). We now discuss factors of the different context levels that we expect to strongly
influencetheattitudeofconstructionclientstowardsinnovation.
On the environmental level we assume that first of all the projectbased nature of construction affects a
clients adoption behaviour. In construction the client normally initiates design and production of a new facility.
Fromthisitfollowsthattheadoptionprocessisalwaysconnectedwiththeconstructionprocessandmaybetotally
embedded withintheconstructionproject.Thatis,theclientbecomesawareofanewideaduringthecourse ofa
project,ifforexampleaconstructionfirmsuggestsanalternativesolution.Heretheinvolvementoftheclientinthe
construction process seems to be important in order to ensure that the client is able to come to a decision by
understanding the innovation. If the development process of a new solution starts independently from a specific
projectorinadvanceofanupcomingproject,theinvolvementofpotentialclientsmayalsoincreasethelikelihood
ofquickeradoption.Inthiscasetheclientgetsfirstknowledgeofanideabeforetheprojectisinitiated.Also,the
persuasionanddecisionstagesmayhavealreadytakenplace.Theimplementation,ofcourse,ispartoftheproject,
buttheprojectcanbeexplicitlyplannedwithregardtotheinnovationtobeapplied.
Thelinkbetweenadoptionandconstructionprocesssuggeststhattheconstraintsofaproject(such astime
and budget) affect the adoption process, too. This effect can be conducive (restricted timerequires an innovative
solution)orobstructive(restrictedtimedoesnotallow aninnovativesolutiontodevelop).
Thecharacteristicsoftheconstructedfacilitiesmayhaveanadditionalinfluenceonadoptionbehaviourorthe
perceptionofinnovationattributes.Afirstcharacteristicisthecomplexityofafacility.Themoreafacilityconsists
of different and highly interacting components, the more an innovation may create perturbations throughout the
whole system (Slaughter 1998) and the more a client will face difficulties in understanding and evaluating the
functioningandeffectsofsuchasystemchange.Asecondcharacteristicisthelifespanofaconstructedfacility.The
longerafacilityisintendedtobeused,themoreaninnovationhastobeassessednotonly withintheinstallation
context,butalsooveralongertimeperiod(Slaughter1998).Thentheadvantageshavetooutweightheprobability
of modifying and repairing the innovation comprehensively at a later time. This is intensified through the
transportability of a constructed facility as the third characteristic. The less a facility can be fabricated and
assembled offsite, the less the conditions for implementing an innovation can be controlled (Slaughter 1998).
Moreover,withalowdegreeoftransportabilitythedegreetowhichaninnovationmaybetestedisalsolow.Alast
characteristic that might influence the adoption behaviour of construction clients is social responsibility, which
resultsinawiderangeofcodesandregulations(Nam&Tatum1988).Thatis,codesandregulationsmaydiminish
the advantage of a new idea through timeconsuming and costintensive activities to prove the reliability of an
innovationandtoestablishnewcodesandregulations.
Ontheorganisationallevelweexpecttheexperienceandcompetenceoftheclienttohaveagreateffecton
communicationandperceivedinnovationattributes.Themore thatclientshave carriedoutconstructionprojects,the
moretheyareabletodistinguishbetweendifferentsolutions,toformulatespecificrequirementsonthesolution,to
minimise risks, to apply systematic methods of evaluating solutions or to get access to certain sources of
information.Thus,thecomplexity ofaninnovationwillbelowerforanexperiencedandcompetentclient,whois
alsobetterabletojudgetherelativeadvantageofthenewidea.ThisisunderpinnedbyfindingsofNamandTatum
(1997,265)whoconcludethattheabilitytounderstandthetechnologyusuallyalleviatestheconservativeattitude
and sometimes even leads to an unusually progressive stance. Such clients maintain their competence through

290

differentmeans,includinginternalconstructionmanagementgroups,internalR&Dordesignprojects,orlongterm
relationshipswiththesamedesignerorcontractor(Nam&Tatum1997).Althoughsuchmeansincreasethecapacity
of clients to obtain and evaluate information and, consequently, result in faster learning, they do not necessarily
implyafasteradoption.Itcouldbefoundthatagreaterinformationcapacityalsoleadstomorestringentadoption
criteria(Jensen1988).
Apartfromability,weassumethatwillingnesstoinnovateaffectstheadoptionbehaviour,too.Construction
clients who show a notably innovationoriented culture and strategy are more likely to come to a favourable
innovationdecision,asaninnovativeconstructionalsolutionwillbemorecompatiblewiththeirexistingvaluesand
norms.Thisincludesthewillingnesstolearnfromthesuccessandfailureofpastprojects.Manyreviewstakethe
formofanexerciseinblameaccounting andintryingtocoverupmistakesandproblems(Tiddetal.2005).The
preparednesstoinnovationisalsoreflectedinthesocialnetworkaclientmaintains,whichmayfacilitatethespread
ofinformation.
Onthetechnologicalleveltheinfluenceoncommunicationandperceptionismostobvious.Dependingonthe
degree of newness, the perceived innovation attributes andthe used information sources may differ considerably.
According to Slaughter (2000) five categories of innovations withregard to their changesin conceptandlinks to
othersystemscanbedistinguished:incremental,architectural,modular,system,andradicalinnovations.Weassume
thatthemoreanewidearepresentsachangeofexistingconceptsandsystemlinks,themorecomplexityincreases
andtrialabiltydecreases.Forexample,anincrementalinnovationisasmallimprovementincurrentpracticeandhas
no impactoronlysmallimpactsonotherpartsofthesystem(Slaughter2000).Thus,functioningandusageareeasy
to understand and the advantages can be mostly demonstrated, as the change is restricted toa single component.
Directly opposed are system innovations defined as a setof complementary innovations which work together to
providenewattributesorfunctions(Slaughter2000,3).Heretheinnovationismoredifficulttocomprehendandits
trialabilityislimited.
Giventhis,wealsoassumethatwithanincreaseddegreeofnewness,previoususagebecomesimportantfor
the adoption behaviour of construction clients.The more an innovation was already implemented in projects, the
greateritsobservabilityand,provideditwasasuccess,thehighertheprobabilitythatitwillalsoimplementedin
futureprojects.
Projectconstraintscan alsoinhibittheconsiderationofanewidea.Forexample,theremaynotbe enough
resourcesavailabletodeveloptheideatobereadyforapplicationortotestthenewsolutioncomprehensively.That
is,themoreaninnovationisreadyforimplementation,themorelikelyisitsadoption.

EMPIRICALRESEARCH
Researchdesign
To study the innovationadoption process of construction clients a recent major innovative project in the
Netherlandshas been analysed in depth. Owing to the large number of potential variables influencinginnovation
andtheimpactofsituationalcharacteristicswechoseacasestudyapproach.Theinnovationprojectinvestigatedis
partofamultiplecasestudy,theresultsofwhichwillbepublishedelsewhere.
Datawerecollectedthroughsemistructuredinterviewsanddocumentationswhichreportontheinnovation
application.Interviewswere conductedwiththefirmswhichdevelopedandtheclientwhoappliedthenewsolution.
Theconceptualframeworkprovidedthebasisfordevelopingthequestionsandanalysingthedata.

Casestudyofabridgeflyover
The bridge flyover is a temporary bridge used to maintain the traffic flow during the maintenance of the
Rotteviaduct, a bridge on the A20 which is one of the most frequented motorways in the Netherlands. Although
temporary bridges have been applied in different projects all over the world, this was the first time that such a
construction was implemented in a project in the Netherlands. That is, for both the client, a regional highway
department,andthecontractor,amediumsizedfirmspecialisedinconcreteconstruction,thesolutiontospanthe
constructionsitewithatemporarybridgewasnew.
Thesolutionitselfrepresentsaprocessinnovation.Byusingthebridgeflyover,thecontractor couldrenew
thebridgejointswithoutanymajorrestraintswhilethetrafficwasproceeding.Thatpreventedlargeandnumerous
trafficjams.Moreover,themaintenanceworkcouldbedonecontinuouslyduringtheday,whichpositivelyaffected
theworkquality.Becauseofheavytrafficsuchworknormally requiresnightworkandclosingatleastsomelanes.
Consequentlyonlysmallsegmentsofworkcanbedone,andfinishingtheworkmaytakealongtime.Itbecomes
obvious that the application of a temporary bridge leads to a newly organised maintenance process. Thus, the
solutioncanalsobeclassifiedasanarchitecturalinnovationchangingthelinkingmechanismsoftheconstruction
process,butthesingleactivities remainnearlyunchanged.
Due to his awareness that common ways of carrying out bridge maintenance would not lead to satisfying
trafficwisesolutionsfortheRotteviaduct,theclientstartedtosearchforalternatives.Asthehighwaydepartmentis

291

partofapublicorganisationcentralisedonthenationallevelwithitsownengineeringcapacities,aninternalexpert
forbridgejointsinthisengineeringdepartmentknewthattemporaryconstructionswereappliedinsimilarworkin
other countries. Thus, the decision was made to tender the project explicitly for a temporary construction. To
prepare the tender, an internal project team was composed including the project manager from the regional
department,theexpertfromtheengineeringdepartment,andexpertsfortrafficandcontractissues.Theaimwasto
formulatealltherequirementstobefulfilledandyettoincorporateflexibilityforthecontractorinordertofindan
optimal solution. Decisive requirements encompassed a maximalpermanent load of 200 kg/m2,the suitability for
workingloadsanormalbridgeisdesignedfor,andsufficientworkspaceunderthebridge.Particularly,therestricted
weight of the bridge appeared to be a challenge for manufacturers of steel bridges. The contractor reported that
Dutchfirmsforsteelbridgeswerenotabletoofferasolutionthatcouldmeettheneededweight.Apartnerfirmin
SwitzerlandprovidedthecontractorwithasuitablesolutionalreadyadaptedforbridgemaintenanceinAustria.Both
theDutchcontractorandtheSwissengineeringfirmestablishedajointventurewhichrentedthetemporarybridgeto
thecontractor.Thatis,thecontractorexpectedtoapplythebridgeinupcomingmaintenanceprojects.Thefactthat
thebridgedidnothavetobeamortisedinoneprojectfavouredthecontractorfortheproject.
After the tender a detailed plan for applying the temporary bridge was necessary. Here the internal
engineeringdepartmentoftheclientandtheAustrianbridgemanufacturerworkedcloselytogether.Intermsofan
iterativeprocesstheengineeringdepartmentconcretisedtherequirementsandcheckedtheirfulfilmentwithregard
totheconstructionalsolutionproposedbythebridgemanufacturer.Thiswasessentialassomeofthedesigncodes
forbridgeconstructionsdifferbetweentheNetherlandsandAustria.Finally,theengineeringdepartmenttookonthe
roleofaninternalconsultancyfortheregionaldepartmentapprovingthepracticabilityofthetemporarybridge.

Discussionofmainfindings
The bridge flyovercase explainshowvariablesinourconceptualframeworkarelinkedup.
An important finding is that, not surprisingly, the persuasion and the decision to adopt the innovation are
stronglyinfluencedbytheperceptionaboutpotentialadvantagesofthetemporarybridge.However,moreinteresting
arethecontextualfactorsthatledtotheperceptionofapplyingafavourablesolutionandthatspecifiedthewaysof
communicatingtheseadvantages.
Ontheenvironmentalcontextlevel,projectconstraints,especiallythetrafficsituation,promptedtheclientto
lookforanunconventionalsolution.Withoutsuchasolutioneitherthebridgelaneswouldhavehadtobeclosed
completelyforacertaintimeortheworkwouldhavehadtobedoneduringthenight.Theformerwouldhaveledto
unacceptabletrafficblocks,thelattertoalongermaintenanceperiodwithreducedqualityandrestrictionsonnoise
level. The bridge flyover promised to ensure a constant traffic flow and operations during the day, which
simultaneouslywouldalloweachjointtoberenewedatonce.Thisresultedinshorterconstructiontime,lesstraffic
disturbance and increased joint quality compared to common ways of organising such maintenance work. It
becomesapparentthattherecognitionofaproblemwhichcannotbeadequatelysolvedwithexistingsolutionsisa
strongtriggerforthedevelopmentofanattitudetowardsinnovativeideas.
On the technological context level the use of similar solutions in other projects was beneficial to the
innovationadoption,too.Ontheonehandthatledtoknowledgeinadvanceoftheprojectthatsolutionsexistwhich
mightbeabletomeettheprojectconstraintsappropriately.Ontheotherhandthetechnical,contractualandtraffic
relatedconsiderationsdirectedtotheapplicationofsuchexistingsolutionseasedthetenderprocedureandformeda
positive attitude towards the innovation before the project started. Moreover, during the tender phase technical
documentsandDVDsofformerapplicationsthecontractorprovidedcouldconvincetheclienttofinallyadoptthe
solution.Itcanbestatedthattheprevioususeofsimilarconstructionsnotonlyrepresentedthesourceoftheideabut
also led to a positive adoption decision by increasing the perceived relative advantages and observability, and
decreasingtheperceivedcomplexity.Thedisseminationandavailabilityofappropriateinformationaboutprevious
useofsimilarsolutionscontributedsubstantiallytomakingafavourableadoptiondecision.
However,anotherfactorofthetechnologicalcontextlevelsloweddowntheadoptionprocess:thereadiness
forapplication.Duetotechnicalregulationstherewasnotemporarybridgeimmediatelyapplicable.Asachanged
structural design was needed and there was no possibility to test this newly designed bridge in advance, at the
beginningtheregionaldepartmentwaslessconvincedthatatemporarybridgewouldbepracticable.
Thiseffectwaspartlycompensatedthroughafactoroftheorganisationalcontextlevel:theaccesstointernal
technical expertise which supported the development of the needed confidence. The engineering department not
onlyprovidedtheideabutalsoformulatedrequirementsandevaluatedalternatives.Theease ofpersonalcontacts
and internal discussions facilitated the comprehension of the solution and reduced the uncertainty about its
advantageousness.Moreover,thefindingssuggestthatinternalcompetencesfosteredthecommunicationqualitydue
to the common organisational and cultural basis on which cooperation and information exchange took place.
However, it remains to be seen whether the ongoing reorganisation of public clients and the outsourcing of
engineeringcompetenceswillaffectthefutureinnovation behaviourandwhetheracomparableorganisationaland
culturalcontextcanbeestablished.

292

Our case study revealed an additional factor of the environmental context which we did not consider in our
conceptualframework.Thebridgeflyoverasaprocessandarchitecturalinnovationshowsthatthecharacteristicsof
theconstructionprocessmayalsodeterminetheadoptionbehaviour.Astheconstructionprocessitselftookplace
whilethetrafficcontinued,thenewwayoforganisingtheconstructionprocessparticularlyhadtotakeintoaccount
possible impacts on safety, health and wellbeing of road users as well as construction workers. How road users
wouldreacttothechangedsituationandthesortofworkingconditionsthatwouldbepresentunderthetemporary
bridge were questions the client was confronted with. Similar to the constructed facility the construction process
carries a certain degree of social responsibility, which may demand strict safety or environmental codes or
regulationsusedbytheclienttoassessinnovativeideas.Thatis,themoreaconstructedfacilityortheconstruction
process showssocialresponsibilityandthemoreanideachangesexistingstructures,themoretheideashouldbe
consideredintheearlyphasesorinadvanceofaprojectinordertoprovidesufficientresourcestomeetconditions.

CONCLUSION
Clientsareregardedasplaying animportantroleinstimulatingconstructioninnovation.Thischapterreportedonan
ongoing research project which aims to shed more light on the adoption behaviour of construction clients. The
chapter built up the conceptual framework that we use to investigate, analyse and discuss different cases of
innovationadoption.Furthermore,itpresentedthemainfindingsofoneofthesecases.
Thus far we can conclude that the innovationadoption process of construction clients is first of all a
communication process. The communication characteristics account for the awareness of an innovation. On the
otherhand, they affect the perception of innovation attributes, which affects the evaluation of new ideas and the
likelihoodoftheiradoption.Communicationcharacteristicsandperceptionofinnovationattributesarebothlinked
with the context of the adoption process. That is, several factors of the environmental, organisational and
technological context determine the way communication takes place and innovation attributes are perceived. Our
casestudyabouttheadoptionofatemporarybridgeidentifiedprojectconstraints,previoususeofsimilarsolutions,
internalcompetencesandthesocialresponsibilityoftheconstructionprocessasmostimportantcontextualfactors.
Based on our theoretical and empirical findings, the innovationadoption process of construction clients
improves if clients first betterrecognise and understand the problem an innovative idea is intended to solve, The
availabilityofinternalexpertiseseemstobebeneficialforthequalityofthiscommunicationprocess.Additionally,
the low trialability of construction innovations particularly with higher innovation degrees makes references to
similar solutions in previous projects vital. For amore accelerated diffusion, improved spread and availability of
informationaboutappliedideasisrequired.Thisincludesnotonlytechnicaldocumentationbutalsovisualmaterial
whichisespeciallysuitableforformingperceptionsabouttherelativeadvantageandcomplexityoftheinnovation.
Furthermore, an early consideration of ideas with considerably structural changes eitherinadvance or atan early
stageofaprojectensuresthatsafetyandenvironmentalconditionscanbemet.Themoregeneralimplicationofour
researchisthatdifferentadoptionstrategiesarerequireddependentonthenatureoftheinnovationandthecontext
oftheadoptionprocess.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
GerbertvanOosteromscontributiontotheempiricalpartoftheresearchisgratefullyacknowledged.

REFERENCES
Agarwal,R.andPrasad,J.1998.Theantecedentsandconsequentsofuserperceptionsininformationtechnology
adoption.DecisionSupportSystems,22:1529.
Attewell,P.1992.Technologydiffusionandorganizationallearning:thecaseofbusinesscomputing. Organization
Science,3(1):119.
Blayse,A.andK.Manley.2004.Keyinfluencesonconstructioninnovation. ConstructionInnovation,4:143154.
Dewick,P.andM.Miozzo.2004.Networksandinnovation:sustainabletechnologiesinScottishsocialhousing.
R&DManagement,34(3):323333.
Dubois,A.andL.Gadde.2002.Theconstructionindustryasalooselycoupledsystem:implicationsforproductivity
andinnovation. ConstructionManagementandEconomics,20:621631.
Frambach,R.andN.Schillewaert.2002.Organizationalinnovationadoption:amultilevelframeworkof
determinantsandopportunitiesforfutureresearch. JournalofBusinessResearch,55:163176.
Gann,D.andSalter,A.2000.Innovationinprojectbased,serviceenhancedfirms:theconstructionofcomplex
productsandsystems.ResearchPolicy,29:955972.
Ivory,C.2005.Thecultofcustomerresponsiveness:isdesigninnovationthepriceofaclientfocusedconstruction
industry? ConstructionManagementandEconomics,23:861870.
Larsen,G.2005.Horsesforcourses:relatinginnovationdiffusionconceptstothestagesofthediffusionprocess.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics,23:787792.

293

Lee,E.,J.LeeandD.Schumann.2002.Theinfluenceofcommunicationsourceandmodeonconsumeradoptionof
technologicalinnovations. JournalofConsumerAffairs,36(1):127.
Ling,F.2003.Managingtheimplementationofconstructioninnovations. ConstructionManagementand
Economics,21(6):635649.
Jensen,R.1988.Informationcapacityandinnovationadoption. InternationalJournalofIndustrialOrganization.6:
335350.
Mohr,J.andR.Spekman.1994.Characteristicsofpartnershipsuccess:partnershipattributes,communication
behaviour,andconflictresolutiontechniques. StrategicManagementJournal,15:135152.
Nam,C.andC.Tatum.1988.Majorcharacteristicsofconstructedproductsandresultinglimitationsofconstruction
technology.ConstructionManagementandEconomics,6:133148.
Nam,C. andC.Tatum.1997.Leadersandchampionsforconstructioninnovation. ConstructionManagementand
Economics,15:259270.
Nilakanta,S.andR.Scamell.1998.Theeffectofinformationsourcesandcommunicationchannelsonthediffusion
ofinnovationinadatabasedevelopmentenvironment. ManagementScience,36(1):2440.
Pries,F.andF.Janszen.1995.Innovationintheconstructionindustry:thedominantroleoftheenvironment.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics,13(1):4351.
Reichstein,T.,A.SalterandD.Gann.2005.Lastamongequals:acomparisonofinnovationinconstruction,service
andmanufacturingintheUK.ConstructionManagementandEconomics,23:631644.
Rogers,E.2003. DiffusionofInnovations.5thedn,NewYork:FreePress.
Seaden,G.,M.Guolla,J.DoutriauxandJ.Nash.2003.Strategicdecisionsandinnovationinconstructionfirms.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics,21(6):603612.
Sexton,M.andP.Barrett.2003.Appropriateinnovationinsmallconstructionfirms. ConstructionManagementand
Economics,21(6):623633.
Slaughter,S.1998.Modelsofconstructioninnovation. JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,124
(3):226231.
Slaughter,S.2000.Implementationofconstructioninnovations. BuildingResearch&Information,28(1):217.
Souitaris,V.1999.Researchonthedeterminantsoftechnologicalinnovation:acontingencyapproach. International
JournalofInnovationManagement,3(3):287305.
Taylor,J.andR.Levitt.2004. InterOrganizationalKnowledgeFlowandInnovationDiffusioninProjectBased
Industries: CIFEworkingpaper089.UK:StanfordUniversity.
Tidd,J.,J.BessantandK.Pavitt.2005. ManagingInnovation. 3rdedn,Chichester:JohnWileyandSons.
Tornatzky,L.andM.Fleischer.1990. TheProcessofTechnologicalInnovation.Massachusetts:LexingtonBooks.
Winch,G.1998.Zephyrsofcreativedestruction:understandingthemanagementofinnovationinconstruction.
BuildingResearchandInformation,26(4):268279.

294

CHAPTER35

BarrierstoConstructionAutomationand
RoboticsImplementationinAustralia
andJapan
RohanaMahbub
MatthewHumphreys
INTRODUCTION
Inthecurrentclimateofincreasingglobalisation andmarketcompetition,theconstructionindustryinthetwenty
first century is in need of effective construction organisations, efficient construction processes and innovative
constructiontechniquestoimproveefficiencyandcompetitivenessintermsofitsworkprocessesandproducts.The
problemsassociatedwithconstruction,suchasdecreasingqualityandproductivity,labourshortages,occupational
safety, and inferior working conditions, have pushed forward revolutionary solutions within the industry. The
implementation of innovative technologies in construction such as automation and robotics has the potential to
improve the industry in terms of productivity, safety and quality thus increasing the industrys capability to
generate output at a lower unit cost with betterquality products. However, due to a number of reasons, the
constructionindustryisgenerallyreluctanttotakeupthesetechnologies,althoughgreaterapplicationscanbeseen
in some countries such as Japan compared to here in Australia. This chapter aims to identify and examine the
barriers to the implementation of construction automation and robotics technologies in order to provide better
understandingoftherangeandleveloftechnologiescurrentlyinuseintwoselectedcountries,AustraliaandJapan.
Researchactivitiesinthefieldofautomationandroboticsintheconstructionindustryaredivided,according
to applications, into two large groups: civil infrastructure and building construction. Classification according to
applications divide research and development activities according to the development of new equipment and
processes, or the adaptation of existing machinery to transform them into robotic systems (Gambao & Balaguer
2002). The range of automation and robotics applications in construction can also be best described by the
International Association of Automation and Robotics in Construction (IAARC 2004) where according to them,
construction robots and automation fall into three categories: enhancement to existing construction plant and
equipmenttaskspecific,dedicatedrobotsandintelligent(orcognitive)machines.Forthepurposeofthischapter,
construction automation and robotics will be defined as the use of selfgoverning mechanical and electronic
devices that use intelligent control to carry out construction tasks and operations automatically. Barriers to
implementationwillbeinvestigatedthroughaquestionnairesurvey,includingexaminingthelevelof construction
automation and robotics implementation and development issues and concerns pertaining to the use of these
technologiesandperceivedbarriersandtheirimpact.

CONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRYCHARACTERISTICS
The construction industry is engaged in all activities concerned with building, demolition, landscaping,
maintenance, civil engineering and the construction of process, mining andheavy facilities. It consists of general
construction, which comprises residential construction, nonresidential construction, and civil engineering and
infrastructure construction and special trade works, which comprises metal works, electrical works, plumbing,
sewerage and sanitary works, heating and airconditioning works, painting works, carpentry, tiling and flooring
works,andglassworks.Theconstructionindustryusuallyconstitutesanimportantelementofacountryseconomy,
asithasextensivelinkageswithconstructionrelatedmanufacturingindustriesandtherestoftheeconomy.

Japan
Construction is the biggest industry in Japan, and the Japanese construction industry is one of the biggest in the
world, consuming close to 10% of Japans GDP. The construction industry employs 10% of Japans workforce
(Sprague&Mutsuko2001).InJapan,thelargeandcompetitivedomesticconstructionmarkethasnecessitatedthe
adoption of advanced technology that in turn contributed to the Japanese contractors success in penetrating the
internationalmarket.AlargeglobalmarketsharealsoenabledJapanesecontractorstoachievesomeeconomiesof
scale, andmore importantly, a trackrecord of projects and learning experience with furtherreductionin costs. In

295

addition,Japanese contractorscanavailthemselvesofcheapersourcesofcapitalthroughtheircloseconnectionwith
thefinancialsector(Rafteryetal.1998).

Australia
The constructionindustry is one of the most significant contributors to the Australian economy, both interms of
GDP and employment. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004), construction businesses are
predominantlysmallbusinesseswithmost(64.7%)earninglessthan$100,000inincome.Thetotalindustryvalueof
theconstructionindustrywas$38.8bnin2003,contributinganequivalentof5.1%oftheAustralianGDPfor2002
2003.The Australian construction industry mainly consists of residential,nonresidentialand trade services, with
residentialaccountingfor11.9%oftotalconstructionemploymentandgenerating25.1%ofallconstructionincome
nonresidentialaccountingfor14.9%employmentandgenerating31.2%incomeandtradeservicesaccountingfor
73.2%employmentandgenerating43.6%income.

RANGEOFAUTOMATIONANDROBOTICSAPPLICATIONIN
CONSTRUCTION
In construction, the scope for automation and robotics technologies implementation can be fairly broad,
encompassingallstagesoftheconstructioncycle,fromtheinitialdesign,throughtotheactualconstructionofthe
buildingorstructureonsite.Evenafterthestructurehasbeencompleted,thetechnologiescanstillbeusedforthe
maintenanceorcontrolofthestructure,andeventhroughtotheeventualdismantlingordemolition.Thedegreeof
implementation,however,variessignificantlyfromoneconstructionphasetoanother.Forexample,automationof
designthroughtheuseofCADisfairlycommonplacenowadays,butnottheuseofconstructionrobotsforonsite
operations.AccordingtotheInternationalAssociationofAutomationandRoboticsinConstruction(IAARC2004),
onsite applications of construction robots and automation fall into three categories: enhancements to existing
constructionplantandequipmenttaskspecific,dedicatedrobotsandintelligent(orcognitive)machines,ofwhich
thereareveryfew.

Category1:Enhancementstoexistingconstructionplantandequipment
Existingconstructionplantandequipmentiscapableofenhancement,bytheattachmentofsensorsandnavigational
aids, to provide improved feedback to the operative. Under some conditions, productivity can be increased
dramatically. According to Greer et al. (1997), fundamental advances in sensors, actuators and control systems
technologyarecreatingopportunitiestoimprovetheperformanceoftraditionalconstructionequipment.Rosenfeld
(1995)describedtheconversionofanexistingfullscalefivetonloadcraneintoasemiautomatichandlingrobot,
where the control system is enhanced so that it can be taught to memorise up to 50 different benchmarks, i.e.
particularpointsattheconstructionsite,aswellassaferoutesamongthem.Haetal.(2002)presentedresultsofthe
autonomous excavation project conducted at the Australian Centre for Field Robotics (ACFR) with a focus on
construction automation. The ultimate goal of the ACFR excavation project is to demonstrate fully autonomous
executionofexcavationtasksincommonconstruction,suchasloadingatruckordiggingatrench.

Category2:Taskspecific,dedicatedrobots
Most of these construction robots have been developed in Japan. There are many examples: concrete placing,
levelling, screeding and powerfloating steelwork lifting and positioning sprayapplied fireproofing and rebar
placement. Taskspecific, dedicatedrobots generally work under teleoperation or program control and areusually
used within a specific area of the construction process. An example is mobile robots developed to compact and
controlthethicknessofconcreteasdescribedbyHwangBo,YouandOh(1999).TheoverallcontroloftheKIST
floorrobotictrowellingsystemintroducesnetworkbasedrealtimedistributionarchitecturetocoordinatethefleetof
robots.Technion Israel Institute of Technology (Warszawski, Rosenfeld & Shohet 1996)has developed several
paintingrobotsintheareaofinteriorassembly,andtheWASEDAConstructionRobot(WASCORIV)(Masatoshi
etal.1996) hasobtainedsignificantresultsinautomisingthebuildinginteriorfinishingsystem.

Category3:Intelligent(orcognitive)machines
According to IAARC (2004), there are very few examples in this category, as most are still under development.
These hybrid forms of robot will be distinctively constructionorientated, having a high degree of autonomy and
knowledgebasewithwhichtoresolvethewiderangeofproblemsfoundonsites.Developmentsinthiscategoryare
seen more in industries other than construction, especially in space exploration and other hostile environments.
Adaptationsofroboticstechnologyfromtheseindustriesmaybepossiblebut,inreality,constructionenvironments
needtobemuchmorestructuredandcontrolledbeforeconstructionrobotscanreallystarttotakeover.

296

IMPLEMENTATIONANDDEVELOPMENTOFCONSTRUCTION
AUTOMATIONANDROBOTICS
Ashortageoflabourisoneofthefactorsbehindthedriveinmanycountriestomechaniseproductioninorderto
increase productivity by replacing labour with machines. In many developed countries, there has been a shift in
recent decades from traditional craft methods to the production of components in factories and their subsequent
assemblyonsite.Themovetomechanisationandprefabricationmakessenseineconomieswherefullemployment
iscreatingupwardpressuresonwages,orwherelabourshortagesareacute.

Japan
TheJapaneseareamongtheworldleadersinconstructiontechnology.Thishasbeenduetotwointerrelatedfactors
theeffortsattechnologicalinnovationthroughresearchanddevelopment(R&D)andalargedomesticmarketand
internalisationofdemandfromJapaneseinvestorsinforeigncountries.InvestmentsinconstructionR&DinJapanis
quitehigh, with Japanese firms spending about 3% of their gross receipts on R&D, whichis thehighest level of
R&Dspendingintheconstructionsector(Rafteryetal.1998).Nowadays,nearlyeverymajorJapanesecontractor
hasaresearchlaboratory,eachofwhichisavitaltoolinitsmarketingstrategy.ThegreatestconcentrationofR&D
and the shortrun production of construction robots are to be found in the construction companies, with some
governmentfundedagencyworkandcomplementarydevelopmentswithintheuniversities.Thesetechnologieshave
beenmostlydevelopedbytheBigFiveJapaneseconstructioncompanies,Shimizu,Taisei,Obayashi,Kajimaand
Takenaka, in areas such as concrete placing, levelling, screeding and powerfloating steelwork lifting and
positioningsprayappliedfireproofingandrebarplacement(IAARC2004).

Australia
InAustralia,automationandroboticstechnologieshavemostlybeendevelopedforotherindustriessuchasmining,
forestry and undersea. At the University of Sydneys Australian Centre for Field Robotics (2005) applications of
advanced control, sensing and systemsengineering principles to the development of autonomous machines have
beenconductedforseveralapplicationsincludingconstruction.TheAustralianminingandheavycivilengineering
industryisinvolvedindriverlessconstructionmachinerytechnologyapplications,andcurrentlyisintheprocessof
introducing a number of large offroad driverless trucks into full production operation. Autonomous machine
technology is also applied to more difficult applications such as the operation of loadhaul dump vehicles (in
undergroundoperations)andtheautomatedoperationofhydraulicexcavatorsanddraglines(IAARC2004).Other
examples include the use of automation and robotics in physical assets maintenance and infrastructure condition
monitoring, and research on the use of high dexterity robotics arms for onsite construction processes (OBrien
1996).

BARRIERSTOANDOPPORTUNITIESFORIMPLEMENTATION
Economicandcost
Oneofthemostobviousbarriersisthehighcostincurredandtheneedforsubstantialfinancialcommitmentforthe
required investmentin R&D and implementation of these technologies inrealterms. The construction industry is
often not willing to put in the high risk and costly investment into the technology. The primary motivation in
adopting new technologies is the prospect of gaining a competitive advantage through lower input costs, and
willingnesstoinvestinR&Dandimplementationofthesetechnologieswillonlyhappenifthecompaniesfeelthat
therearegreatereconomicadvantagestobegainedbyusingthesetechnologies.Intermsofdiffusingthecostsof
acquiring and maintaining these technologies, large international construction companies may have the economic
capacity for taking these technologies on board. With fewer jobs available locally, the bigger construction
companies are tapping the overseas market. As such, globalisation and participation in international projects is a
niche with which the construction industry can take advantage of automation and robotics technologies, as these
technologies might be a worthwhile investment if there isaneed to gain the competitive edge by operating more
efficientlywhilereducingconstructiontime.Theeconomiesofscalethatcanbegainedthroughthewideningofthe
operatingmarketandrepetitiveuseofthetechnologieswillenablehigherinvestmentstobemadeinacquiringthe
technologies.

Structureandorganisationoftheconstructionindustry
Thefragmentarynatureandthesizeoftheconstructionindustrymakeitunreceptivetorevolutionarychanges.For
construction automation and robotics to work, there is a need for compatibility with the existing design,
management capabilities, labour practices and site operations. Traditionally, construction work is organised
followingtheRIBAPlanofWorkwheretheworkisdividedintodifferentphasesandperformedsequentially.An
architectisapproachedbytheclienttodesignthefacility,followedbytheengagementofotherconsultants,suchas

297

thequantitysurveyor.Onlyduringthetenderingstagewouldacontractorbeselectedtoconstructthefacility.The
multipointresponsibility,wheredifferentorganisationsareresponsiblefordifferentphasesofconstruction,makes
itdifficultforautomationandroboticsapplicationstobeeffective.Forthesetechnologiestoworkinconstruction,
thereisaneedforahigherdegreeofintegrationwithinthephasestoenablethedesignprocesstofacilitatetheuse
ofthesetechnologiesbyincorporatingrepetitivenessandconstructabilitywithinthedesignitself,andtoensurethat
this is followed through to the construction process. Also, with singlepoint responsibility, greater research and
developmentcommitmentscanbemade,whichwillbemoreeconomicallyviableasthetechnologiesinvestmentis
taken up by a single construction firm rather than many. In this case, investments in automation and robotics
technologiesmaybetakenupbylargeconglomeratefirmsoperatinggloballywhereresponsibilityandcontrolover
the firms projects and profits are usually handled under one roof. There are also opportunities for greater
implementation of automation and robotics technologies within specific areas of construction, such as design or
specialist subcontracting work. Automation of the design process through CAD is quite commonplace in the
construction industry nowadays as design software and products are readily available with high capacitytocost
ratio,thus providingdesigners with the tools needed to produce designs economically and efficiently. The use of
automation and robotics technologies may also be more applicable if emphasis is placed on the assembly and
installationofcomponents.

Constructionproductandworkprocesses
Nearlyeveryconstructionproductisunique,thatis,customdesignedandconstructed,andisbuilttolastforalong
time.Theworkprocessesare alsocomplexandnonrepetitive,generallyperformedoveralargeareaorsiteandthe
workperformedispeculiartothatsite.Asworkiscloselyrelatedtothesite,itsexecutionisinfluencedbylocational
conditions such as weather, labour supply and local building codes, and the project also requires a long time to
complete.Thecomplexityandnonstandardisationoftheconstructionproductisaninhibitortogreaterautomation
androboticsapplications.Thedifficultyincontrolandmaintenanceifthese technologiesareusedinthe openand
unstructuredenvironmentoftheconstructionsite,suchasuncertainterrainsinwhichthemachineshaveto work,
alsomilitateagainst greaterautomation. Greater implementation of automation androbotics technologies may be
possible where repetitious or common designs are implemented, such as in civil engineering and infrastructure
works.Infrastructureworks,suchastheconstructionofroadsandrail,embracefullytheconceptofrepetitivework
processesand,again,thistype of workcananddoesbenefitfromthegreateruseofautomationtechnologiesand
mechanisationoftheconstructionworks.

Technology
Developments of construction robots are technologically difficult because of the nature of the construction work
processes itself. The cheapest optionis usually to adaptthese technologies from other industries, but the obvious
differencesbetweenworkprocessesacrosstheindustriesformacrucialbarrier.Toworkinconstruction,the robots
needtoberobust,flexible,withhighmobilityandversatility.Thereisalsoaneedtolookathowconstructiontasks
are performed to encourage repetition, and the construction sites need to be reconfigured to provide a more
structured and controlled operating environment. Technology is therefore very much related to the structure and
workprocessintheconstructionindustry.Thatiswhyinareasofconstructionwhererepetitionisprevalent,suchas
concreting,steelworkpositioning,masonryandfinishing,automationandroboticsismorehighlyusedcomparedto
otherareas.

Cultureandhumanfactors
The different work cultures between countries also play an importantrole as barriersto implementation. In some
countriesthereareinstitutionalbarriersaswellasactiveworkersunionsthatlookuponthesetechnologiesasaway
toreplacetheworkers.Constructionrobotscantakeconsiderabletimetosetupandneedtobeconstantlymonitored
by skilledworkers.Therefore,forrobotsto becomemorecommonplaceinconstruction,anewbreedof workeris
needed,withastrongacademicbackgroundwithspecialtraining inareasofroboticsengineeringandcontrol.

ANALYSISOFQUESTIONNAIRESURVEY
Apilotstudywasconductedfrom3 Augustto30September2005,withasampleof50respondentsselectedfrom
constructioncompaniesacrossJapanandAustralia.Datawascollectedbypostalquestionnairewiththemainaimof
investigatingrespondentsattitudestowardstheuseofautomationandroboticsintheirconstructionfirms.Samples
consisted of construction firms, of contractors, developers and consultants in Japan and Australia, and in the
selection,carefulconsiderationsweremadetoobtainawiderangeofcompaniesbasedonannualrevenueandtype
ofworkperformed.Thesecompanieswereaskedtoprovideinputregardingindustryperception,benefits,barriers,
and suggested practices for implementing construction automation and robotics technologies. Measurement of
response is through an attitudinal scale developed following the Summated Rating or Likert Scale, a fivepoint

298

numericalscale.Therewere23responseswhichtranslatedtoaresponserateof46%.Thedatawasanalysedusing
SPSS13.0forWindows.

Profileofrespondents
ThemajorityoftheJapaneserespondents(44%)were withinthe$150mto$500mgrossannualrevenuebracket,and
employedmorethan1000fulltimestaffmostofthe Australianrespondents(29%)were withinthe$50mto$150m
bracket, employing251to500fulltimestaff.
Figure35.1:CompanysGrossAnnual
RevenueStaff

Figure35.2:NumberofFullTimeStaff
4

2
2

Japan
Australia

MORE1000

500to1000

251to500

101to250

51to100

MORE$500M

$150500M

$50150M

$2550M

$1.55M

$525M

0
0

11to31

Areasofusageandlevelofimplementation
Construction automation and robotics (A&R) usage is measured for the following construction phases: design,
schedulingandplanning,costing,projectmanagement,andonsiteconstruction.Itwasfoundthatthelevelof usage
differssignificantlybetweenthetwocountries,withhigherusageinJapan(89%)comparedtoAustralia(50%).In
Australia, usage is generally low with slightly more prominent usage in the design and scheduling and planning
phasescomparedto otherphases.Therewasminimumapplicationforonsiteconstruction(morethan85%never
use automation and robotics for onsite construction). For Japan, there are higher applications across the areas,
includingonsiteapplication.Theanalysisisasillustrated inthefollowingbarcharts.
Figure35.3:Australia:A&RUsage
12

Figure35.4:Japan:A&RUsage
5
4.5

10

4
3.5

Design

Design
SchePlan

Cost
PM

SchePlan

2.5

Cost
PM

OnSite

OnSite
1.5
1

0.5
0

0
Never

Sometimes

Highly

Never

Sometimes

Highly

299

Respondentslengthoftimeofusingautomationandrobotics
Fifty percentofAustralian respondents had neverusedautomationorroboticstechnologies.However,14% reported
usingsomeformof automationorroboticstechnologyforbetweenoneandfiveyears.Thisclearlyshowsthatthese
newtechnologies arestillrarein Australia. In Japan, most respondents (88.9%)haveused thesetechnologies for
morethan10years,indicatingthatthetechnologiesarefairlyestablishedinJapan.

Figure35.5:LengthofTimeUsingA&R
10
8
6

Australia
Japan

4
2
0

Never

12yrs

23yrs

35yrs

510yrs

More10yrs

Onsiteconstructionapplication
Onsiteapplication ismeasured for the following construction areas: earthworks, structural steelwork, concreting,
buildingassembly/liftingandpositioningofcomponents,andtotalautomation.IntheAustraliansamplegroup,only
14% of respondents used automation and robotics technologies for onsite construction. The level of onsite
application is very low in Australia, andminimumapplications can be seen in the areas of earthworks, structural
steelwork and concreting. In Japan, there are greater applications onsite across all areas. The onsite usage is
illustratedinthefollowingbarcharts.
Figure35.6:OnsiteA&RUsage
JAPAN

AUSTRALIA
14

12

10

Earthw k

Earthw k

StrucSt

StrucSt

Concrete

Concrete

BuildAsb

BuildAsb

PaintFin
4

PaintFin

TotalAut

TotalAut
1

2
0
N ever

So met imes

Hig hly

0
N ever

So met i mes

Hi g hly

Perceivedbarriers
Respondentswere requestedtoratetheirperceivedbarrierstoautomationandroboticstechnologiesimplementation
in the construction industry. The categories were: acquiring and buying costs maintenance and updating costs
incompatibilitywithcurrentpracticesandconstructionoperationsfragmentarynatureandsizeofindustrydifficult
touseandnoteasilyunderstoodunavailablelocally orisdifficulttoacquirenoteasilyaccepted by workersand
workers unionandlastly, low technology literacy of project participants.Theresultsand analysis areillustrated
below.

300

Figure35.7:BarrierstoImplementation:Australia
10
9
8
7
6
Insignificant
5

Minor
Moderate

Major

TotallySig

LowTechLit

NotAccept

Unavailable

Difficultuse

Fragment

Incompat

HCostMaint

HCostBuy

Figure35.8:BarrierstoImplementation:Japan
9
8
7
6
5

Insignificant
Minor

Moderate
3

Major
TotallySig

LowTechLit

NotAccept

Unavailable

Difficultuse

Fragment

Incompat

HCostMaint

HCostBuy

Fromtheeightperceivedbarrierfactorslistedinthequestionnaire,itcanbeconcludedthatmostrespondentsareof
the opinion that Barrier1: Cost of buying, Barrier 2:Cost of maintaining, and Barrier 3:Incompatibility, are the
mostsignificantbarriers,withtheleastsignificantbarriersbeingBarrier6: Unavailablelocally,Barrier7:Noteasily
acceptedbyworkers,andBarrier8:Lowtechnologyliteracy.Theresultsindicatethatrespondentsfindcostofthe
technologies and incompatibility with current practices and construction operations as the main hindrance to
adoptingthesetechnologiesintheircompanies.Thetechnologyitself,intermsofdifficultyinuseandavailability,
andacceptancebytheworkers,isnotseenasverysignificantincreatingbarrierstoimplementation.

CONCLUSIONS
The preliminary analysis of selected items of the questionnaire in the pilot study has highlighted a number of
important points regarding the implementation of automation and robotics in the Australian and Japanese
construction industries. Generally, it can be concluded that the use of automation and robotics in the Australian
constructionindustryislow,especiallyforonsiteconstructionworks,withsomeuseinthedesignandscheduling
andplanningphases.ThereishigheruseintheJapaneseconstructionindustry,withapplicationsinmostphasesof

301

construction.InAustralia,theapplicationofconstructionautomationandroboticstechnologiesisfairlynewwhilst
inJapantheiruseiswellestablished,withmostrespondentfirmshavingusedthetechnologiesfor10yearsormore.
Thesignificantbarrierstoimplementation,forbothJapanandAustralia,arethecostofbuyingandacquiring,cost
ofupdatingandmaintaining,andincompatibilitywithexistingpracticesandconstructionoperations.Thesebarriers
may be overcome through globalisation and the widening of the construction companies operating market, to
enablethemtogaintheeconomiesofscalethroughrepetitiveuseofthetechnologies,andalso byencouragingmore
repetitive and structured work processes. The relevance of implementing these technologies in the construction
industrywilldiffersignificantlyfromcountrytocountry,butadvantagesmaybegainedincountrieswherelabour
shortagesareacuteorisexpensive.

REFERENCES
AustralianBureauofStatistics.2004.Private SectorConstructionIndustry,Australia,20022003.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/02c980c509048eacca2568a9001
393d0!OpenDocument (accessed3May2006).
GambaoE.andC.Balaguer.2002.Roboticsandautomationinconstruction. IEEERoboticsandAutomation
Magazine,March:46.
GreerR.,C.Hass,G.Gibson,A.TraverandR.Tucker.1997.Advancesincontrolsystemsforconstruction
manipulators. AutomationinConstruction,6(3):193203.
Ha,Q.,M.Santos,Q.Nguyen,D.RyeandH.DurrantWhyte.2002.Roboticexcavationinconstructionautomation.
IEEERobotics&AutomationMagazine,March:2026.
HwangBoM.,B.YouandR.Oh.1999.Developmentofanunmannedautonomousconcretefloorrobotic
trowellingsystem.16thInternationalSymposiumofRobotics andAutomationinConstruction. Madrid,2224
September.
InternationalAssociationofAutomationandRoboticsinConstruction(IAARC).2004. SelfStudyCourse.
http://www.iaarc.org/frame/quick/self_study.htm (accessed3May2006).
MasatoshiH.,Y.Hasegawa,H.Matsuda,K.Tamaki,S.Kojima,K.Matsueda,T.TakakuwaandT.Onada.1996.
Developmentofinteriorfinishingunitassemblysystemwithrobot:WASCORIVresearchprojectreport.
AutomationinConstruction,5(1):3138.
OBrien,J.1996.ConstructionroboticsinAustralia:astateoftheartreport. 13thInternationalSymposiumon
AutomationandRoboticsinConstruction(ISARC). Tokyo,1113June.
RafteryJ.,B.Pasadilla,Y.Chiang,E.HuiandB.Tang.1998.Globalisationandconstructionindustrydevelopment:
implicationsofrecentdevelopmentsintheconstructionsectorinAsia. ConstructionManagementandEconomics,
16:729737.
RosenfeldY.1995.Automationofexistingcranes:fromconceptstoprototype.AutomationinConstruction, 4(2):
125138.
SpragueJ.andM.Mutsuko.2001.Japansdilemma. AsiaWeek,March16,2001.
http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/japans_dilemma.htm (accessed3May2006).
UniversityofSydney.2005.AustralianCentreforFieldRobotics.http://www.acfr.usyd.edu.au/main.html (accessed
3May2006).
WarszawskiA.,Y.RosenfeldandI.Shohet.1996.Autonomousmappingsystemforaninteriorfinishingrobot.
JournalofComputinginCivilEngineering, 10(1):6777.

302

CHAPTER36

ImprovingTechnologyTransferinthe
AustralianConstructionIndustry
DavidThorpe
NealRyan
INTRODUCTION
TheconstructionindustryisasignificantcomponentoftheAustralianeconomy, which,inthefive yearsto2003,
contributed an average of almost 6% of Australias gross domestic product, and, in 20032003, was Australias
fourthlargestindustry(AustralianBureauofStatistics(ABS)2005a,562).However,thereisevidencethattherate
ofinnovationintheconstructionindustryisslowerthaninmostotherindustries.Forexample,theABSconducteda
surveyofinnovationinAustralianindustriesfortheperiod20012003andfoundthattheconstructionindustry,at
30.7%,hadoneofthelowestproportionsofbusinessinnovating.Thisisclearlynotalowrate,butitiswellbehind
thatofotherindustriessuchascommunicationservices,electricity,andgasandwatersupply,inwhichoverhalfthe
businessesundertookinnovation(ABS2005b,7).Ataninternationallevel,Winch(1998)supportsthis.Indeed,his
researchindicatesthattheindustryisinnovative,butthattherateofinnovationhasfallenbehindotherindustries.
One of the features of this industry is that many of its member organisations are smallandmediumsized
enterprises (SMEs). It has been reported that 94% of Australian construction businesses employ fewer than five
peopleeach(Hampson&Brandon2004,10).Thisissupportedbythe19961997ABSsurveyoftheprivatesector
construction industry, which stated thatthe average number of employees in the Australian construction industry
was,atthattime,4.1(ABS1998,5).ThislargeproportionofsmallerbusinessesmeansthattheSMEsectorisof
considerableimportancetotheconstructionindustry.
Ofori (2002), researching the issues in small construction contractor development with emphasis on
developingcountries,alsonotestheimportanceofcontractorsintheoveralldevelopmentprocessofbuildingsand
itemsofinfrastructure.Inarguingthatsmallcontractorsshouldbegiventheopportunity,bycontractordevelopment
programs,tobothgrowandmature,Ofori(2002)notesthattheyareimportantinprovidingtheframeworkforthe
upgradingoftheindustryasawhole.
Research has indicated that the SME sector tends to not perform well in adopting and implementing
innovations(Koivu&Mantyla2000Acaretal.2005).Thisisnotalwaysthecase.Winch(1998,269)statedthat
the industry is a lively source of new ideas, while Harty (2005) describes the way in which design engineers
developedinnovativeapproachestoworkaroundcomputersoftwarerequirementsinanintegrated3DCADsystem
duringtheconstructionoftheT5terminalatHeathrowAirport.ThesepaperssuggestthatinnovationintheSME
sectorcananddoesoccur,butperhapsoccursmoreslowlythaninotherindustries.
The issues pertaining to the development of a more effective and efficient construction industry have been
highlightedbyHampsonandBrandon(2004),whoreportedthatbarrierstoindustrytakingmoreresponsibilityfor
leadingandinvestinginresearchandinnovationincludedthecyclicalnatureoftheindustry,ashortageofclientand
industry leadership, the limited history of business deliverables from researchers, the selfinterest of many
participants,theinabilityoftheindustrytoforeseethetideofcompetition(inglobalorgreenterms),alackoftrust
betweenindustryandresearchersinsharingvitalinformation,andfinally,alackoflongtermfundingbasisfora
nationalR&Dcentre.HampsonandBrandon(2004,10)have observedthatcommitmenttocollaborativeresearch
andinnovationisrequired,withgenuinemutualconsultationwithindustrydeemedessentialforimprovedresearch
anddevelopment.
This view is also supported in the international context by the European Constrinnonet project, which
investigatedconstructioninnovationintheEuropeanUnion(EU),withparticularemphasisontheSMEsector.The
project found that no simple solution exists to address the problem of innovation in construction (European
Commission2004,iii).Thisreportisdiscussedinmoredetaillater.
The construction industry is an important sector of the economy and is underpinned by a largenumber of
SMEs.Innovationinthisindustryhasbeenvariable,withadoptionofinnovationsbeinggenerallyslow.Technology
transferintheconstructionindustryisfurtherdiscussedbelow,wheretheabovepointswillbeconsideredinrelation
to the innovation lifecycle, the research being undertakenby the Collaborative Research Centre for Construction
Innovation(CRCCI),technologytransfer intheconstructionindustry bothgenerallyandmorespecifically within
Australia,andtheprocessofmanagingtechnologytransferinSMEsandtheconstructionindustry.

303

THEINNOVATIONLIFECYCLE
In describing the process of managing technology and knowledge, Trott (2005, 177) observes that one of the
fundamental issues for firms is to transform technology into profit. Trott (2005, 184) has noted that, over long
periods,firmsbuildupabodyofknowledgeandskillsthroughexperienceandlearningbydoing,whichcanthenbe
transferredtocompetitiveadvantage.
Trott (2005) also holds that the fundamental feature that characterises successful firms is their ability to
identify and exploittechnological opportunities. Firmsmay develop distinctive competencies. These tend to form
the tacit knowledge and embedded routines that are at the core of the organisations abilities. The ability of
organisationstodevelopfirmspecificcompetenciesthattaketimetoevolveandarecostlytoimitatewill,toalarge
degree, determinetheir survival,particularly if the firm canturntechnical competencies into effective innovation
andtherebygenerateeffectiveorganisationallearning.Suchfirmswilloftendevelopaknowledgebasethatismore
thanthe sum of the firms individual parts. Thelearning organisation, therefore, is critical to the development of
knowledgeandisthusakeycomponentofitsinnovativeness(Trott2005).
Withregardtotheconstruction industry(withitsmanySMEs),oneoftheconclusionsarisingfromTrotts
discussion (2005)is that smaller firmsare unlikely to have the vastknowledge resources of larger firms and will
accordingly be disadvantaged compared to these larger organisations. Another conclusion is that optimum
developmentofthesefirms,andhencethatoftheindustryitself,islikelytorequiretheapplicationoforganisational
learningprinciples.
Technologyhasadefinitelifecycle.Bowden(2004),indiscussingtheongoingdevelopmentoftheelectronic
integrated circuit, demonstrates how this development follows the classic S curve. This curve illustrates how
performance of a particular development, as measured by some metric that is characteristic of it, follows (when
plotted onalinear scale)the shape of an Sover time, ultimately reaching a limit determined by some physical
constraint associated with the underlying technology. This curve is illustrated in Figure 36.1. It shows that the
performance(ortechnologicalprogress)ofanewtechnologyincreasesslowlyatfirst,then,asitisbecomesmore
widelyadoptedandimproved,itincreasesmorerapidlyuntilitbecomesamaturetechnologythathasreachedits
physicallimits,atwhichstagetherateofprogressslows.Asaconsequence,thebestmarginalimprovementisinthe
technologyimprovementstage.
Figure36.1: TheTechnologySPerformanceCurve

(Source:AdaptedfromBowden2004,5)
Toillustratetheapplicationofthiscurvetotheconstructionindustry,someinnovationsrelevanttothatindustryare
shownonthiscurve.Thepositionsoftheseinnovationsonthecurvearetheauthorsestimatesonlyandarethusnot
meanttobedefinitive.
Three of these innovations (the first three bulletpoints below) are general innovations adopted by the
industry, and two (both covered by the final bulletpoint) are quite new developments by the CRC CI. The
innovationsare:
relationship contracting, which is now becoming an accepted approach for procurement on larger, more
complex projects and has therefore been placed in the earlier part of the S curve, which means that
considerableadditionalperformanceispossiblethroughitswideradoption
contractor prequalification, whichhas been inplace for some time and isaccordingly showinga diminishing
abilitytoimproveitsrateofprogressorperformance

304

thepersonalcomputer,whichiswidelyusedintheindustry(butnotethatinnovationswithcomputerspeedand
size,webbasedapplications,andnewusesforcomputersarelikelytoleadtoincreasedperformancefromthis
technology)
the newer developments of the investmentdecision framework for infrastructure asset management data
collectiontool,andtheLCADesigntoolforautomatedecoefficiencyassessmentofcommercialbuildings,both
ofwhichhavebeendevelopedbytheCRCCI.

The investmentdecision framework for infrastructure asset management (for example, Piyatrapoomi et al. 2004)
optimisesthecollectionofroadstructuraldata.Itenablesfourtimesasmuchroadmaintenancedatatobecollected
forthesameamountofexpenditure.Thisequatesto approximately $4mofsavingsforthegovernmentonstatewide
data collection costs (CRC CI 2005b, 10). This project received a High Commendation at the 2005 Queensland
EngineeringExcellenceAwardsconductedbyEngineersAustralia(CRCCI2005b,62).
Thistechnologyhasthepotentialtobedevelopedforuseinarangeofassetclasses.Itisthereforelikelyto
achieve high performance over time. Since it is still in the early stages of development, yet has already started
deliveringmonetary benefits,ithasbeenplacedintheearlystages ofthetechnologyimprovementstageofthe
technology S curve. This placement recognises that it has delivered benefits and has considerable potential to
delivermoreinfuture.
LCADesignwasdevelopedthroughtheSustainableBuiltAssetsresearchprogramoftheCRCCIandisbest
described as an automated ecoefficiency design tool for commercial buildings that makes assessments directly
from3DCADdrawings(CRCCI2004,54).Theprototypeofthistoolisbeingappliedtosevencommercialoffice
designs(CRCCI2005b,28).Whatismore,theUniversityofNewSouthWaleshasrequestedprototypesof thistool
foruseinitsMultiDisciplinaryDesignStudiopostgraduatecourse(CRCCI2005b,38).Thistoolhasbeenplacedat
theedgeofthenewinventionstageinthetechnology Scurve,foritisconsideredtobestillatanearlystageof
development,yethasthepotentialtodeliverconsiderablebenefitstosustainabledevelopmentbothinAustraliaand
globally.
Theadoptionofnewtechnologyalso followsa(different)Sshapedpattern.Thiscurveisthecumulative
frequency of the percentage of adopters of a technology over its lifespan. Rogers (1995, 261266) describes this
curveanddividesadoptersintofiveidealtypesbasedoninnovativeness:innovators(2.5%),earlyadopters(13.5%)
earlymajority(34%),latemajority(34%)andlaggards(16%).
Eachadopterhasdistinctivecharacteristics.Thesetendtorelatetotheriskinvolvedintheadoption.Rogers
(1995,263266)notesthat:

innovatorsareventuresome,preparedtoacceptsetbacks,andplayanimportantroleinthediffusionprocess

earlyadoptersareamoreintegratedpartofthelocalsocialsystem,arerespectedbytheirpeersandareoften
lookedtobyotheradoptersforadvice

the early majority tend to deliberate more than the early adopters but adopt new ideas before the average
memberofthesocialsystem

thelatemajoritytendtobescepticalatfirstandarenotconvincedtotakeupaninnovationuntilmostothersin
theirsystemhavedoneso

laggardstendtousethepastasapointofreference,oftenhavelimitedresourcesandmustbecertainthata
newideawillnotfailbeforetheycanadoptit.
Figure36.2illustratesthefivegroupsofinnovation adopters.
Figure36.2: TechnologyAdoption OverTime

(Source:AdaptedfromRogers1995,262)

305

AninspectionofFigure36.1showsthatearlyadopters,whoemploythetechnologyatanearlystage,willgainthe
most overall performance from the technology, should it be successful. The early majority, who adopt the
technology at the technology improvement stage, where the performance curve is at its steepest, will gain more
incrementalbenefitthantheearlyadopters,butwillgainlessoverallperformancefromasuccessfultechnologyin
the long run than the early adopters. Laggards, who adopt the technology late and are, as a consequence, in the
region where the slope of the performance curve in Figure 36.1 is relatively flat (and thus where little overall
performancecanbegained)willachievetheleastbenefit.
Theinnovation processischaracterisedbyanumberofkeypoints.First,firmstendtobuildupknowledge
andskillsoveralongtime.Second,themoresuccessfulfirmshavetheabilitytorecogniseandexploittechnological
opportunities.Third,themarginaladvantage(performanceortechnologicalprogress)oftheseopportunitiesisatits
leastintheearlyandlatestagesoftheinnovationlifecycle.Fourth,earlyadoptershavetheopportunitytoenterthe
marketearlyandgainmaximumtotaladvantagefromtheinnovation,whilelateadoptersgainlittletotalormarginal
advantage.Finally,earlyadopterstendtobe risktakers,whilelateadopterstendtobemoreriskaverse.
Understandingthetechnologylifecycleandtheassociatedperformanceandadoptioncurves,andthewayin
which they interact,is important in understandingthe process of technology transfer fromresearcher to enduser,
which represents a complex and quite interactive process. Such understanding will assist the critical judgment
requiredbyindustrytoselecttherightpointintheinnovationlifecycleatwhichtoadopt(andpossiblyenhance)an
innovation.ThisisparticularlyimportantforSMEs,manyofwhich,onaccountoftheirsmallsize,areunlikelyto
possesstheresourcesrequiredtotakesignificantrisksshouldtheprospectofareturnontheirinvestmentinnewor
improvedtechnologybelow.

RESEARCHINTHECRCFORCONSTRUCTIONINNOVATION
TheobjectivesoftheCRCCIaretoenhancethecontributionoflongtermscientificandtechnologicalresearchand
innovationtoAustraliaseconomicandsocialdevelopment,toenhancecollaborationbetweenresearchersand,what
isespeciallyimportant,tocreateandexploit(inacommercialsense)tools,technologiesandmanagementsystemsin
order to deliver innovative and sustainable constructed assets that will be of financial, environmental and social
benefittotheconstructionindustryandthebroadercommunity(CRCCI2005a).
In achieving its objectives, the CRC CI undertakes research projects under the three related programs of
BusinessandIndustryDevelopment,SustainableBuiltAssets,andtheDeliveryandManagementof BuiltAssets.
These programs are supported by an information communications and technology (ICT) platform. Each of these
programs delivers its outcomes through a number of research projects and other publications of interest to the
industry.Thisdirectdisseminationissupplementedbyaneducationalstrategythatseekstotransferitstechnologyto
industrybymeansofeducationandtraining,especiallythroughlinkstovocationaleducationandtraining,technical
andfurthereducationandhighereducation(CRCCI2005a).
Some of the specific initiatives of the CRC CI are the Building Research, Innovation, Technology and
Environment (BRITE) innovation surveys of perceptions of innovation determinants (CRC CI 2005b), the
publication of special reports to industry, and its relationship with the Australian Construction Industry Forum
(ACIF)(CRC2005b).Inanearlyannualreport,theCRCCIalsonotedthattheleadingindustriesrepresentedinthe
CRCCIhaveasubstantialpullimpactonsmallerplayers(CRCCI2002,20).Ifthispullcanbeharnessed,itwill
greatlyassistthe technologytransferprocess.
Like other CRCs, the CRC CI employs a large number of knowledge workers. Through their intellectual
capital and their research and development activities, CRCs possess and develop considerable tacit and explicit
knowledge.Sullivan(2000,162163)expressesthisastheknowledgeandknowhowpossessedbyhumancapital
and the organisations intellectual assets (commercialisable intellectual assets and supporting intellectual assets,
namelyorganisationalstructure,managerialmethods,operationalmethodsandprocedures).Thecommercialisable
assets (or intellectual property) form the technology that is transferred by the CRC, whereas the tacit knowledge
possessedbyitspeoplemayassistthisprocess.
CRCsdelivertheoutcomesoftheirresearchthroughtheCommercialisationandUtilisationPlanGuidelines
fortheCRCProgramme(DepartmentofEducation ScienceandTraining2004),whichsetsoutthewayinwhich
nationalbenefitscanbedemonstratedanddescribesthedevelopmentofthecommercialisationandutilisationplan
(includingintellectualproperty)fortheCRC.
Sheen (2005, 3), who undertook an extensive study that rests on the proposition that research and
development(R&D)hasacriticalroletoplayinmakingimportantcontributionsintheneweconomy wherehigh
pricesforknowledgecanberealized,surveyed62CRCsinanextensivestudyofmanagingintellectualproperty
andlicensing.HeobservedthatCRCsneedtounderstandthenatureandprocessofmanagingintellectualproperty
inacollaborativecontext,andalsoaddedtoSullivansmodelofintellectualassetmanagementthecomponentsof
relationship,projectmanagement,agreementsandlicensing(Sheen2005).Theimplicationsofthisresearchforthe
technologytransferprocessintheconstructionindustryistheimportanceofdevelopingrelationshipsthroughoutthe
supplychain,inadditiontotheneedto projectmanagethe technologytransferprocess.

306

GarrettJones andTurpin (2002)noted thatthe most universal measure used by CRCs for promotingtheuseand
applicationofresearchoutputswasengagingpotentialendusersandrequiringthemtopayfortheCRCsexpertise
(this was often a good source of income). In the construction industry, this is likely to result in more effective
transfersoftechnologytoindustryparticipants.
Thus, in common with all CRCs, it is important that the CRC CI effectively transfers the technologies it
developstotheindustryitserves.WhilethecoremembersoftheCRCCIarelikelytohavetheresourcesthatwill
enable them to be early adopters of new technology, it is also important to remember that the benefits of
technological developments should be realised throughout the supply chain, and particularly by the SMEs, the
combinedperformanceofwhichclearlyhasasignificantimpactontheperformanceoftheindustryasawhole.
ThesuccessfulachievementoftechnologytransferinawaythatdeliversmaximumbenefittoAustraliathus
requiresacarefulbalancebetweenarangeoffactorssuchasresearch,development,projectmanagement,industry
relationships, education, training, industry assistance and effective commercialisation practices. The next two
sections,thefirstofwhichreportsonstudiesintechnologytransferatamoregloballevel,andthesecondofwhich
considersmorespecificAustralianissues,discusstechnologytransferintheconstructionindustryinmoredetail.

TECHNOLOGYTRANSFERINTHECONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRY
One of the important characteristics ofthe constructionindustry (like many other industries) is that the group of
firmsreferredtoasSMEsarefarfromuniformintheircapabilities.Forexample,Acaretal.(2005)investigatedthe
takeupofICTinSMEsinTurkeyandfoundthatorganisationsizewasanimportantfactorintheadoptionofthis
typeoftechnology,oneofthereasonsbeingthatsmallercontractorslackedthestafftouseICTeffectivelyandwere
unawareofitspotentialbenefits.Theresearchersalsoconcludedthatwhatorganisationstraditionallyreferredtoas
SMEs were, in fact, clusters of firms with varying characteristics rather thana set of organisations that could be
treatedashomogeneous.
Researchershaveidentifiedarangeofotherbarrierstotechnologytransferintheconstructionindustry.One
of these barriers is organisational culture. The research of Acar et al. (2005) found that not only was the
implementationofICTacomplexprocessrequiringspecialskillsthatmaynotbepossessedbySMEsortheirstaff,
butalsothattheculturalcontext,suchastheattachmentofprofessionalstoestablishedpractices,wasimportantin
technologydiffusion.TheyalsofoundthatignoranceofthebenefitofICTsystemswasafactorthatimpededtheir
takeupamongSMEs.
Supplychain issues can also be important. Bresnenand Marshall (2000), who explored the presumed link
betweenpartneringandculturalchangewithintheconstructionindustry,observedthatevidencefromothersectors
showed that collaborative forms of contracting can depart from the ideal. Indeed, they found that collaborative
contractingwasoftenusedinordertodrivedowncosts,orelsepassoncostsandriskfurtherdownthesupplychain.
Clearly,contractorstowardsthebottomofthesupplychain(theSMEs)wouldbeaffectedmostbysuchpractices.It
hasalsobeensuggestedthatthetransactionalnatureoftheconstructionindustrymightenablelargercontractorsto
takeadvantageoftheirsuperiornetworksandstrategicknowledgewithaviewtoreducingoperationalcostsatthe
expense of the small firm, thus leading to mistrust and a general unwillingness to adopt new technologies and
processes(Milleretal.2002).
Anotherissuein technology transfer is thenature of the industry itself. As a case study for theirresearch,
OFarrellandMiller(2002)assessedtheviabilityofpozzolanicmaterialsassubstitutesforcementinconcrete(the
productionofcementnotbeinganenvironmentallyfriendlyprocess)inSouthWales.AlthoughtheSMEfirmsthat
were part of theresearch could see the benefit of thisapproach,itappearedthat price (driven by the competitive
tendering process) was the main concern in the industry, rather than the development of new products in the
traditionalsense.Thisresearchseemstosuggestthatawayneedstobefoundtoencourage(perhapsfinancially)the
adoptionofproductsandprocessesthatareenvironmentallyfriendlybutnotnecessarilyprofitabletothe contractor.
The report of the European Constrinnonet project, which was undertaken by a consortium of leading
Europeanuniversities,suchasVTTandtheUniversityofSalford,foundthatnosimplesolutionexiststoaddressthe
problemofinnovationintheconstructionindustry(EuropeanCommission2004).
The basis for the Constrinnonet project was an OECD finding that construction was among the more
traditionalsectorsoftheeconomy,witharelativelylowR&Dperformance,andyetaccountedforabout7%ofthe
working population and contributed over 6% to national GDP. It was found that the industry was populated
predominately by SMEs. The sector also struggled with a complex, fragmented structure, in addition to a poor
reputation. Atthe same time,its level of investmentin R&D was generally less than 0.5% of company turnover,
althoughthereappearedtobenolackofpublicservicesgenerallyavailablefortheprovisionofeconomicsupport
forthepurposeofresearchtraining anddevelopment(EuropeanCommission2004,12).

307

TheobjectivesoftheConstrinnonetprojectwere to:
studythemechanismsbehindsuccessfulinnovationandtodevelopstrategiestohelptransfertheseintopractice
examinethewayinwhichvariousserviceprovidersinthemarketcanassistinspreadingthesemechanismsto
constructionSMEs.
(EuropeanCommission2004,2)
Thereportconsistedoftwophasesasixmonthdefinitionstageanda2.5yearimplementationstageaimedto (a)
enhance knowhow of the mechanisms behind successful innovation (b) develop and test actions for improved
innovation support, and (c) exchange this information with stakeholders transnationally (European Commission
2004,3).
In addition to its conclusion that no simple solution exist to address the problems of innovation in
construction,theproject foundthatbusinesssupportwasthemostrelevantmechanismthroughwhichtopromote
innovation in construction sector SMEs and that European governments and their agents had generally failed to
engagewithmostoftheconstructionSMEsincrucialareas.Attheregionallevel,therewasanabsenceoffocuson
innovationsupportmechanismsorbusinessdevelopmentservices(EuropeanCommission2004,20).
RecommendationsweremadeatanEUlevel,atnational/regionallevel,andforserviceprovidersandSMEs
(inadditiontolargercompanies).Policy issuesincludedinitiatingspecificinnovationeffortsforconstructioninthe
EU, developing statistics about construction, innovation in business support, and regional initiatives (European
Commission2004).Amongtherecommendationsforserviceproviderswastheneedtopromoteinnovation,identify
regionalresourcesandavoidonesizefitsallsolutions(EuropeanCommission2004).Itwasalsofoundthatmore
could be done by the industry itself to bridge the gap. While the construction sector should use some common
objectivesandstrategies,eachSME,itwasargued,neededtoidentifyaclearandconcisebenefititcouldachieve
frominvolvementincommonactivities(thesewerenotdefinedinthereport)(EuropeanCommission2004,2021).
TheAustralianconstructionindustryisnotdissimilartothatstudiedinthereportdiscussedabove,especially
since Australias construction industry also contributes approximately 6% to GDP (ABS 2005a, 562),hasa large
number of SME firms, has a fragmented structure (Hampson & Brandon 2004), and is also variable in the
characteristicsofitsmemberfirms,especiallyfromaninnovationadoptionperspective.Inviewofthis,thefindings
oftheConstrinnonetreportarewellworthconsideringwhendiscussingthewayinwhichtobestpromoteinnovation
intheAustralianconstructionindustry.
Theabovestudieshaveshownthatthereareanumberof factorsintechnologytransfer totheconstruction
SME sector. These include organisational size and culture, supplychain issues, the pricedriven nature of the
constructionprocess,andtheimportanceofdevelopingappropriatepoliciesatbothgovernmentandfirmlevel.An
important finding from a number of the studies was that there is no easily defined SME. Perhaps this can be
summed up by the statement that policymakers should avoid onesizefitsall solutions to the problem of
innovationinconstruction (EuropeanCommission2004,21).

TECHNOLOGYTRANSFERINTHEAUSTRALIANCONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
OneoftheprojectssupportedbytheCRCCIwasBlayse andManleysstudy(2004)intoinfluencesonconstruction
innovation. They identified six main factors: clients and manufacturers, the structure of production, relationships
between individuals and firms within the industry and between the industry and external parties, procurement
systems, regulations/standards, and the nature and quality of organisational resources. Innovation in this sense
tendedto be theactual use of anontrivial change andimprovementina process, product or system novel to the
institution developing the change (within the broader product system). The authors noted that the identified
influencescanbemanagedstrategicallytomaximiseinnovationoutcomes.
A survey of innovation inthe Australian construction industry by Manleyet al. (2005), within the BRITE
program, found that thenewtoindustryrate of technologicalinnovation was 18%, and that 6% of respondents
(including a number of consultants) reported newtotheworld innovations. Business strategies were key
determinantsofinnovation(however,researchanddevelopmentstrategieshadarelativelylowrankamongbusiness
strategies),whilethemaindriverforinnovationwasthedesireforimprovementsinefficiencyorproductivityand
customer needs. Indeed, 93% of the industry reported a positive impact on profitability arising from their most
successfulinnovationsoverthepreviousthreeyears(Manley etal.2005,1112).
TheABSsurveyofinnovationinAustralianbusinesses(whichincludedconstruction)(ABS2005b)divided
innovation (any new or significant improvement) into the three areas of (a) goods or services (b) operational
processes, and (c) organisational or managerial processes. The survey found a rise in the percentages of firms
innovatingasorganisationsincreasedinsize(ABS2005b,5).Themainbarriersidentifiedininnovatingfirmswere
costandmarketrelated.Thesewerelessimportantfornoninnovatingfirms(ABS2005b,20).Ontheotherhand,
the main drivers of innovation were profit and market demands. Legalrelated drivers were also significant (ABS
2005b,28).

308

These findings were reflected in the construction industry, with the general exception that marketrelated factors
werelessimportanttoindividualfirmsthantoindustryasawhole.Likeanumberofotherindustries,institutions
(such as universities) were not significant sources of innovation for the construction industry. Contribution to
expenditureoninnovationbytheconstructionindustryin20032003wasabout1.2%oftotalbusinessexpenditure
(althoughthisfigureneedstobetreatedwithcareowingtoitsvariability)(ABS2005b,69).
Love et al. (2001) researched the barriers to implementing ecommerce in construction SMEs in Victoria,
Australia. They noted that many SMEs find it difficult to compete in todays competitive markets. Using an
unstructuredinterviewprocess,theyfoundthattherateofecommerceimplementationwasrelatedtoturnoverand
number of employees. They stated that a contractor with a higher turnover would be expected to bid for more
projectsorforlargerprojectsandthusbeexpectedtoinvestinITtosupportthetenderdocumentationandcontract
administration. On the other hand, a contractor with more employees may need to invest in an ITbased
communication and coordination network. From their interviews, the researchers were also able to categorise
identifiedbarriersintoorganisational,financial,technicalandbehavioural.Theyidentifiedrisk,uncertainty,change
andknowledgeastheunderlyingfactorsthatbusinessesconsideredasbeingconstraintsontheintroductionofthe
technologiesneededtosupportanecommerceinfrastructure.
Theabovestudiesandsurveystendtoconfirmthestudiesdiscussedintheprevioussection thatfactors
likeorganisationalculture,supplychainconsiderationsandthenatureoftheindustryitselfplayimportantrolesin
thetechnology transfer process. Such studieshave also shown the importance of key drivers of innovation in the
industrysuchasthedesireforimprovement,profitandaddressingcustomerneeds,andhavefurthermoreshownthat
costrepresentsasignificantbarriertoinnovation.Again,sizeoforganisationwassignificant.

MANAGINGTECHNOLOGYTRANSFERINSMEsANDTHE
CONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRY
Previousdiscussionshavefocusedmainlyontheissuesrelatedtotechnologytransferintheconstructionindustry.
Thissectiondevelopsthisdiscussionfurtherbyexploringthemechanismoftechnologydiffusionandadoption.
KnolandStroeken(2001)developedamodel forthediffusionandadoptionofITinSMEsthroughanIT
scenariomodel.Intheirmodel,diffusiontendstooccuratahigheraggregationlevelthanadoptionandhasastrong
communication element, while adoption (which is associated with the implementation process) takes place at the
level of the individual adopting unit, which can be as far down the organisational chain as an individual. The
scenario model contains three main components: the environment, six phases (in time), and three aspect areas
(strategy, organisation, technology). The model was piloted in interviews with SMEs operating in the furnishing
sector.
Theresearchersconcludedthat,allthingsconsidered,thismodelseemedtoprovideinsightintothestrategic
applicationofITincompaniesandsupplychainsforeachphase.Furthermore,itcoulddepicttheseconcretely.With
respecttoapplication,disseminationofinformationwouldtakeplacebeforeorganisationaldecisionmakingabout
aninnovationanditsimplementation.Whilethisstudywasinanonconstructionindustrysector,itshowstheneed
for an innovating SME to take into account environmental factors, communication processes, technology and
organisationalfactors.
AnotherstudyoninnovationdiffusioninSMEswasundertakenbyThomas(2000).Hisfocuswasoninter
firmdiffusion(thespreadofanewtechniquefromoneSMEtoanother).Thomasdiscussedthetwo categoriesof
disembodied diffusion (the transmission of knowledge and technical expertise) and embodied diffusion
(application of the new technology) (Thomas 2000, 3). He noted that there are differences in the speed at which
technology is diffused andthe length of the diffusion process. He also observed that, as the speed of diffusion is
relatedtoSMEawarenessoftheadvantagesofadoptinganewtechnology,boththecommunicationprocessandthe
abilityofSMEsto assessthemeritsofthetechnologicaladvancewereimportant.
Thomas(2000)developedamathematicalmodelofinterfirmtechnologydiffusionbasedontheseprinciples
andthatoftechnologytransfernetworks.Heconcludedthatthesuccessfuldiffusionofanewtechnologyinvolves
considerably more than mere technical competence, with many complementary factors (including sociological
forces) being important. Moreover, Thomas (2000) found that an SME may be retarded in its acquisition of
technology by otherSMEswhoareslowtoadopt(forexample,laggards).Thus,inhisview,rapiddiffusionofa
technologywillbefacilitatedbyawillingnessofSMEstomakeadjustments.
WhiletheaboveresearchhasfocusedlargelyonthetechnologydiffusionprocessinSMEs inageneralsense,
other researchers have considered the specific issues affecting the adoption of technology in the construction
industry. One of these was Bjork (2002), who developed a typology of research questions and methods for
electronicdocumentmanagement(EDM)intheconstructionindustry.Hisanalysisofthemanycasestudiesinthis
particulartechnologyareaputforwardthenotionthat,whiletherewasrapidtakeupofthistechnology(particularly
inlargerprojects),theorganisationalissuessurroundingitsuse(i.e.whoisincontrol),inadditiontothepsychology
involved in getting all project participants to accept the use of new technology, were much more significant than
technicalproblems.

309

Inaddition,Winch(1998)hasdemonstratedthatconstructionwasacomplexsystemsindustry.Heproposedamodel
forthemanagementofinnovationprocessesatthefirmlevelfacilitatedby atwomomentmodel,inwhichthereisa
topdownmoment(ordynamic)ofadoptionandimplementation,andabottomupmomentofproblemsolvingand
learning.Thisconceptofthelearningorganisationwasdiscussedinconnectionwiththeinnovationadoptioncycle
(Trott2005)andislikelytobeasignificantcomponentofthetechnologytransfer process fromresearcherstothe
constructionindustry.
Anotherapproachtounderstandinginnovationwasproposedby Harty(2005).Heusedthetwointersecting
ideas that successful innovation requires consideration of the social and organisational contexts in which it is
located, and that innovations can be divided into bounded and unbounded modes. In his approach, bounded
innovations are those that can be contained within animplementers control, whereas unbounded innovations are
thosethatspillbeyondthisintopotentiallymorecontesteddomains(Harty2005,515).
Harty (2005) applied sociology of technology concepts with a view to assessing the negotiations and
alignments that constitute the implementation of unbounded innovations. He illustrated this discussion with the
example (briefly discussed in the introduction to this chapter) of the way in which design engineers developed
innovativeapproachestoworkaroundrestrictionsinanintegrated3DCADsystem(anunboundedsystemwhich,
becauseofitsspecifications,hadimplicationsforteammemberspossessingdifferentsoftwarethatdidnotintegrate
withthe CAD system, or who didnothave therequisite training)in construction of theT5terminalat Heathrow
Airport.Harty(2005)alsodiscussedtheusefulnessofaninclusivemulticentredsystembuildingapproachinorder
torecognisebetterthecomplexityoftheconstructionindustryanditsprocesses.
The significance of the research undertaken by these researchers is that successful innovation requires an
understandingofsocialsystemsandmanagementprocesses inadditiontothetechnologicalbenefitsderivedfrom
using the innovation. Furthermore, it is important to foster the promotion of a learning organisation in the
technologytransferprocess.Thiscanbecombinedwithabetterunderstandingofthetechnologydiffusionprocess
(and particularly the role of effective communication in this process), especiallyin the way in which technology
developed by researchers can be transferred effectively to the construction industry and, in particular, its SME
sector.

CONCLUSIONS
The transfer of technology from research organisations like the CRC CI into the construction industry, and
specificallyitsSMEsector,isquitecomplex.Itinvolvesacomplexnetworkofresearchers,sponsorsofresearch,
clients,consultants,contractors,tradeandindustryassociations,andotherparties.Whiletherehavebeensuccesses
intermsofachievingthistransfer(theconstructionindustryhasgenerallybeenquiteinnovative),thereisaneedto
improvetherateatwhichinnovationoccursintheindustry.
Overlayingthetechnologytransfer processarethebenefitsandrisksthatorganisationstakeonboardwhen
theyadoptinnovations,theinnovationlifecycle,andtheneedforfairrecompenseforresearchersandtheirfinancial
supporters. The role of the learning organisation and other concepts discussed above, such as the importance of
social, organisational and cultural factors, inaddition to the technological and financial factors in the technology
diffusionandadoptionprocess,arealsoimportant.Governmentpolicydecisionsandindustrywidefactorsarealso
likelytoimpactonthetechnologytransferprocess.
Organisations like the CRC CI have successfully adopted a range of strategies for this process, including
industrypresentations,involvementofindustryintheinnovationdevelopmentprocess,andmakingcloselinkswith
industry associations. However, if maximum benefit is to be achieved, there needs to be further research into
technologytransferprocessesintheconstructionindustry.
Inordertobetterevaluatethetransferoftechnologyfromresearcherstotheconstructionindustry,researchis
currentlybeingundertakenwithaviewtoidentifyingandevaluatingdrivers,barriersandfacilitatorsintechnology
transferandrecommendingsuggestedimprovementstothetechnologytransferprocess.Thisresearchisexpectedto
focusontheSME sectorofthe industry.
AnimportantaspectoftheSME industrysectoristhatitisnotonehomogeneousbody.Rather,itrepresentsa
cluster of a range of organisations of different sizes and functions. As a consequence, the optimum technology
transferprocessmaywellbedifferentfordifferentclustersofSMEs.Therefore,asafirststep,theresearchisbeing
targetedatalimitednumberofgroupswithintheSMEsectorthatarerelated insizeandfunction.
The maincomponentsofthisprojectareto:
assess the benefits (and the perceptions of the value of those benefits) that SMEs could expect from more
quicklyevaluatingandadoptingtheresultsofCRCCIresearch
evaluatethedrivers andbarrierstotechnologytransferfromtheCRCCItoindividualSMEs
reviewthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheexistingtechnologytransfer processfromthepointofviewofthe
SMEsectoroftheconstructionindustry
recommendimprovedwaysoffacilitatingthisprocess.

310

Thisresearchisbasedontheinnovationlifecycleandtechnologyadoptioncyclesandaimstoevaluateanumberof
factors that are considered important to transferring technology to the SME construction sector. These include
industryattitudes,levelsofsupportavailable,aspirationsofCRCCIpartners,governmentpolicy,typeofresearch
projectandoutputs,intellectualpropertyconsiderations,theroleofthelearningorganisation,andthemanagement
ofthetechnologytransferprocessbytheCRCCI.
Whereverpossible,thisresearchusesacasestudyapproachtoinvestigatethediffusionofnewtechnologies
developedbytheCRCCItoindustry.Italsoemploysavailabledatasupplementedbyinterviewsandquestionnaires
undertaken with a range of industry participants, including CRC CI core participants, consultants, industry
associations and relevant SMEs. CRC CI case studies may be supplemented by research undertaken in other
engineeringrelated CRCs and research organisations. It is expected that this research should not only provide a
better understanding of the technology transfer process from the CRC CI to the construction industry and, in
particular,insmallerorganisations,butalsoshouldalsoprovideinsightsintothewayinwhichthisprocesscouldbe
improved.

REFERENCES
AustralianBureauofStatistics.1998. PrivateSectorConstructionIndustry,Australia,PreliminaryData199697.
Canberra:AustralianBureauofStatistics.
AustralianBureauofStatistics.2005a.2005YearBookAustralia.Canberra:AustralianBureauofStatistics.
AustralianBureauofStatistics.2005b.InnovationinAustralianBusiness2003. Canberra:AustralianBureauof
Statistics.
Acar,E.,I.Kocak,Y.SeyandD.Arditi.2005.Useofinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesbysmalland
mediumsizedenterprises(SMEs)inbuildingconstruction. ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 23:713
722.
Bjork,B.C.2003.Electronicdocumentmanagement inconstruction:researchissuesandresults. ElectronicJournal
ofInformationTechnologyinConstruction, 8:105117.
Blayse,A.M.andK.Manley.2004.Keyinfluencesonconstructioninnovation. ConstructionInnovation 4(3):1
12.
Bowden,M.J.2004.MooresLawandthetechnologyScurve.CurrentIssuesinTechnologyManagement 8(1):
http://howe.stevens.edu/HSATM/archive/v8i1/bowden.pdf (accessed9May2006).
Bresnen,MandN.Marshall.2000.Partnering inconstruction:acriticalreviewofissues,problemsanddilemmas.
ConstructionManagementandEconomics, 18:229237.
Collaborative ResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation.2002. CooperativeResearchCentreforConstruction
InnovationAnnualReport200102.Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation,Icon.Net
PtyLtd..
Collaborative ResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation.2004. CooperativeResearchCentreforConstruction
InnovationAnnualReport200304.Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation,Icon.Net
PtyLtd.
Collaborative ResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation.2005a. CRCConstructionInnovation.
http://www.constructioninnovation.info(accessed21October2005).
Collaborative ResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation.2005b.CooperativeResearchCentreforConstruction
InnovationAnnualReport20042005.Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation,
Icon.NetPtyLtd.
DepartmentofEducationScienceandTraining.2004. CooperativeResearchCentresProgramme:
Commercialisationandutilisationplanguidelines.Canberra:AustralianGovernment.
EuropeanCommission.2004. Constrinnonet:Promotinginnovation inconstruction industrySMEs,projectfinal
report.Brussels:EuropeanCommission.
GarrettJones,S.andT.Turpin.2002. MeasuringtheOutcomesoftheCRCProgram:Aframework.Wollongong:
UniversityofWollongong.
Hampson,K.D.andP.Brandon.2004. Construction2020:AvisionforAustraliaspropertyandconstruction
industry.Brisbane:CooperativeResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
Harty,C.2005.Innovationinconstruction:asociologyof technologyapproach. BuildingResearchandInformation
33(6):512522.
Koivu,T.andK.Mantyla.2000.InnovationmanagementintheFinnishconstructionindustry.Proceedingsofthe
InternationalConference:Technologywatchandinnovation intheconstructionindustry. Brussels,56April.
Knol,W.H.C.andJ.H.M.Stroeken.2001.Thediffusionandadoptionofinformationtechnology insmall and
mediumsizedenterprisesthroughIT SCENARIOS.TechnologyAnalysis&StrategicManagement, 13(2):227
246.
Love,P.,Z.Irani,H.Li,E.ChengandR.Tse.2001. Anempiricalanalysisofthebarrierstoimplementinge
commerceinsmallmediumsizedconstructioncontractors. TheSmallBusinessofConstruction,eds. C.J.M.
Miller,G.A.PackhamandB.Thomas,6786.Pontypridd:UniversityofGlamorganBusinessSchool.

311

Manley,K.,D.Allan,A.Blayse,M.Coillet,M.Hardie,R.Hough,S.MacKenzieSmith,W.MayTaylor,S.
McFallan,M.Miller,M.SwainstonandG.Taylor.2005. BRITEInnovationSurvey.Brisbane:Cooperative
ResearchCentreforConstructionInnovation,Icon.NetPtyLtd.
Miller,C.J.M.,G.A. PackhamandB.C.Thomas.2002.Harmonisationbetweenlargeandsmallfirms:aprerequisite
forleanconstruction? CurrentIssuesinSmallConstructionEnterpriseDevelopment,eds.C.J.M.Miller,G.A.
PackhamandB.C.Thomas,99122.Pontypridd:UniversityofGlamorganBusinessSchool.
OFarrell,M.andC.J.M.Miller.2002.Thebarrierstonewtechnologydiffusionintheconstructionindustryof
SouthWales. CurrentIssuesinSmallConstructionEnterpriseDevelopment,eds.C.J.M.Miller,G.A.Packham
andB.C.Thomas,123137.Pontypridd:UniversityofGlamorganBusinessSchool.
Ofori,G.2002.Currentissuesinsmallconstructioncontractordevelopment. CurrentIssuesinSmallConstruction
EnterpriseDevelopment,eds.C.Miller,G.PackhamandB.Thomas,3758.Pontypridd:UniversityofGlamorgan
BusinessSchool.
Piyatrapoomi,A.,A.Kumar,N.Robertson,J.Weligamage.2004.Reliabilityofoptimalintervalsforpavement
strengthdatacollectionatthenetworklevel.6th InternationalConferenceonManagementPavements.Brisbane,
1924October.
Rogers,E.M. 1995.DiffusionofInnovation.4thedn.NewYork:FreePress.
Sheen,P.B.2005. ManagingIntellectualPropertyandLicensing:Astudyoncooperativeresearchcentres:PhD
thesis.Brisbane:QueenslandUniversityofTechnology.
Sullivan,P.H.2000, ValuedrivenIntellectualCapital:Howtoconvertintangiblecorporateassetsintomarket
value.NewYork:Wiley.
Thomas,B.2000. AModeloftheDiffusionofTechnologyintoSMEs. Pontypridd:UniversityofGlamorgan
BusinessSchool.
Trott, P.2005. InnovationManagementandNewProductDevelopment.3rdedn.Harlow:PearsonEducation.
Winch,G.1998.Zephyrsofcreativedestruction:understandingthemanagementofinnovationinconstruction.
BuildingResearch&Innovation 26(4):268279.

312

CHAPTER37

Economic,SocialandCultural
ImpedimentsandDriversforthe
AdoptionofeBusinessInnovations
withintheIndustrialStructureofthe
ConstructionSector
KerryLondon
NathanielBavinton
INTRODUCTION
The main claims of the benefits ofebusiness technology are that it will provide commercial efficiencies through
more effective design and construction information management and procurement and contract management.
However,aftertheinitialadoptionbyinnovativefirms,ebusinesshasnotdiffusedthroughoutthelargemajorityof
the industry. This chapter reports on partial results of a study aimed at informing decisionmakers towards more
effective strategies for preparation of future widespread industry uptake. The adoption of this technology by the
Australian buildingand construction industry lags behind that of other Australianindustries and industries in the
USAandEurope(NOIE2001).Australianstatistics(AustralianBureauofStatistics2004)comparingconstruction
to all otherindustries indicates that the constructionindustry rankslast on all four key performance indicators in
relation toebusiness uptake. It could be challenged thatthe indicators may not reflect thereal behaviours of the
industry.However,atthisstageitisproposedthattheslowadoptionrateisduetotheimpedimentsorthedrivers
relatedtoadoptionpeculiartotheconstructionindustrialstructureratherthanthetechnologyitself.Manyelements
of a technical solution have been solved and are available, therefore the research has sought to address the
significant changes in business practices and consider strategies that will address social, economic and cultural
issues at an industry and organisational level to prepare for sectoral widespread ebusiness technology adoption,
whichappearstobeimminent,overthenextdecade.
Theempiricalstudydescribedinthischapterhasinvolved threedetailedcasestudieswhichwereclustered
around three major industry players: a state government infrastructure agency, the largest local government
infrastructure agency, and a large contractor. The general research question that the project addressed has been:
Whatisthenatureof ebusinessadoptionforSMEs intheAustralianconstructionindustry?
Thespecificresearchobjectivesoftheoverallresearchprojecthavebeento:
investigate impediments and drivers to ebusiness adoption by SMEs in the Australian construction and
buildingindustry,throughtheoryandpractice
identifystrategiesandtechniquestoraiseawarenessandincreaseadoptiondiffusionby SMEsintheAustralian
constructionandbuildingindustry
developanSME ebusinesstechnologyadoptionprofilespecificallyforconstructionindustryplayers.
Theaimofthischapteristoreportonthefindingsoftheimpedimentsanddriverstoebusinessadoptionforthe
stategovernmentinfrastructure agencycasestudy.Thechapterisoutlinedby:
abriefdiscussiononimpedimentsanddriversto ebusiness uptakebasedupontheexistingliterature
adescriptionoftheconceptualframework
lookingatimpedimentsanddrivers: resultsanddiscussionofthecomplex interrelationships
conclusionsandimplicationsforindustryperformanceimprovement.

IMPEDIMENTSANDDRIVERSTOEBUSINESSUPTAKE
Acomprehensivereviewoftheacademicliteraturewasundertakeninthestudytoprovidethenecessarytheoretical
contexttoachievetheresearchobjectives.Forthepurposeofthisresearchproject,ebusiness wasdefinedasany
businessprocessorpracticethattakesadvantageof orthatreliesuponthecollection,transmissionandstorageof
digital information through technology systems. Of particular interest to this project are specific ebusiness

313

technologies and applications that facilitate webbased project management and dissemination of accurate design
data,onlinetenderingandprocurementprocesses,andefficientcontractmanagement.Literaturewasreviewedfrom
the construction management and construction economics disciplines and also selected studies on ebusiness
adoptionfrommainstreammanagementliteraturewereconsidered.Aconsistentthemethroughouttheliteraturewas
the concern for identifying the impediment(s) or the driver(s) for adoption. This is obviously not a new research
problem and there is a substantial body of knowledge to build upon. This chapter briefly summarises the
impedimentsandthedriversforebusinessadoptionwhichhavebeenidentifiedandidentifiesaresearchgap.

Impedimentstoebusinessadoption
Examinationoftheacademicliteraturehasidentifiedthefollowingcommonlyrecognisedimpedimentsaffectinge
businessadoption.Itshouldbenotedthattheseimpedimentsarenotindustryspecificinthattheyarenotdirectly
inferred from research conducted into the construction industry. Nonetheless, these impediments are useful in
identifyingpatternsaffectingtheuptakeofnewtechnologiesbythecommercialandgovernmentalsectors:
Thelackofawarenessofwhatebusinessisandwhatitinvolvesand,furthertothis,alackofawarenessora
reluctancetoseepotentialbusinessbenefits(Ingirige & Aouad2001NOEI2001Parishetal.2002).
Informedresistancetoinnovationbasedonvaluesandattitudes(Franketal.2004).
The lack of security and the perception of an insecure environment the need for a regulatory and legal
frameworklackofsystems(Bennettetal.2003).
Market incentive, pressures and rewards and uncertainty regarding the financial returns from investments in
variousresourcesversuseconomicbenefits(Tetteh&Burn2001Veeramanietal.2002).

Driversassistingebusinessadoption
Aswiththeimpedimentsto ebusinessadoption,thefollowingdiscussionoffactorsexertingapositiveinfluenceon
theadoptionandintegrationofebusinesstechnologiesisnotconstructionindustryspecific,butaccuratelyportrays
wider forces influencing the general patterns of ebusiness adoption. A review of the academic literature has
revealedthefollowingfactorswhichassistintheprocessof ebusinessadoption:
Rewards,incentivesandinitiativesbygovernmentsincludingseedingprograms,investmentincentivesandtax
rebates(NOIE2001).
Managerialcharacteristicsorphilosophyofthefirms(Gray & Lawless2002).
Culture oftheorganisation(Elliman& Orange2000Gray &Lawless2002).
SMEs characteristics related to flexible specialisation (de Berranger & Meldrum 2000 Malone 1985
Montazemi 1998). It is the flexibility of SMEs that can make adoption of information communication
technologies easier, compared to larger, more bureaucratic and inflexible organisations (de Berranger &
Meldrum 2000) and some commentators claim that SMEs could be expected to adopt technology faster than
largeorganisations.
Productionrelatedfactorsassistingebusinessadoption,forexampleebusinesstechnologieshavethepotential
totransfercomplexdesigninformationaccurately(Elliman&Orange2000),therebyeliminatingdatatransfer
error(NOIE2001),aswellasminimisingdelaysasinformationis conveyedalongthesupplychain.
Reductionintransactioncosts.Smallvendorsandsupplierscanbidonjobsusingstandardisedformsonthesite
making bidding on jobs relatively inexpensive costs in transferring information during the tender process is
reduced.Thewebsiteisalsobeneficialtolargemanufacturersasitcreatesanelectronicauctionmarketenabling
organisationstoreceiveawiderangeofcompetitivequotationsfromvendors(Wenninger1999).

Implicationsforresearch
Consideration of these impediments and drivers influencing ebusiness adoption suggests implications related to
government intervention, communication, including informal networks and formal information dissemination
channels, and economic space. These issues can be subsumed by a consideration of construction industrial
structure.Thesearenowdiscussedinmoredetail.
First,governmentbasedincentivesareaimedatimprovingtheattractivenessofadoptionby firmsbyoffering
financialsupportandthusaddressingakeyissueoffinancialrisk.Thatgovernmentinterventionisaimedataphase
of the adoptiondecision process, in particular towards the development of an attitude and appreciation of the
potential benefits of ebusiness. It is significant in identifying this phase as crucial to the overall process. The
pertinence of this factor is highlighted further when it is acknowledged that resistance to ebusiness adoption is
commonly based on values, attitudes and perceptions including the perception of ebusiness as a potentially
insecureeconomicenvironment asoutlinedpreviouslyintheimpedimentsto ebusinessadoptionsection.
Secondly, among the impediments discussed previously, are factors such as the lack of awareness of the
potential benefits. Hence, the adoptiondecision process undertaken by firm managers is inhibited by such non
economic factors as the lack of accurate information and importance of organisational culture and the social
meaningsandvaluesthatinfluencedecisionmakingintheformofmanagementpracticeormanagerialphilosophy.

314

Indeed,managerialphilosophyandorganisationalcultureareattributedakeystatusasdriversinnonconstruction
industryspecificresearchinto ebusinessadoption.
The managerial decision to engage in ebusiness relies upon an informed awareness of benefits, an
acceptanceoftheadvantagesversusdisadvantagesandalsoapracticalorganisationalcapacitytothenmovethefirm
inthatdirection.Themanagerialphilosophycanalsoreflectthepositionthatmanagersmaytakeinrelationtothe
perceived risk versus value in relation to ebusiness contributing to a firms operational profitability.
Communication playsasignificantroleininformeddecisionmakinganditisboththeinformalnetworksandthe
formal information dissemination channels, which are particularly crucial to the construction industry, that are
importanttounderstand.
Thus, thirdly, closely intertwined with social and cultural values and management philosophies, is the
economicspacethatthefirmislocatedinifmanagersdonotperceiveaneconomicimperativetomakechangethen
there is little incentive to undertake the restructuring of business practices and processes of the firm generally
implicatedin ebusinessadoption.Significanteconomicimperativesmayincludetheopportunity fornewmarkets
and/ornewclients,improvedinternalandexternalefficiencies,existingclientsand/orsuppliersdemandingchange,
andcurrentcompetitorsadoptingnewapproachesto ebusiness.
Furthermore, listed among potential drivers positively influencing ebusiness adoption, are the supposed
advantagesofSMEorganisationalcharacteristicsasrelatedtoflexiblespecialisation.Allegedlythissupposeddriver
exertsitsinfluenceintheimplementationphase,inthatthecharacteristicsofthesefirms,suchassmallersizeand
greater organisational flexibility, makerestructuring implicated inthe adoption of ebusiness less costly andtime
consuming.
Given that 93% of upstream project construction firms areSMEs, their organisational characteristics are a
factor that should assist them in adopting ebusiness technologies. Given also that the Australian construction
industry displays significantly lower levels of ebusiness adoption than other industries, it would seem that
advantagesbestowed by organisationalcharacteristicsaloneareinsufficienttoassurethepositiveinterpretationof
thevaluesofadopting ebusinesstechnologiesandpractices.
Thus, although the key impediments and drivers drawn from the general academic literature are quite
extensive and clearly relevant to the present research, it is also apparent that nonconstructionindustryspecific
researchhasnotsignificantlyintegratedkeyindustrialstructurecharacteristicsofthesectorthatwillinfluencethe
conduct of research into industryspecific impediments, drivers and adoption characteristics. Key aspects of the
constructionindustrial structureinclude:
attributesofconstructionindustry SMEs relatedtoflexiblespecialisationandclustering
theintegrationofbusinessprocessesalongthesupplychain,particularlythatofferedbyconstructionportals
theprojectbasednatureoftheindustry,andthat,therefore,contractualrelationshipsareconstantlyformingand
reformingasfirmsrespondtoprojects
thatthe underpinningof theprojectculture inupstreamlinkagesisanonprojectbasedmanufacturingsectorin
downstreamlinkage whichprovidesaninterestingintersectionasthesupplychainisnowheremore
importantthanintheconstructionindustry
that, furthertothis, theroleofdifferentsupplychainsandcompetitivebehaviourinasubstantiallyproject
baseddemandindustrypullinganonprojectbasedsupplyindustry.
Asignificantgapintheliteratureisthattherehasnotbeenaninvestigationthathasconsideredtheorganisational
behaviour of participants within various construction industry supply chains in both the positive and normative
sense(i.e.industrialstructureofchainsandstrongnetworkrelationshipswithinchains)andtherolethatthisplays
onebusinessadoption.Pastresearch(Gray&Lawless2002Elliman&Orange2000)hasbeenreductionistinits
approach,andassumedthatadoptiondependsuponindividualvariablesandthatadoptionrelatestoanindividual
firmschoiceasanentitythatdoesnotoperatewithinawidersocialandeconomicsystem.
The creation of the supply chain is impacted by the location of the individual firm within its competitive
market, which has unique economic, structural and behavioural characteristics. The upstream and downstream
linkagesareaffectedbythenatureofthesemarketsandthecountervailingpowerwhichoccursbetweenmarkettiers
inthechain(London2005).Itisspeculatedthatwithintheconstructionindustrynewtechnologiesandebusiness
practices are commonly diffused through various operational clusters because of their business linkages and
interdependence.
It is a premise of this research project that for ebusiness to be successful, ebusiness adoption and the
diffusionofideasconcerningmoreefficientpracticesandmoreeffectivetechnologiesmusthappenfrombusinessto
business within the supply chain as well as within the individual businesses. This is due to the nature of key
potentialebusinessbenefitsinreducingproductionandtransactioncostsassociatedwithsupplychainorganisation
andcontractmanagement.Organisationalbehaviourinrelationtotheadoptionofinnovativeebusinesstechnology
reliesupontheeconomicpressuresconfrontingindividualfirmsasaresultofmarketcompetition(thebehaviourof
theirimmediatecompetitors),aswellastheupstreamanddownstreamlinkagesthattheytypicallyfindthemselves
connectedto, includingthebusinesspracticesoftheirupstreamanddownstreamsuppliersand/orclients.

315

Inthediscussionoftheimpedimentsanddriversto ebusinessadoptionidentifiedintheliteraturethepointhasbeen
to acknowledge that ebusiness adoption is a complex and multiphase process that is heavily reliant on the
provision of information and communication between individuals and groups. In doing so it is clearthatresearch
intoebusinessadoptionintheconstructionindustryneedstoexaminetheprocessinaculturalandsocialcontext
thattakesintoaccountthecomplexitiesofthewidersocialsysteminwhichindividualsandfirmsareembedded,as
wellastheeconomiccontextwithinwhichtheseoperationaldecisionsandorganisationalprocessestakeplaceand
arecontextualised.
Thus,whileitisimportanttobeawareofthestructuraldriversandimpedimentstoebusiness,ourresearch
focusesontheimportanceofdiffusionwithinandbetweenbusinessesandtheinterdependenciesbetweenupstream
and downstream markets along the supply chain for the adoption of ebusiness. Therefore, a deeper and more
detailed consideration of the nature of structural impediments and drivers, their relationships and then, more
importantly,therelationshipbetweenanimpedimentandadriverisrequired.Whenandhowdoesadriverbecomea
driver? Thisistherealtriggerpointforadoptionandthuswidespreaddiffusionoftechnologies.
Thereisabodyoftheoryreferredtoasdiffusiontheory.Thefollowingsectionoutlinesdiffusiontheoryasa
basisfordevelopingaconceptualframeworkdesignedspecificallyforinvestigationoftheconstructionindustryasa
social,culturalandeconomicsystem.Aswecritiquediffusiontheory,wealsooverlayconsiderationsfromsupply
chaintheoryasthishelpsustounderstandtheimportanceofindustrialstructureontheperformanceoftheindustry
asawholetowardsthedevelopmentofaconceptualmodelandinterpretiveframeworkforthestudy.

DIFFUSIONTHEORY
Rogers (1995) has considered the diffusion of new technology in his text Diffusion of Innovations. Whilst not
referring specifically to the diffusion of ebusiness as innovation, Rogers (1995) work does provide an initial
framework through which examination of the diffusion of ebusiness through supply chains can be examined.
Rogers (1995) defines the diffusion of innovations as the process by which knowledge of an innovation is
transmittedthroughcommunicationchannels,overtime,amongthemembersofasocialsystem.Therefore,thefour
keyelementscomprisingRogersdiffusiontheoryaredefinedas:
theinnovation:anidea,practiceorobjectthatsperceivedasnew
communicationchannel:canbemassmediaand/orinterpersonalnetworksandisthemeansbywhichmessages
abouttheinnovationgetfromoneindividualtoanother
time:comprising(a)theinnovationdecisionprocess(b)relativetimewithwhichaninnovationisadoptedby
anindividualorgroup aninnovationsrateofadoption
thesocialsystem:asetofinterrelatedunitsthatareengagedinjoint problemsolvingtoaccomplishagoal.
Within this framework diffusion is largely measured through the degree of adoption within a social system.
AdoptersarecategorisedbyRogersasinnovators,earlyadopters,earlymajority,latemajority,andlaggards.These
adopter categorisations are differentiated primarily in relation to diffusion as a temporal process diffusion
happens in time, whilst the other key elements of innovation, communication channels and social system exert
variableinfluenceuponthetemporaldiffusionprocessdependingontheirspecificqualities.AccordingtoRogers
forexample,communicationchannelsvaryinimportanceaccordingtothetypeofadoptermassmediaandexpert
knowledge have more influence on innovators, whereas personal networks are more important for lateadopters
(Rogers 1995). Which is to say, the type of communication channel has influenced the rate of adoption, for the
difference between an innovator and a lateadopter, according to Rogers is simply the relative time in which the
diffusion process has occurred. The key processes in Rogerss diffusion theory are, thus, the adoptiondecision
processandtherateofadoptioncomprisingmultiplephases,andinfluencedbyvariousfactors.Asnotedearlier
in relation to a discussion of the impediments and drivers for ebusiness, the adoptiondecision process is a key
phasethroughwhichanindividual(orgroup)passesfrom:
firstknowledgeoftheinnovation,to
forminganattitudetotheinnovation,to
makingthedecisiontoadoptorrejecttheinnovation,to
implementingtheinnovationandconfirmingthedecisiontaken.
This transition from first knowledge of the innovation to its implementation measured as a temporal process
encompassestheinnovationsrateofadoption.Thismaybeaffectedbyvariousfactorsrelatingtothekeyelements
of Rogerss theory, including the specific attributes of the innovation in question its relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability (Rogers 1995). Also influential is the type of innovation
decision being made including optional/individual, collective/organisational, and authoritarian/hierarchical. This
factor parallels the recognition of organisational culture and managerial philosophy as a driver to ebusiness
adoption.

316

The basic significance of Rogerss theories of innovation diffusion can be found in his acknowledgement of the
complexity oftheprocess.Rogerssunravellingofthiscomplexitydisplayedconsiderableinsight(consideringthe
inception of the original theory inthe early 1960s andthus precedingrecognition of the importance of culturein
organisational and social theory) in identifying the nature of the social system its social and cultural norms,
beliefs,valuesandattitudes,asbeinginfluentialfactorsintherateofadoption.

CONCEPTUALMODEL
In this section the conceptual model research project is described. This model emerges from the examination of
impediments and drivers toebusiness adoption discussed in the previous sections, and takes as its starting point
Rogerss diffusion theory. Deficiencies in innovation diffusion theory are identified and the conceptual model
adjustedtotakeintoaccounttheuniquecharacteristicsoftheconstructionindustryandalsotoaddressebusiness
technology as a specific form of innovation that bears relevance to the approach taken to research patterns of
adoption. These key aspects are concentrated on in order to build a conceptual interpretive framework designed
specifically for investigation of the contexts surrounding ebusiness adoption within a construction industry
interpreted asacomplexandinterconnectedsocial,culturalandeconomicsystem.
Amoredetaileddiscussiononthechosenresearchdesignofcasestudymethodologyandthespecificdesign
of the research project including the industry and government partners who have assisted in the process of data
collection is not included in this. The data collection and analysis processes and the relationships between the
conceptualmodel,thekeythemesinvestigatedandthetypesofquestionsaskedofinterviewsubjectsareoutlinedin
detailintheresearchreportsforthisstudywhichcanbeobtainedfromtheCRCforConstructionInnovation.

Conceptualframework
Theconceptualmodelandinterpretiveframeworkunderpinningthisstudytakeaccountoftheindustrialstructureof
theindustry,andtypicallytheeconomicsystemasawholeandalsooftheorganisational,managerial,andcultural
characteristicsofthefirmsintegratedinto supplychainstructuresthatcomprisethesocialsystemoftheconstruction
industry. The business and social system for the construction industry can be related to upstream clients,
downstream suppliers and market competitors. This project addresses the wider contexts that influence
organisational decisions whether or not to adopt innovations and assesses the abovementioned impediments and
driversthroughacombinedeconomic,socialandculturalconceptualmodel.Thefollowingsectionsdiscussthese
ideasinmoredetail.

Critiqueofdiffusiontheory
Rogerss diffusion model is a useful starting point for analysing the processes involved in diffusion, and is
particularly relevant to the present study due to its explicit recognition of the importance of social and cultural
factorsontheadoptionanddiffusionofinnovations.However,aspectsofthetheorymustbeextendedandmodified
beforeitcanbeappliedtoinformationtechnology (IT)(Bayer&Melone1989)andmorespecificallytoebusiness
within the construction industry. Particularly significant to this discussion on diffusion theory is the need to
introducenetworkedITitselfasaprimarycommunicationchannelwithparticularqualities,whichwillconsiderably
influenceboththeinnovationdecisionprocessandtherateofadoption.
Alongsidetheseextensionsandmodificationsofdiffusiontheory,tomakeitapplicableasaframeworkfor
investigations into the adoption of ebusiness in the construction industry, there are other limitations to Rogerss
diffusionmodel.BayerandMalone(1989)arguethatRogersstheory ofdiffusionisoversimplifiedintermsofa
binarydualismof adoptornotadopt.Thereisnomeansfortheanalysisofcaseswhereinnovationsarepartially
adoptedorexplanationofferedastowhyinnovationsareadoptedinsomeformotherthantheoneintendedbythe
developersoftheinnovation.AlongsidethismainmethodologicaldeficiencyBayerandMalone(1989)alsoidentify
thelackofdifferentiationbetweenadoptinganinnovationatafirmlevelandatanindividualuserlevel,andalsothe
failure to consider adoption and diffusion as a function of interactions between various social and economic
systems.
Rogerss (1995) tendency towards a simplified binary conceptualisation of the adoption process is
considerablyproblematicinthatitdoesnotaddressthecomplexinterconnectednatureoftheconstructionindustry,
nortakesintoaccounttheintrinsicflexibilityandmultifunctionalityofinformationtechnology andebusiness.Itis
proposedthatintheconstructionindustryitisdifficulttoplacefirmsintoonedefinitecategorybecauseadoptionis
not simply an either/or situation. The diversity of ebusiness applications and also the competitive nature and
fragmentedand/orspecialisedstructureoftheindustry groundedsimultaneouslyinprojectbasedrelationshipsof
closecollaborationwithlimitedtimeframesintroducesthenotionofdiscontinuance.Collaborativerelationships
betweenfirmswithinsupplychainsarenotpermanent,butbothdynamicandtransient.However,asLondon(2005)
clearlyidentified,eventhisisasimplisticexpressionofthe patternsthatexistintheindustry.Longtermformaland
informalrelationshipsexistintheindustryalongthesupplychainandfirmsactasstrategicallyastheenvironment

317

willallowthemtothattheyexerciseasmuchpowerastheycantomanoeuvrethemselvesintothebestpossible
efficient and effective customersupplier relationships as this dynamic and cyclic industry can support. In
considering adoption and diffusion within supply chains, our research model acknowledges that adoption of e
business for one project, and in collaboration with a particular group of firms to form a supply chain, does not
necessarily translate to the use of ebusiness methods permanently. Rather, each supply chain exerts its own
pressuresoncollaboratingorcompetitorfirms,andthesepressuresareuniquetothesupplychaininquestionasa
product of the specific project requirements and the organisational and communicative practices of participating
firms.

Conceptualmodelandinterpretiveframework
In overcoming the constraints of both time and space, IT changes the nature of decisionmaking, making vast
amounts of information available for perusal, consideration and comparison. The diffusion of ideas is no longer
boundbyitspassagefromindividualtoindividualinalinearandoftenhierarchical(intheformofmanagementto
employee, or from expert to layperson) chain of communication, but is essentially free to move directly and
immediatelyamongmembersofanorganisationorsocialsystem.Thetimespacecompression(Harvey1989),and
thelateralnetworkedsystemfunctions(Castells1997)thatinformationtechnologyprovides,andwhicharecentral
tothecominginformationsociety,arecrucialtounderstandingtheorganisationalandfinancialbenefitsofadopting
ebusiness.Indeed,thewebportalisaprimaryfocusof ebusiness adoptionwithintheconstructionindustry.Thus,a
centralaspectofthemodelbeingdevelopedinthecurrentresearchistheacknowledgementofthecapacityfor e
businesstoimprovesupplychainintegration,andviceversa,supplychainintegrationtoassistintheadoptionofe
business.
It is also important to acknowledge the nature of the construction industry supply chain as a social and
economic system with particular characteristics. A large percentage of SMEs and firms within the construction
industry can be classified under the category oflatetononadopters, which exemplifies the significance of inter
personal social networks within the supply chain for increased ebusiness diffusion. More precisely, this status
identifies the complexity of social networks and the variety of relationships based in trust and social capital
currentlyinexistencewithintheAustralianconstructionindustry.Thesesocialnetworksarebothfragmentedand
dynamic consistingofrelationshipsbetweenfirmsofbothcollaborationandcompetition.
Additionally, there is a range of trustbased relationships at play within supply chains and the wider
construction industry. For example, relationships of trust grounded in personal (professional or informal)
relationshipsdiffersubstantiallyfromrelationshipsoftrustbasedinthecredibilityorreputationofacompetitoror
collaborator.Thecredibilityofacompetitororcollaboratorsignificantlyaltershowamanagerofafirmapproaches
theadoptiondecisionmakingprocessastheirfirstthoughtsareItrustandvaluetheirbusinessdecisionseven,at
times,withouthardevidenceandthereforeplacefaithinwhateconomicadvantagesthecompetitororcollaborator
hasachievedorpotentiallyseekstoachieve.
Similarly, supplychain relationships of trust and collaboration are often created between otherwise
disconnectedfirmsthatbothshareamoredirectrelationshipwithamutualparty.Forexample,wetypicallywork
withsimilarclientsorsuppliers.Acknowledgmentofthisdiversityofrelationshipsandshiftingscenarioscallsfor
the development of a research model that addresses the complex issue of development of social capital in an
environment marked primarily by shortterm projectbased relationships and a competitive ethos, but one where
everyoneiscognisantofthepossibilityoffuturelinkageswithinaclusterofcustomersandsuppliers.
WhilstRogerssfiveadoptercategoriesprovideaspectrumofadoptionratesfrominnovatortolaggard,these
are a function of time and do not accommodate differential modes of adoption. Of relevance to this point is
recognition of the different functions of firms in the supply chain, and accordingly their substantially diverse
organisationalstructures.Associatedwiththispointarealsovariousdifferentinterestsandperspectivesthatoccurat
differentlevelswithinbothafirmandwithinthetiersofthesupplychainupstreamclients,downstreamsuppliers
andmarketcompetitors.Relatedtothisflexibilityinmodeofebusinessapplicationatthelevelof organisationis
alsotheneedtorecognisetherelativeautonomyofindividualswithinfirms.Thediffusionofaninnovationthrough
afirmisnotsimplyamanagerialdecisioncarriedoutbythefirmsemployees,butratherindividualshaveacertain
capacity to determine to what extent the innovation (ebusiness application) is used efficiently and effectively in
relation to their specific role within the firm (Frank et al. 2004). In this sense, it is possible to account for both
partialadoptionswithinfirms,andalsoalternative(andoftencreative)modesofadoption.
This more complex reading of the adoption and diffusion decision process overcomes simultaneously
Rogersssimplisticbinaryconceptofadoption/nonadoption,andhisemphasisonthetemporalrateofadoptionin
thecategorisationofadoptertypes.Thisisachievedwhilemaintaininghisinsightsintotheinfluenceofthesocial
system in both the form of operating, structural and economic pressures from the supply chain, and also in the
circulation of social and cultural meanings and values that influence the development of positive or negative
attitudestowardsebusiness applications.
Furthermore,thepresentresearchallowsadegreeofdifferentiationbetweentheadoptionofaninnovationby
an individual user and at an organisational level and thus facilitates the analysis of cases where innovations are

318

partially adopted or are adopted in some form other than that proposed by the developers of the innovation.The
individualisedinterpretationofagiveninnovationisrelativeto boththesocialandculturalmeaningsprevalentin
thefirm,butalsototheparticularrequirementsoftheroleofthatindividualwithinthefirmandofthefirmwithin
thesupplychain.
In this sense, we suggest a more sophisticated conceptualisation of thenature of the innovation isneeded,
alongside a more individualised analysis of the diffusion of the innovation throughout the social system that
acknowledges that the innovation can be changed each time it is communicated or diffused, and that ebusiness
lendsitselfparticularlytodiversifiedmodesofapplication.

Supplychaintheory
Ultimately the success of the diffusion of ebusiness is reliant upon the firms economic and social space or
environmentandthenthecapacitytoachievechange.Althoughitisimportanttobeawareofthestructuraldrivers
andimpedimentstoebusiness,ourresearchfocusesontheimportanceofdiffusionwithinandbetweenbusinesses
andtheinterdependenciesbetweenupstreamanddownstreammarketsalongthesupplychainfortheadoptionofe
business. Rather than taking the approach that a firm either adopts or does not adopt, we are suggesting that
adoptionandultimatedispersionacrosstheindustryisbaseduponfirmsbeingalongacontinuumofreflexivity
relying upon ebusiness awareness, responsiveness and adaptability attributes, and that reflexivity capability is
underpinnedbyfirmsandindividualswithinfirmswhoarewithinanindustrialstructureparticularlyinfluencedby
supplychainrelationships.
Therearenumerousinterpretationsofwhatthesupplychainisandatwhatlevelasupplychainisconsidered
(London2001).Forthepurposesofthisstudythefollowinginterpretationisassumed:
The supply chain is a group of firms that are involved through upstream and downstream
contractualrelationships,and whodeliveracommodity(productand/orservice)relatedtothecore
businessofaconstructionproject.Thesupplychainonceformedcreatesaflowofcommodities,
cash and information. The creation of the supply chain is impacted by the location of the
individual firm within its competitive market, which has unique economic structural and
behaviouralcharacteristics.Theupstreamanddownstreamlinkagesareaffected bythenatureof
these markets and then the countervailing power which occurs between subsequent markets at
adjacentlevelsinthechain.
The reflexive capability model focuses on the importance of communication, socialnetworks and social, cultural
andeconomiccapitalforincreasedawarenessanddiffusionofebusinesswithinsupplychains.Itisbaseduponthe
premisethatthebehaviourandattitudesof firmstowardstechnologicalinnovationscanhavesignificantinfluence
ontheacceptanceandultimatelythedispersionof ebusinessbyotherfirmswithinthesupplychain.Theconceptual
model and interpretive framework of supplychaininfluenced diffusion suggests that people change perceptions
aboutthevalueofaninnovationthroughcommunicationanditistheseperceptionsthatthendriveimplementation.
A firms behaviour in relation to the adoption of innovative technology (in this instance, ebusiness
technology)reliesupontheindividualfirmsattitudetowardsriskwhichisdrivenbyeconomicpressuresasaresult
ofmarketcompetition(thebehaviouroftheirimmediatecompetitors),theupstreamanddownstreamlinkagesthat
theytypicallyfindthemselveslocatedwithin,andthebusinesspracticesoftheirupstreamsuppliersanddownstream
clients.
Forebusinesstobesuccessful,diffusionmusthappenfrombusinesstobusinesswithinthesupplychainas
wellaswithintheindividualbusinesses.Theeconomicandsocialsystemforthesupply chainintheconstruction
industry is related to the following key players: upstream clients, downstream suppliers and market competitors.
Thereforediffusionmusttakeplacebetweenfirmsand,justassignificantly,withinthefirms,for ebusinesstobe
successful.Althoughitisimportanttobeawareofthestructuraldriversandimpedimentsto ebusiness,ourresearch
focusesontheimportanceofdiffusionwithinandbetweenbusinessesandtheinterdependenciesbetweenupstream
and downstream markets along the supply chain. The reflexive capability model focuses on the importance of
communication,socialnetworksandsocial,culturalandeconomiccapitalforincreasedawarenessanddiffusionof
ebusiness within supply chains. It is based upon the premise that the behaviour and attitudes of firms towards
technological innovations can have a significant influence on the acceptance and ultimately the dispersion of e
business by the individual firm and then also by other firms within the supply chain. This model of diffusion
suggeststhatpeoplemaychangeperceptionsaboutthevalueofaninnovationthroughcommunicationanditisthese
perceptionsthatthendriveimplementation.Changemayalso occurthroughchangedmarketconditions.Thenext
sectiondescribestheresultsoftheempiricalstudyofaclusteroftwelvefirmsorganisedaroundalargegovernment
agency.Forthisstudytheexistingindustrialstructureofthesupply chainandtheinherenttenuouscountervailing
relationships between markets along the chain that this brings with it in the construction industry is taken as a
givenwithinwhichtheimpedimentsanddrivers, whichwerefoundintheindustry,areembedded.

319

RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
A case study methodology was undertaken where each firmrepresents a case and collectively thisrepresents the
casesurroundingthelargeclientthesefirmsareclusteredaround.
An important part of case study methodology is the establishment of constructs that organise theresearch
methodologyandprovideaframeworkforthedataanalysis.Threeareasofinvestigationrelatingtodifferentaspects
oftheadoptionofebusiness withintheconstructionindustry werefocuseduponinordertoachievetheresearch
objectives:
1. Impedimentsand drivers
2. Processesand practices
3. Strategiesand techniques.
Impedimentsanddriversareobviouslyofcentralimportancetotheresearchproject.Thisconstructisconstruction
industryspecific and refers to the relationship between the ebusiness innovation and the adopting organisation.
Morespecificallyitencompassesfactorsandforcesthatpreventorhindertheadoptionofebusiness(impediments)
and also factors and forces that facilitate and encourage adoption ofebusiness (drivers). These impedimentsand
driverscanoriginateinternallyorexternallytotheorganisation.
Processesandpracticesreferstothewaythingsareorganised,formallyandstructurally(processes),andthe
waythingsaredone,informallyandpractically(practices).Therewillbesubstantialcorrelationbetweenthesetwo
asthegoalofprocessistoorganisepracticeinaconsistentmanner.However,thisrelationshipisnotdeterministic
orunidirectional.Peopledonotalwaysdothingsaccordingtotheguidelines,andtheindividualised,contradictory
waysthatpeopledothings(practices)canexertinfluencesonthewayformalprocessesareorganised.
Strategiesandtechniquesreferstothewaysinwhichtheorganisationrelatestotheinnovationrelativetothe
firmsgoals.Primarilythiswillconcernthewaysofthinking(strategies)andwaysofacting(techniques)bywhich
theorganisationwillovercomeimpedimentsandtherebyfacilitatetheachievementofgoals.
Twelve cases were considered and data was collected through a minimum of a onehour interview and
followuptelephonediscussionstoconfirmdetails.Thedataanalysisinvolvesatwophaseprocessofopenandaxial
codingoftranscriptsandbothwithincaseandcrosscaseanalysis.Datagatheredinrelationtothethreekeyareasof
investigation was then subjected to thematic analysis based upon individual analysis of datasets investigating for
textualindicatorsofbothsocial/culturalandeconomicfactorsinplay.Table37.1summarisesthecasesdiscussedin
thischapterandeachofthesearesupplierstoatleastthestategovernmentagencyattimestheysupplytotheother
twomajorclientsinvolvedinthisstudy.
Table37.1:SummaryofCaseFirmDetails
Case Firmtype
1
Residentialandcommercialbuildingand
constructionmanagers
2
Projectmanagementconsultants
3
Commercialconstructioncontractors
4
5
6
7
8

Commercialconstructioncontractors
Commercialarchitecturalfirm
Residentialbuildingsubcontractor
Developmentconsultancy
Quantitysurveyorconsultants

9
10
11

Contractorshopfitting
Projectmanagementconsultancy
Contractorcommercialbuilding

12

Architecturalfirm

Sizeindicator
100staff
$110mturnover
4staff
2025staff
$10mturnover
Noindicatorgiven
Noindicatorgiven
6staff
120staff
5staff
25staff
Noindicatorgiven
15staff
$0.8averagejob
1staff

Respondent
Statemanagerand
director
Projectmanager
Manageranddirector
Documentcontrolmanager
Officemanager
Owneroperator
Manageranddirector
Directorandqualitycontrol
manager
Owneranddirector
Divisionmanager
Owneroperator
Owneroperator

Thefollowingsectionsarearesultofthefirststageofopencodingfollowedbythesecondstageofaxialcodingand
areorganisedasfollows:impediments,drivers, andimpedimentsanddrivers.
Theanalysisispresentedgraphicallyinthreecausallinkdiagrams.Thediagramsrepresentpartofthedata
displaysusedinthisstudy,andvariouswithincaseandcrossmatricesweredevelopedtosummariseandcompare
andcontrasttheemergingkeythemes.

320

Impediments
Theoverarchingimpedimenttoadoptionofebusinessintheconstructionindustryisinconsistentadoptionpatterns.
Wecanthenbreakdownthisimpedimentintofourinterrelatedsubordinateimpediments,includingperceptionsand
attitudes, compatibility of the innovation, market incentives (uncertainty regarding returns), and heterophilic and
homophilic communication. Heterophilic means where two or more individuals interacting have different
attributes,beliefs,educationandsocialstatusandhomophilicmeanswheretwoormoreindividualsaresimilarin
their attributes and social status. These are all discussed in detail later under The heterophilic communication
pathway,andalso inthefollowingsections.

Inconsistentadoptionpatterns
Theinconsistent adoptionof ebusinessacrosstheindustryhasbeenhighlightedasakeybarriertofurtheradoption.
Itisadirectcauseofproblemssuchassoftwareincompatibility,butinadditiontothat,afirmsexperiencewithe
businessalsoinfluencestheirapproachtowardsfurtheradoption,andislinkedinwithmostoftheotherkeythemes.
Inconsistentadoptionpatternsaremostlyaresultofinconsistentapproachestobusinessmanagement,suchas
IT investment strategies. Consistency of approachis difficultto attain across the industry, whereas for ebusiness
adoptionconsistencyisanimportantfactorforthesakeofcompatibility.Firm2discussestheissue:
Youre dealing with the likes of MXXXX and youre dealing with the local builder
whosatwomanbusinesswhowouldntknowacomputerifhefelloverone.Soyouvegotthis
enormous range of abilities of people and types of organisations, some of whom you will find
alreadyareveryhighlyITorientateddowntopeoplethatdotheirpaperworkonthebackofa
matchbox, anditshardenoughgettingthemtoactuallyputsomethinginwritingletalonedoit
onacomputer itsverydifficulttogetacommonapproachtoanybloodything.
Firms with a higher level of experience with ebusiness technologies recognise the need for continual IT skill
advancement.AgreaterITskilllevelresultsinagreaterunderstandingofthepossibilitiesofebusiness,whichthen
resultsinapositivebusinessapproachtowardsfurtheradoption.Firmswithalowerlevelofexposuretoebusiness
dontparticipateinITskilladvancement,whichhinderstheirunderstandingofthetechnology,thepossibilitiesof e
businessandthustheirlevelofadoption.Thisknowledgegapcontinuallywidensasthoseatthefrontmoveforward
atagreaterratethanthoseattheback.
Itsaconstantprocessbecausewedontuseallthefacetsoftheintranet,welosetheskills,we
dontusethemandITisveryquick.Sowhatwedoiswecalleverybodywhosintheofficeonce
everythreemonthsorsoandwesitdownandgothrougheverythingSoitsaconstantprocess
oftraining,theresourcesthatwehavehow,doweusethembest.
(Firm10)
The previous quote demonstrates that the more ebusiness savvy firms recognise the potential for a tendency
toward differentiation between IT technology and the required operating knowledge. For firms such as these the
recognition of the potential problem and the economic capacity to engage in regular staff training and formal
processes of internal knowledge dissemination is frequently enough to promote a strategic attitude toward
managementoftheproblem.ButasismadeclearbythequotefromFirm2,thenatureoftheconstructionindustry
asbothfragmented,specialisedanddiversemeansthatmanagementpoliciesinternaltoafirmthataredesignedto
promoteconsistencybetweentechnologyandoperatingknowledgecanonlyextendsofar:
IT moved a bit faster than peoples IT skills and that question of IT skills and individuals and
particularlyintheconstructionindustry.See,alotofthesepeopleare,youknow, well,physical
workers a lot of these subcontractors. Its the biggest impediment is the end users being
comfortablewiththat,theenduserITawareness.Ifwecangetoverthathurdleitwouldbevery
easy.
(Firm10)
The larger operators withinthe industry commonly hold the attitude that the problems of inconsistent patterns of
adoption lie predominantly with the smaller operators. The nature of the subcontractors within the industry as
physical workers is perceived as an impediment to increasing enduser IT awareness, and one that is readily
identifiedbythesefirms:
How do you expect a person whos working laying bricks and mortar and keep thinking about
how it looks on the computer,he still deals with that andcreating that and when he goes back
home and all his muscles are sore and hes not going to sit on the computer, if he sits on the
computerprobablyhesgoingtoplaygames.
(Firm10)

321

Apotentialincompatibilitybetweenthebasicdemandsofthesubcontractortoengageinphysicalconstructionwork
andthedesireoflargeroperatorstoimprovetheirprofitmarginsviaincreasedebusinessefficienciesisrecognised
asakeyimpedimenttoconsistentpatternsofadoption.However,thisrecognitiondoesnottendtoameliorateany
assumptionsthatitisthesubcontractorlevelthatisthecauseofinconsistentpatternsofadoptionthatareholding
backthe realefficienciesassociatedwithebusinessadoption:
Tomethebiggestproblematthemomentintheconstructionindustryisgettingacceptanceatthe
subcontractorlevel.ItsOKfromaclient,consultant(and)contractorlevelbutwevegotto
capturethesubcontractorsandthesuppliersinittoobecause(thenwe'll)gettherealefficiencies
withit...andthenEbusinesswillreallytakeoffIthink.
(Firm1)
Firmswithahigherdegreeofadoptionprefertodobusinesswithotherswithsimilarcapabilities.Thisexclusionary
behaviourfurtherlimitstheopportunityforebusinessexposureofthelesscapablefirms.Thosefirmswithahigher
capabilityrecognisethecompetitiveadvantageofhavingamoreadvanceddegreeofadoption.Assuch,thesefirms
have an interest in maintaining the status quo, which is in conflict with their desire for the greater efficiencies
achievable with a higher degree of industrywide adoption. Firm 1 demonstrates this conflict very clearly in the
followingquoteascomparedtotheirquotepreviously:
Whatdifferentiatesusagainstalotofourcompetitors(is)thatwevegotsystemsinplacewhich
areasgoodasalotofthemajorbuilderssoweretryingtogiveaserviceofalargercompanyina
smallersectorofthemarket.
(Firm1)
Inconsistent patterns of adoption are often expressed and experienced as the relatively innocuous problems of
softwareincompatibilitybetweenorganisations.Thishasanegativeeffectonbusinessoutcomesforthosewhohave
a relatively low experience with ebusiness technologies. Businesses with a higher degree of adoption (and thus
moreexperience)tendtofindincompatibilitylittlemorethanahindrance.
Wehaveagraphicartistwhodoesletterheadorbrochuresforus.Herlevel ofsoftwarewasnot
compatible withtheprinterslevel of software,theyre obviouslythelatestandgreatestsoit
ledtoamistakeintheprintthat,itwasabigprintrunandofcoursetheprintingcompanydidnt
wanttotakeanyresponsibilityandthegraphicartistsaidthatshetoldthemitwasVersionblah,
blah,andsowe wereleftinthemiddlereceivingaproductthatwasntahundredpercent.Ijust
hadtowearit,justhadtogrinandbearit.
(Firm9)
WithAutoCADtheyhavearequirementforAutoCAD2000,Ithinkits2004,mysubcontractor
uses2000,myothercontractorsuse13and14whicharepre97and98,Ivegototherpeople
whore using 2004, another person using (Archi)CAD and another persons RBT. The
translation is supposed to be easy but its never simple and you lose, you lose aspects of
drawing
(Firm12)
We have some subconsultants in the other disciplines whether its structural, mechanical or
electricalthatmightbeusingdifferentpackagesormightnotbeonthesameversionofAutoCAD,
sothatcanbecomeahindrance,notnecessarilyaproblem
(Firm5)
Theinconvenienceofincompatiblesoftwareplatformscancertainlyhaveaneconomicimpactonsmalleroperators,
and one that can contribute to increased perceptions of ebusiness adoption as unnecessary and economically
prohibitive.Inconsistentpatternsofebusinessadoptionisacomplexissueandonethatisfed bynumerousother
social/cultural and economic processes that themselves can be considered manifestations of the underlying issue
frequently discussed as the fragmentation of the construction industry. Inconsistent patterns of adoption are
themselvesanexpressionofthisfragmentationandareatthesametimecausaltoincreasingfragmentation.
StandardisationisperhapsintheoryagoodthingbutIthinkinpracticeitsalmostimpossible.
(Firm7)
Theproblemisthatnoneofthepartiesinthatchainactuallyhasacommercialinterestinchanging
thecultureindividually...it'sstilltoobloodycompetitive...nobodytrustsanybodyelseofcourse
soitmakesithardertogetthemtodealwitheachotheranditshouldn'tbethecase.
(Firm2)

322

Also whatishappeningisatthemomentthenatureoftheindustrythecompetition,commercial
advantage andallthat isnot veryconducive at themoment that would be an impediment to
bringinganystandardisation,itsabitcomplexissuebecauseImeanyoushouldnoticethatanyof
these major contractors only a handful of in the country, they like to keep their competitive
advantage.
(Firm10)
Thepreviousquoteshighlightthisperceptionofanindustrythatisfragmented,andthisisallthemoreproblematic
because the adoption of ebusiness is frequently touted as a means to overcoming an endemic fragmentationand
integratingtheindustrythroughmoreeffectiveandefficientcommunicationflows.

Subordinateimpediments
There are four key subordinate impediments including perceptions and attitudes, compatibilityof the innovation,
marketincentivesandcommunication,andthesearenowdiscussedindetail.Theresearchfindingsprovideamuch
deeperexplanationofeachofthesetypesofimpedimentsandalsotheirinterrelationships.Furthertothisisamuch
deeperappreciationofhowtodevelopstrategiestoaccountfortheseimpedimentsandthentodevelopstrategiesto
movefromnonadoptiontoadoptionofsomeappropriateform.
Perceptionsandattitudes
Barrierstodiffusionasanoutcomeofperceptionscanbereduceddowntotwokeyformsofindividualperception
onthelimitsofaninnovation.ThefirstisaperceptionofIT environmentsasinsecure.Thesecondisaperceptionof
aninnovationasbeingoverlycomplexorcausingdifficulty.
The perception of IT environments as insecure is a commonly held assumption prevalent throughout the
constructionindustryandhasbeenidentifiedinnumerousotherresearchstudiesasakeyproblem.Thefindingof
this perception as an impediment allows us to confirm the findings of these other projects but does not offer
anythingspecificallynew.Thefollowingquotesdemonstratethepervasivenessofthisassumptionthroughallstrata
oftheindustry:
We still resist the ebanking because of security problems. Weve had two meetings with the
Commonwealth Bank here and there were several issues that the girls had with the bank for
security. Weve had customers who have put one digit out andhe lost about $30,000 and it
tookhimmonthstotryandretrievethat.
(Firm9)
[Theriskinvolvedwithnothavinganactualsignatureondocuments]wouldbeaconcernifits
adocumentthatrequiresasignature.IfImsigningonbehalfofthecompanythenImobliged
toeitherhaveadirectorssignatureonitortwodirectorssignaturesonit forittobealegal
document.
(Firm1)
Wehaveheardastory,notuswereinvolved,butof afirmwhichissuedelectronicdocumentsand
on the system we use you can lock the quantities in other words it cannot be doctored when
theyrecallingfortendersandweunderstandthatoneofthetenderersgottotheformula.Nowwe
dont know how he could break into the computer,the programsystem we dont know. So you
knowtheolddaysofprintingoutahardcopyyoucanseeifsomebodyschangedthat,itsbloody
obvious.
(Firm8)
A significant twist on this findinghowever, is the degree to which perceptions of IT as an insecure environment
have insinuated itself into lower levels of organisational trust, in which firms deploy stringent intranet security
measuresdesignedtoprotectsensitiveinformationandpresumablydefendagainstlossofcommercialadvantagevia
leakageofsensitiveinformation.Itisdifficulttoimagineaculturalshifttowardsgreatertransparencyofprocessand
easeofinformationavailabilityandfilesharingtakingplaceamongstanindustrysupplychaincomposedoffirms
thatdonottrusttheirownemployees.
Different offices cant look at the different projects. Like I cant look in on (other offices)
projects, their serversare separate to the main serverandhave password protection on those
and similarly up here weve got password protection to the project managers only for their
particularprojectsotheycantsee anyotherprojects,orgetinanddoanythingtoanyone
elsesprojects.
(Firm1)
The perception of ebusiness as difficult and complex is an interesting finding that demonstrates the power of
attitudes and perceptions in influencing patterns of adoption. Our research made use of a hyphenated concept

323

indicator:perceptions of complexitydifficulty and found this useful precisely because it shows the relationship
between the perception of complexity, which is usually a marker of the conceptual distance between required
operatingknowledgeandpreviouslyheldideasandavailableskillsets,andaninterpretationofthatcomplexityas
difficult.
IwouldntsayIcouldseeanyadvantagereallyImeanwecertainly wouldnthaveanyproblem
withgettinginvolvedwithitorlookingattenderingonawebsite.Personallyitmightjustmakeit
another hurdle for small contractors to get involved, just another bloody whizbang thing you
know.
(Firm11)
An interesting outcome of this finding is the general tendency for this perception of complexity as difficult to
occur atthe lower ends of theconstructionindustry spectrumas arrayed by Rogerss (1995) diffusion categories.
Thepreviousquoterevealsthatthefirminquestionprofessesnoproblemswiththeideaofadoptingaparticular
ebusinessapplicationanattitudeseeminglyatodds withboththefailureofthefirmtocurrentlybeusingthat
application, a failure to see any advantage,andthe use of thepersonal positionin framing the objection to the
innovation on the grounds of complexitydifficulty. Interestingly the perception of complexity as difficult is
associated with the economic and cultural characteristics of the lowerend subcontractors who so frequently are
focuseduponastheimpedimenttocompleteandeffectiveadoptionpatterns. Thisisthecaseeveninthisexampleof
amidlevelconsultancyfirmwhointhisinstanceisitselfanonadopter.
There is little doubt that, for firms and small operators with little experience with IT technologies and e
business processes, there is a greater tendency for something new to be perceived as a difficulty. In this sense
difficult becomes understandable as a euphemism for unavailable resources interms of manpower or capitalto
investinunderstandingthecomplexityinordertoturnthatgreater(morecomplex)capacityintoadvantage.These
themesarediscussedinafollowingsectionMarketincentives:Uncertaintyregardingreturns.
Not surprisingly, these smallerend operators who occupy the lower end of Rogerss spectrumhave a very
lowdegreeofadoption.TheirprocessesremainimpervioustoanyperceivedITbenefitslargelyonthebasisofthese
perceptions and attitudes. Thus their perceptions of complexity and difficulty are frequently not the product of
personal exposure and usage of the ebusiness application in question, but rather the product of myths and
secondhand knowledge passed on through informal networks. Consequently the firms at the lower end can be
considered to belong to primarily homophilic communication networks, on the basis that their perceptions of
complexityasdifficult arerarelychallenged.
Therefore,thereisademonstrablerelationshipbetweenholdingperceptionsofITascomplexanddifficult,
and resistance to adoption based on attitudes. A position in a homophilic social network is likely to produce a
culturallyindoctrinatedsetofattitudesthatformsthebasisforaneasydismissalofpotentialbenefitsofITadoption
onthebasisofmanyjustifications.
EtechnologydoeshavetogetmoreintuitiveandIreckonthekeyboardinthatsystemisthe
wrongsystem.itsnotahumanwayofdoingthings,itsabitlikewritingwithtypewriters
inthenineteenthcentury...Butallthesamewestillhavetoworkwithinacontextandthats
the context in which we work and I still just have to struggle but I certainly dont see it as a
panaceaoragreatthing,Ithinkitsatoolthatsgotitslimitations.
(Firm12)
Iknowasubcontractor andhesitsintheofficealldayandhesgottheemailgoingding,
ding,dingand heonlydoesonething
(Firm6)
IheldoutgettingafaxmachineaslongasIcould.Iusedtotrotacrosstheroadoruptheroad,
samewithphotocopyingandthenobviouslygotoneandrealisedwellweshouldhavegotonea
longtimeago.
(Firm9)
We still resist the ebanking because of security problems. Weve had two meetings with the
Commonwealth Bank here and there were several issues that the girls had with the bank for
security. Weve had customers who have put one digit out andhe lost about $30,000 and it
tookhimmonthstotryand retrievethat.
(Firm9)
FormanyofthesefirmstheresistancetoITadoptiononthebasisofattitudesisinterestingbecausetheattitudecan
remaininparallelwithpositiveattitudesthathavedevelopedthroughexposuretoebusiness.Someofthesefirms
displayedanaversiontoITingeneralreferences,butwhendiscussiondelvedintothedifferentaspectsof ebusiness
applications at use in their enterprise their antipathy was markedly reduced. For example Firm 9 who above
expressedanattitudeofresistancetonewtechnologiesintheformoffaxmachines,andwhoalsoholdsaperception

324

ofinternetbasedbusinessasaninsecurefinancialenvironment,makesthefollowingquoteconcerningexperienced
advantagesofebusiness:Veryprecise,somuchquickerMoreaccurate,wecanprobablypushtheenvelopea
bitfurther.
This dimension of the problem, in which attitudes of difficulty and perceptions of aversion are eventually and
primarily overcome by positive experiences of adoption, demonstrates that what is generally required for the
increasingofenduserITawarenessandsubcontractorfamiliaritythataregenerallyrecognisedaskeyhurdlesto
consistent patterns of adoption, is that innovations present themselves as compatible with preexisting business
processes.
Compatibilityoftheinnovation
An outcome of inconsistent adoption patterns is the financial problems caused by different organisations using
different software programs, or frequently different editions or versions of the same software. Issues of inter
organisational (supply chain) compatibility being the impediment to ebusiness adoption is demonstrated by the
followingpassage:
Wehaveagraphicartistwhodoesletterheadorbrochuresforus.Herlevel ofsoftwarewasnot
compatible withtheprinterslevel of software,theyre obviouslythelatestandgreatestsoit
ledtoamistakeintheprintthat,itwasabigprintrunandofcoursetheprintingcompanydidnt
wanttotakeanyresponsibilityandthegraphicartistsaidthatshetoldthemitwasVersionblah,
blahandsowewereleftinthemiddlereceivingaproductthatwasntahundredpercent.Ijusthad
towearit,justhadtogrinandbearit
(Case9)
Examples suchas this are prevalent inthe datasets withalmost allrespondents mentioning some experience of a
lackofaccurateinformationtransferduetodifferingoperatingsystems.
However, incompatibility of the innovation based on disparate software platforms is the not the sole
expression of innovation incompatibility. Another recurring theme was that IT applications are also frequently
incompatiblewithpreexistingprocessandoperatingsystemswithinafirm.
This can cause delays in processes and outcomes with the inevitable financial consequences. Equally
importantly such occurrences canaddmarkedly to the perception of adoption as complexand thus difficult.This
idea of complexity and difficulty is discussed again in later sections. The outcome of this impedimentis thatthe
potential ebusinessapplicationsofaninnovationareneversimply evaluatedandconsideredforadoptionjustonthe
basis of their own attributes, but also on the basis of a whole range of preexisting organisationalstructural
conditionsthatlargelydeterminetherelativeeaseoftheadoptionprocess.Considerthesequotesthatdemonstrate
anincompatibilityonthebasisofentrenchedbusinessprocessesthatreflectcurrentneedsofvariouselementsofthe
industry:
Youve gotta work from thepeople thatuse it...the subcontractors outthere thatare doing the
work ... are 95% of the people and theyre the people that want the information, they want it
correct,accurate,quick,now,...andtheyneedtobeabletogetiteasilyandyouknowtheyrenot
geniuseswhenitcomestoITbuttheyregoodatwhattheydo,so youvegottadesignasystem
thatallowsthemeasyquickaccesstothatinformationwhetheritsdrawings,specificationpages,
siteinstructions,whateveritis.
(Firm2)
Itsallhandwritten,alltheprices,its allwrittenbyhand, oldblokestheycanttype,theydont
wanttositthereforhourswritingsomething.Handittotheofficegirlandsayfaxitorsenditby
emailandtheygobang,bang,banganditsdone,putitinthefaxandsenditover,soitsalljust
doneonce.
(Firm6)
Thuscompatibilityoftheinnovation withpreexistingpracticesandprocesses canbeseenasakey contributorto
thebarrierdiscussedaboveasinconsistentadoptionpatterns,andalsobelowaslackofmarketincentives.Potential
gains in efficiency claimed by a given ebusiness application must be considered relative to the overall cost of
adoption which canmean substantial changes to preexisting systems and processes. Thus the price tag of a new
pieceofITshouldnotbeconfusedwithitstotalcost.
Marketincentives:Uncertaintyregardingreturns
ThereislittledoubtthatITadoptionhasaconsiderableeconomicoutlayandthatfrequentlyeconomicbenefitsare
not felt immediately but can often take some time to accrue. It was a key theme in our research that smaller
operatorskeenly feltthefinancialpinchof outlay onITequipmentandrelatedsoftware.Thusthelackofmarket
incentive in terms of a prohibitive cost intersected frequently with an attitude that the status quo is a workable
proposition.Inmanycasesthiswasenoughtoconvincethesmalleroperatorsthatagivenadoptionwasunnecessary

325

andthusimprovementstobusinessprocessesofferedbyinnovationsarenotpursued.Considerthefollowingquote
that demonstrates the relative significance of an objectively minor business cost in the context of a smallend
industryoperatorsdecisionmakingprocesseswhenevaluatingfinancialoutlayversuspotentialbenefitsrelatingto
anebusinessinnovation:
Broadbanditsgoingtocostme,bloodyIdontknow,Ithinkitmightbefortybucksamonth,
andImpayingfiftybucksfortwomonths(fordialup)soyouknow,differencethereisntthere?
AndIhardlyusethethingnow.
(Firm6)
Thisdegreeofuncertaintyregardingreturnsoninvestmentsheldbythesmallerendoperatorsisanoutcomeoftheir
perception on the value of the innovation, which can also perhaps be considered as a lack or awareness of the
potentialbenefitsan ebusinessapplicationcanoffer.Animportantpointemergingfromtheanalysisisthatthese
attitudesarecommonacrossindividualsofcomparablestratawithintheindustryandhencerelatedtotheirposition
inaneconomicstructureandaspecificmarketdynamicasmuchastheirparticipationinanindustry culture.The
followingquotefromthesamesubcontractorhighlightsthatoccupationofastableandfavourablemarketcanactas
an effective justification for the status quo when intersecting with a conservative attitude toward technological
innovationadoption:
No(Idontfeelcompetitivepressuretoadopt).Theresonlyaboutfourorfive builderswhodo
stuff I do anyhow. And were all spread out and were alldoing stuff itsnot as ifno ones
working.
(Firm6)
It is certainly the case that firms of considerably larger economic capacity hold an assumption that entrenched
attitudesregardingthesatisfactorinessofcurrentbusinessprocessesareafactorinpreventingsmalloperatorsfrom
examiningpotentialbenefitsof ebusinessapplications:
Theydohavetochangetheirwayofthinking.ItstheattitudeofNo,Ilikedoingitthisway,so
whyshouldIlookatsomethingelse?Thiswayhasworkedforme,andIhearitallthetime
Butthisisthewaywevedoneitforsomanyyears,why shouldwechange?
(Firm4)
For those firms with a greater economic capacity and thusa substantially different attitude toward evaluating the
risksofexpenditureversusreturns,thisentrenchedattitudeasanimpedimentisfrustratingfortworeasons.Thefirst
isthatitobviouslyincreasesthetrendtowardinconsistentpatternsofadoptionthatbearsaflowoneffectontheir
ownabilitytostreamlineprocessandthusinfluencestheirprofitmargins.Thesecondreasonisthatanentrenched
attitude that prevents an openminded evaluation of potential benefits of adopting ebusiness applications is self
fulfilling. Quite simply, without ever tryinganew technologicalapplication orrefined process it isimpossible to
evaluate from a position of experience whether or not an ebusiness adoption will turn out to provide financial
benefits. For those firms with the economic capacity to survive the time lag between investment and return, a
common belief is that if the smaller operators did try a given application that would experience real financial
benefits:
[Those smaller operators are] fairly set in their ways of doing business and some are just not
interestedIthinkin(the)ITsideofthingsandthebiggestthingisfindingpeoplethatyouknow
arepreparedtogiveitagobecauseoncetheydoIthinktheyllseethebenefitofit.
(Firm1)
Yet, as pointed out in the above quote from Firm 6, there are very real concerns about minor outlays for those
operatorsrunningonrelativelysmallprofitmargins.Itisdifficultforthebiggerplayersintheconstructionindustry
totrulyappreciatetheexperienceof operatingasuccessful smallbusinessonextremelytightmargins.Prohibitive
costisalsonotrestrictedtothepurchasepriceofnewtechnologyorsoftwarealone.
For many small operators the initial outlaywas only of minor significance the problem was the continual
needtoupdateandrenewtechnologytostayabreastofindustrylevelsthatis,tomaintainaconsistentpatternof
adoption as dictated by firms with far greater economic capacity. Many respondents doubted the need for this
continualupdatingoftechnology.Considerthisquote:
Theonlythingthatprobablypissesmeoffgreatlyisthatevery yeartheytell youthatwhatyou
justboughtisnowoldnewsandobsolete.Istillcantcometogripswiththatiftheyresocleverat
designing computers and packages, why cant they design something that will last at least five
years.Ithinkitsabigconspiracy.
(Firm9)

326

Thefastmovingpaceoftechnologicaladvancementisalsoproductiveofasecondbarrierthatismostlykeenlyfelt
inrelationtosupplychaininteractions:thedisparatelevelsoftechnologyanddegreesofoperatingknowledgethat
canleadtoinconsistentadoptionpatterns.Inconsistencyinebusinesspotentialsacrossthesupplychaincanbean
outcomeofdifferentiatedlevelsoftechnologyandsoftwareplatformsandthisismostfrequentlyareflectionofthe
rapidpatternsofadoptiondemonstratedbyinnovative,highlycapitalisedfirmsasmuchastheabovediscussedlack
of market incentives held by smaller operators. However, inconsistency in ebusiness potentials is also related to
disparatelevelsof operatingknowledge.Thepossessionofthetechnologyitselfisoftennotthesoleproblem,but
also the knowledge required to effectively operate the technology is a key requirement and one that bears a
somewhathiddencostthateasilycontributestosmalleroperators uncertaintyregardingreturnsoninvestments.
This oftencited barrierrelates to therequired operating knowledge inevitably accompanying any purchase
and integration of a new IT application into a business process. Associated with the need for training is the
consequentlossofproductivitythatgoesalongwithit.Thus,whilestafftrainingemergesasadrivertoinnovation
adoptionintermsofdevelopingadegreeofdisseminationofnecessaryoperatingknowledge,itisalsoevaluated
asanadditional(andnegative)costassociatedwithIToutlay.
This relationship of staff training to loss of productivity exasperates the perception of IT expenditure as
prohibitiveforsmalloperatorssuchasFirm12.Thisperceptionbecomesevenmoreacutewhenitisfactoredinthat
thetechnologyandsoftwaremayverywellbeeffectivelyobsoleteinaveryshorttimeandthustheoutlayonstaff
trainingandknowledgedisseminationandassociatedlossesofcorebusinessproductivitymayhavetoberepeated,
perhapsindefinitely.Thisdilemmaisnotrestrictedtosmalloperatorsfunctioningonasmallmargin.Large,highly
capitalised firms also expressed concern at the potential loss of productivity associated with developing and
maintainingeffectiveoperatingknowledgetoensurethatebusinessapplicationsdocontributetoimprovedbusiness
processesandthusdoprovidereturnoninitialoutlay.
Heterophilicandhomophiliccommunication
The notion is emerging that heterophilic communication within an organisation is a complex issue that can
simultaneously be both an impediment and a driver to ebusiness adoption and innovation diffusion (for exact
definitions,refer to the later section The heterophilic communication pathway.). Differences between vertically
integratedgroupsofemployeescanexasperateproblemsincommunication,orindeedcommunicationbetweenareas
of niche expertise within the larger firms produce the same outcomes. Many people attempting to communicate
without sharing some common point of shared understanding can lead to minimal effective communication.
Examplesofthisproblemare:
generationaldiscrepanciesinattitudesandperceptionstothevalueofit
disparatelevelsof operatingknowledge.
These notions also tiein with theideathatan ebusiness innovations incompatibility with previously understood
beliefsismostlikelytooccuralonggenerationallines.
Wevegotareally widespectrumof employees fromstudentsthroughtoseniorolderarchitects
that arent say as versed with the eenvironment. Generally trying to get that senior person to
understandthebenefitsoftheprocess.Alotofthemarestillquiteorientatedtowardsthedrafting
andthepenandpencilsothatsbeenaninterestingprocess.
(Firm5)
Ontheotherhand,forthosefirmslargeenoughtoappreciateadegreeofheterophiliaanddiverseemployeegroups
(intermsoforganisationalfunction)intheirstructure,thereseemstobeamassivebenefitfromtheorganisationof
formal processes designed to foster and manage heterophilic communications. Heterophilia is discussed in more
detailinthesectionThe heterophiliccommunicationpathway.
Figure37.1summarisesthekeyinterrelationshipsdiscussedinthissection.

327

Figure37.1:CausalLinksbetweenImpedimentstoeBusinessAdoption

328

Drivers
Inamannersimilartotheprimaryimpedimentdiscussedaboveofinconsistentadoptionpatterns,itisrelativelyeasy
toidentifyfromtheanalysisaperceptionofadvantageasbeingthekeydriverfor ebusinessadoption.Thereare,
however, obviously numerous processes of both a social/cultural and economic nature involved in generating the
prevailing conditions for a perception of ebusiness adoption that interprets it as a pathway to competitive
advantage. Accordingly, analysis has identified a series of nested or hierarchically related factors that intersect
andcoinfluenceoneanotherinordertoproducethecomplexconceptualandfinancialterraininwhichinnovation
adoptiondecisionsaretaken.Thefollowingisabriefdescriptionofthenatureofeachdriverbutthecomplexityof
theserelationshipsisbestillustratedbelowinFigure37.2.
Figure37.2:CausalLinksBetweenDriversforeBusinessAdoption

Thefollowingsectionssummarisethekeydrivers.
Primarydriver:perceptionsofadvantage
Most organisations view their level of adoption in terms of competitive advantage, whether that meant having a
point of differentiation from their direct competitors, or needing to adopt to remain competitive within their
particularmarket,i.e.nullifyingotherscompetitiveadvantage.Thekeysignificanceofthisfindingistheemphasis
itplaces onthenatureoftherelationshipbetweensocial/culturalprocessesandeconomicoutcomes.Itistheway
thatvariousmanagersthink thevaluesandmeaningsthey drawonwheninterpretingnewsituationsandpotential
benefitsthatmarkthiskeydriverasuniquelymalleable.Perceptionsofadvantagearedevelopedinresponsetothe
market conditions and structural economic forces, but are equally influenced by the prevailing social codes,
limitations and justifications at play within the social/cultural spaces of construction industry relationships. The
followingsectionoutlinesthevariousotherdriversandtheirinterrelationships.

329

Subordinatedrivers
As indicated by the above discussion the characteristics of firm management play a large part in determining an
organisationalapproachtoebusinessadoption.Thefirmswithmoreexperiencein ebusinesswerefoundtoview
innovation as integral to their way of doing business andhave incorporated processes that support this into their
culture.Thisisdrivenbyadesiretoimprovetheefficiencyoftheirbusinessprocesses,forwhichtheyviewITasa
toolforthejob.Thekeypointhereisthatitisthosefirmsthathaveexperiencewithebusinessthataremostlikely
todevelopmanagementlevelperceptionsof ebusinessasdeliveringcompetitiveadvantage.
Thus while management characteristics as broadly conceived play a large part in producing functional
decisionmaking processes and improved capacity for organisational implementation it is those characteristics of
managerialpracticethatbearadirectrelationshiptotheadoptiondiffusionprocessthatbearaninordinateinfluence
uponwiderlevelsofindustryadoption.Thefollowingsubthemesemergeascomponentfactorswithinmanagerial
characteristicsofthefirmanalysed.
The generalattitudetakentowards innovation can be quite easily arrayed along the common continuum of
conservative to progressive. In relation to the specific nature of the innovation in question as an ebusiness
application,therewasafairamountofresistancetoinnovationsbasedupongenerationaldiscrepancy.Thatis,older
individualsweremorelikelytobeuncomfortablewithtakingrapidstepstowardsebusinessadoption.Atthesame
time,youngerindividualsweremorelikelytoembraceacuttingedgeapplicationbringingwithittheconcomitant
risk associated with returns on investments and perpetual upgrading cycles. It was found that the most effective
attitudetowardsebusinessapplicationscamefromthoseindividualswhointerpretITasatool.Theseindividuals
arenotenamouredwiththecuttingedgesimplybecause ofitsnovelty,butratherdisplayakeeneye forpotential
advantageincombinationwithameasuredlevelofrestraint.
The process by whichinnovationsare evaluated thus emerges as another key intersection of economic and
social/culturalfactors.Riskmanagement decisionswithintheconstructionindustryaremadepredominantlywithina
framework of economic rationalism and therefore the framework for interpreting potential benefits related to e
business applications is made primarily on the basis of delivery of organisational and economic efficiencies and
hencegreaterprofitmargins.Thesemanagementdecisionsarenotmadeinavacuum,however,withrespondents
citingnumeroussourcesthatexertinfluenceovertheirinterpretationandevaluationofanewtechnology.
As discussed inthe previous sectionregarding key impediments toebusiness adoption,the actual cost for
firms of adopting a new technology can often well exceed the strict outlay required to purchase the ebusiness
application. The need for relevant operating knowledge to functionalise a given technology is a key influence in
improvingthepotentialforanadoptiontoproduceeconomicandorganisationaladvantages.Thelossofproductivity
associated with sending staff on training programs is a hindrance toward developing an advantageous attitude
toward the investment. Those firms that actively encourage staff training and have in place a formal process for
widerdisseminationofknowledge gainedthroughtraining, displayremarkablymoreadaptivepotential.
The organisational culture of a firm refers to both the processes and practices that make up a particular
organisationas well as the forms of understanding and interpretationthat makes those behaviours effective as an
organisationalunit.Firmcultureisakeydriverforthefirmsofasizelargeenoughtobeabletoreflectupontheir
organisational culture as embodied in the collectively heldperceptionsandattitudes and the general and strategic
philosophy of management. A firm culture conducive to adoption and diffusion was generally described through
terms such as continuous improvement and openness to change. Anindustrywide culture exerts a degree of
pervasiveinfluenceuponindividualfirmswithintheconstructionindustry,andthisismoreprominentwithsmaller
endoperatorswithlowerstaffnumbers.
A culture of innovation emerged as perhaps the key differentiator between firms that drove industry e
business levels, and those firms that attempted to maintainthose levels. Innovationas a culture can emerge from
strategic management initiatives but must predominantly become entrenched in the commercial operations of the
firm at the level of the individual staff. Aspects of innovative cultures include official processes designed to
encourageandcapturestaffideasaboutprocessimprovement.
Engagement with wider industry associations and related networks is both a means of generating a firm
culture and the product of an effective firm culture. The wider industry culture is often on display at these
associationmeetings,anditisincomparisontoaculturalforumsuchasthisthatrepresentativesfromafirmcan
recognise and evaluate their own internal organisational culture as either advantageous or deficient. Industry
associations and other professional networks also figured as key sources of information about new technologies
potentially of benefit to the industry as well as space for the circulation of experience and advice regarding
technologies.
Nonindustry relationships were also uncovered as playing a significant role in how an organisation goes
aboutimplementinganebusinessapplication.Thisisparticularlythecaseforindividualswhoexpressedadegree
of resistance to change based upon generational discrepancy. Family, community and socialrelationships outside
work were identified as playing a central role in both enforcing and changing entrenched attitudes towards
innovations. Alongside industry associations, the family was identified as a key source of ideas about new

330

technologies. In addition, children of staff members were identified as exerting inordinate capacity to positively
influenceattitudestowardsIT technologies.
Thisfactorconcernsthepossibilityofintegrationbetweenatechnologyandtheorganisationalprocessesofa
firm.Identifiedasakeyimpedimenttoebusinessadoption,thecompatibility oftheinnovation becomesadriver
when that issue of compatibility is addressed. When an innovation that is marketed on its ability to deliver a
particularbusinessadvantageistrialledbystaffandfailstodeliverduetoitscomplexity,thisisamajorcauseof
negative attitudes towards adoption. However, when aninnovation is intuitively useable, functionally simple and
delivers a recognisable advantage, then the nature of the innovation as compatible with both users needs and
clientsneedsisthekeyfactorindeliveringorganisationalefficienciesandeconomicbenefitsthatarethefoundation
elementsforaperceptionoftheinnovationasofferingcompetitiveadvantage.
Themostfrequentlymentionedfactordrivingfurtheradoptionofebusinesswastheexperienceofimproved
organisational efficiencies from previous adoptions. Inevitably the positive interpretation of efficiencies gained,
indeedthecapacitytomeasurethematall,isduetothetendencyforimprovedefficiencytomanifestaseconomic
benefit. Organisational efficiencies and economic benefits comprise the two key parameters for evaluating the
success ofaninnovationsadoption.Intheanalysis ofthedatasetforthiscasestudytherewerefourmainnotable
typesofimprovedefficiency.
Reduced production costs predominantly extend from improved organisational capacity within the supply
chain. The complex interrelating processes involved in construction from both the management side and the
organisational roles of subcontractors and their workers can easily be the cause of financial impacts due to
mismanagementorunforeseencircumstancesparticularlywiththeeverdecreasingtimeframesbeingproposedin
the industry. The effective usage of ebusiness applications can reduce these potentials for wastage through
streamlinedproductionprocesses.
Reducedcommunicationrelatestotwoaspects.Thefirstdimensionofreducedcommunicationcostsrefersto
the greater capacity for intra and interorganisational communication between firms. The second involves
measurable improvements in process time and output quality related to increased potential to transfer complex
designinformationrapidlyandaccurately.Everysinglerespondentdiscussedthisasakeyperceived benefitofe
businessingeneralorarealisedadvantageofadoptionofagiveninnovation.Giventhatdesigndocumentationisa
centraldimensionoftheconstructionindustryitisperhapsnotsurprisingthatthecapacityofebusinesstogreatly
increasetherateandaccuracyofdocumentationtransferisidentifiableasapredominantdriver.
Forthosefirmswithacultureof continuousimprovement,entrenchedworkingpracticesincludesuchself
reflexivemeasuresasrevisionofprocessesandpracticesaswellasperiodicalevaluationoftechnologieswiththe
aimofincreasingefficiencyandloweringcosts.Organisationalefficienciesarefrequentlyanoutcomeofimproved
communicative capacity, such as increased mobility and decentralised flexibility. Other frequently discussed
organisationalefficienciesarerelatedtostaffreductionsandroleconsolidation.
Increasedempowermentofindividualstaff viatheincreasedcapabilityprovided byebusinessapplications
hastheeffect ofimprovinganorganisationsuseofitshumanresources.Thisisinthesenseofabetterabilityto
identify those resources through more effective document management systems, and also, and more importantly,
allowing individual staff more access to other staff through the flattening of the information channels. Thus
organisational efficiencies produce greater flexibility allowing less rigid working patterns and the increased
potentialforstaffcreativityandingenuity.
Pathwaystoadoptionfromimpedimentsanddrivers
Ofkeensignificancetounderstandingtheforcesexertingvariableinfluenceuponprocessesofebusinessadoption
withintheconstructionindustryhasbeenthefindingthatnumerousbarriersandimpedimentscaneasilytransform
intodriversforfurtheradoptionandinnovation disseminationoncetheyarereevaluatedandperhapsapproached
withnewstrategiesortechniques.
The tendency for impediments to transform into drivers is demonstrated by the corresponding presence of
twokeythemesdescribedbyrespondentsassimultaneouslybarriershinderingandfactorspositivelyinfluencinge
business adoption. These two key themes areperceptionsandattitudes, and compatibility withthe innovation. In
addition, a third impediment, described as heterophilic and homophilic communication, is also interpreted as an
impediment to adoption in an unmanaged state that quickly becomes a key driver toward innovation when it is
addressedasacomponentofstrategicmanagement.InFigure37.3therelationshipsbetweentheseimpedimentsand
driversisoutlinedintermsofpathwaystoadoption.

331

Figure37.3:PathwaystoAdoptionfromImpedimentstoDrivers

332

Figure 37.3 outlines a set of interrelated pathways that define the transformative relationships between the key
themesdiscussedbyrespondents.Pathwaysareconceptualisedinthefollowingdiscussionsasbeingtheprocesses
andstrategicreevaluationsdiscussedbyrespondentsasmeansofovercomingsocial/culturalandeconomicbarriers
to adoption by transforming the same structural conditions and organisational practices into resources for further
innovationandadoption.
Thefollowingdiscussionshouldbeprefacedwithaqualificationstatingthatinrealityalloftheseprocesses
are coterminous and intersecting. In the actual lived circumstances of organisational practice it is not so easy to
identify a clearly defined starting point in a complex circulation of causal factors. The decision to begin the
discussionwiththethemeofcompatibilityoftheinnovationisthereforemadeonthebasisofintegration withthe
precedingsectionsthatclearlyoutlinecompatibilityoftheinnovationastheprimecauseoforganisationalefficiency
and economic benefit. It would be possible to begin the outline of pathways to adoption from any impediment
describedbytherespondentasbefittingthediversecircumstancesofconstructionindustryorganisations.
Thecompatibilitypathway
Adominantissuedescribedbyrespondentsascontributingtothekeyimpedimentofinconsistentadoptionpatterns
is the incompatibility of adopted technology. This incompatibility can be experienced with either external
organisations or internal practices and processes. In the first instance the form of incompatibility with external
organisations manifests as different firms using disparate software platforms or, frequently, different editions or
versions of the same software. As a general theme the incompatibility of ebusiness technologies and operating
softwareplatformsispredominantlyfeltasanuisanceanddoesnotpreventadoption.Indeed,asanimpedimentit
logically follows the decisionto adopt,and exerts its influence within the implementation phases of the adoption
process.
Almostallrespondentsmentionedsomeexperienceofalackofaccurateinformationtransferresultingfrom
software incompatibility and this can easily prove frustrating as the capacity to improve transmission of design
documentationaccuratelyisakeyclaimof ebusiness.Thisformofincompatibilityoftheinnovationcanleadtothe
development of negative attitudes towards adoption and contribute to the perception of innovation complexity as
synonymouswithdifficulty.However,theeconomicramificationsofthisformofcompatibilityarerelativelyminor.
The second form of incompatibility with the innovation concerns the possibility of integration between a
technology and the organisational processes of a firm. Failure of an adopted innovation to deliver a particular
business advantage is frequently caused by a mismatch between either the operating knowledge or technological
requirementsofaninnovationandtheprocessesandpracticesentrenchedwithintheorganisationpriortoadoption
oftheinnovation.Inafashionsimilartothefirstformofincompatibility,thismismatchcanbeacauseofnegative
attitudesandperceptionstowardsinnovationsandindeedtowardsthebroaderprocesses ofadoption.Itpresentsa
greaterpotentialforeconomicconsequences,however,becauseitforcesorganisationalrestructureandadaptationin
order to make the innovation functional. Thus, the situation is either to writeoff the initial investment on the
adoption,ortoinvestfurtherinthemoreexpensiveprocessoforganisationalrestructure.
As discussed in the section on drivers to adoption, compatibility of the innovation with organisational
processesmeanstakingintoaccountboththeusersneedsandtheclientsneeds.Whenaninnovationisintuitively
useable, functionally simple, and delivers arecognisable advantage in terms of efficiency of process or improved
qualityofoutcomesanddeliverables, thentheorganisationalefficienciesandeconomicbenefitsgainedviausing the
innovationaredeemedinaccordancewithbroadercompanyobjectives.Addressingthepracticalitiesofintegration
ofaninnovationwiththeobjectivesofanorganisationintermsoftheneedsanddesiresoftheusers(staff)andthe
clientspermitsthetranscendenceoftheimpedimentcausedbyincompatibility.Accordinglyapathwaytoadoption
isopenedashigherlevelsofcompatibilitycontinuetoproducepositive experiencesofadoption.Theflowoneffect,
asexpressedinFigure37.3,isanimpetusgiventoimprovingperceptionsandattitudes,aswellastherecognitionof
organisationalendeconomicbenefitsresultingfromstreamlinedprocessesandimprovedoutputs.
Theperceptionsandattitudespathway
Itisrecognisablefromthediscussionofthecompatibilitypathwaythatpositiveemployeeexperiencesofadoption
and recognisable competitive advantage bestowed by adoption of an innovation are key factors in shaping the
perceptionsandattitudesheldtowardebusinessadoption.Afurtherimplicationofthecompatibilitypathwayisthe
requirementthattheadoptiondecisionprocessasundertakenbymanagementmustacknowledgeandstrategically
manage the wider contexts of adoption. Adoption cannot occur as a decision made in isolation from either the
organisationalprocesses,culturalpracticesorthestrategicobjectivesofafirm.Hence,theimprovedperceptionsand
attitudes towards ebusiness adoption produced by increasing compatibilities between innovations and firm
processes include an improvement of perspectives upon the internal operations of the company. Specifically,
positiveexperiencesofadoptionproduceamorestrategicandreflexivelyconsciousawarenessoftheimportanceof
developingfirmculture andbeneficialmanagementcharacteristics.
The improvement in perceptions and attitudes produced via this strategic awareness is identified as a key
techniqueforalleviatingproblemsassociatedwiththeperceptionofcomplexityasdifficulty.Asmentionedinthe

333

sectiononimpediments,thisrelationshipbetweencomplexityanddifficultyisproblematicbecauseitrepresentsthe
gap between the present organisational practices and the required operating knowledge necessary to make an
adoption functional. Complexity alone is not necessarily an impediment to implementation if the adopting
organisation has recognised the need to effectively engage complexity before negative enduser experiences
translate into a perception of difficulty. Inevitable those firms that displayed capacity to break the conceptual
linkage between complexity and difficulty were those firms who haddeveloped internal processes for technology
problemsolving. It isthe broader perspective gained by management understandinginnovation adoptionas being
primarilyanorganisationalandculturalchangeratherthanatechnologicalpurchase,thatallowsformalsystemsand
procedurestobeputinplacetoaddressinevitableteethingproblemsassociatedwithebusinessadoption.
Figure 37.3 demonstrates how changes in perception and attitude toward innovations and the adoption
process produces a pathway to further adoption by generating positive flowon effects to the key drivers of
managementcharacteristicsandfirmculture.Asdiscussedinthesectionoutliningthekeydrivers,themanagement
characteristics of an organisation as expressed in such factors as attitudes to staff training and processes of
evaluatingrisksandpotentialadvantages,playalargeroleindeterminingthedegreeofadoptionforagivenfirm.
Likewise, firm culture was identified as a key context in determining the extent to which implementation of an
adoptionmovesforwardsmoothlyandalsotowhatextentthecapabilitiesofaninnovation areintegratedintothe
organisationalcapacityofthefirmbyemployeepractices.Invariablythemostadaptiveandinnovativefirmsspoke
of their own firm culture as being open to change, continually seeking improvement, and able to take
advantageof opportunities.Itisthesecharacteristicsthatfeatureprominentlyinafurtherflowon effect.Figure
37.3 also outlines how improvements in the two drivers of management characteristics and firm culture create a
further pathway to adoption by influencing the organisational approach to homophilic and heterophilic
communication.
Theheterophiliccommunicationpathway
Diffusionofanytypeofknowledgeinvolvestwoformsofcommunication.Thesecaneitherbeheterophilic,where
two or more individuals interacting have different attributes, beliefs, education and social status or homophilic,
where two or more individuals are similar in their attributes and social status. Generally speaking, most
communication ismore effective whenitishomophilic, where people share common beliefs, meanings andhave
mutualunderstandingofoneanother.Individualswhoattempttocommunicatewithotherswhoaredifferentfrom
them often face frustration and ineffective communication. In this regard, it is important to note that while
homophilic communication offers smooth diffusion of ideas, it does not necessarily denote acceptance of new
ideas or practices instead homophilic communication can act as an invisible barrier to the diffusion of
innovations.
Althoughhomophiliccommunicationmaybefrequentandeasy,itisnotascrucialtothediffusionprocessas
lessfrequentheterophilic communication. Homophilic communication may accelerate the diffusion process but it
limitsthespreadofaninnovationto thoseindividualswhoarealreadyconnectedwithinthesamestrataofthesocial
systemorinterpersonalnetwork.Theimportanceofheterophiliccommunicationfordiffusionliesinitspotentialto
connect two cliques, thereby spanning two sets of socially dissimilar individuals in a system and bringing into
contactdiverseideas.Thisisespeciallyimportantinspreadinginformationaboutinnovations,asbydefinitionthe
innovationinvolvesanewwayofthinkingorbehaving.
For small firms analysed in the case study, homophilic communication (and monocultural groupings) was
foundtobetypicallyadvantageousbecauseitreducesconfusionininformationaltransfer.However,thisperception
ofbenefitisrelativetoascenarioofunmanagedheterophiliccommunication.Ontheotherhand,forthosefirms
large enough to appreciate a degree of heterophilia and diverse employee groups (in terms of organisational
function)intheirstructure,thereseemstobeamassivebenefitfromtheorganisationofformalprocessesdesigned
to foster and manage heterophilic communications. The key point here is the management of heterophilic
communications.
When heterophilic communication is identified as a potential resource and management decisions develop
specific processes designed to control that potential towards strategic objectives, the outcome is a degree of
employee empowerment and involvement in diffusion that is a key measure of an organisations status as an
innovator.Primarily we seethisin innovation groupsoperatingwithinfirmsthatseektogeneratenewideasby
exposing individuals to different ways of thinking and encouraging a degree of empowerment and employee
engagementwithprocessesofinnovationanddiffusion.
Theoutcomesoffirmsmanagementandculturalcharacteristicsthatareintentionallydesignedtoimplement
andfosterheterophiliccommunicationareaninevitablemovementtowardflexibility ofpractice.Whendifference
of opinion between individuals is valued as a means to producing further creative solutions it becomes close to
impossiblenottoacknowledgethatthere is morethanonewaytoachieveobjectives.Theconsequencesof
thisseeminglybanalrevelationisthatfirmorganisationalpracticesbecomerecognisableasmalleableandadaptable,
andcreativevisionispermittedtoseebeyondthe statusquo.Newwaysofdoingthingsaresoughtafterandproduce
a mentality that is demonstrated by the analysis to be closely integrated with openness to change, continually

334

seeking improvement, and the ability to take advantage of opportunities that are the key characteristics of
innovativefirms.
Perhapsthekeyfindingfromthisdiscussionoftheinterrelationofinfluencingfactorstoproduceidentifiable
pathwaystoadoptionistheunderstandingofthecircularityofcausation.Theprivilegingofheterophilicmodesof
communicationisakeydriverbyitself,asitpromotesanopennesstonewideasthatisanessentialsocial/cultural
precursortoeffectiveadoption.Whenthesemodesofcommunicationareintentionallyembeddedinorganisational
policy and processes then individuals within the culturebegin to be indoctrinated towarda culture of innovation.
Theflexibilityofpracticeenabledbysuchacultureturnsouttobeofcentralimportance.
An understanding of the cultural context and organisational structure of the firm as flexible and adaptable
enables the riskevaluation of innovations and adoptiondecision process to occur under circumstances far more
favourabletothepossibilityofengaginginadoption.Thisisbecausethenewtechnologyorpracticeisevaluatedin
terms of a flexible organisational context. Rather than an adoption being sought that must fit precisely into pre
existingorganisationalrequirements,thepotentialofaninnovation canbeevaluatedinrelationtothepotentialof
the organisation. Thus a culture of innovation grounded in effective management of heterophilic communication
means that the likelihood of an innovation being found to be incompatible is much less likely. Accordingly the
opportunitiesforpositiveexperiencesofadoptionbystaff,andtheorganisationalefficienciesandeconomicbenefits
flowingfromincreasedcompatibilityarealsoincreased.

CONCLUSIONANDFUTURERESEARCH
The important contribution of this chapter to the current literature surrounding ebusiness technologies, and in
particular the adoption of ebusiness, is the particular focus taken on the complex interrelationships between the
various impediments and drivers. This then allows market leaders in the industry, whether they be government
setting policy and directly engaging the industry on projects, or larger contracting firms, to develop and refine
strategiestoimprovetheenvironmentforadoptioninparticularlyspecifictargetedways.Thekeytoadoptionand
widespread diffusion is understanding at a deeper level the decisionmaking processes that are taking place
specificallyacrossourindustry.Thepathwaystoadoptionisaparticularlyimportantwayforward.Thepathways
toadoptionmapprovidedismerelythestartingpointandthiswillbereflectedonagaininlightoftheotherthree
casestudiesandisthusacasespecificandfirstcastastowhatthedecisionmakerbehavioursareandthemeans
by which they change their decisions. It is important to know the interrelationships which occur between
impedimentsandwhenimpedimentsturnintodriversofadoptionandbecomeenablingagents.Inthiscasestudy,
three key themes of pathways to adoption: perceptions and attitudes, compatibility with the innovation, and
heterophilicandhomophiliccommunication,wereusedasthestartingpoint.Quickly werealisedthatitislargely
irrelevantwherethestartingpointisandthatitisamultiphasedandmultidirectionaldecisionmakingprocess.
Thefutureresearchwithinthisstudyistoconcludethecrosscasecomparisonsbetweenallthreecasestudies
andconfirmthesignificanceoftheimpedimentsanddriversidentifiedacrossthesetwelvefirms.Alargeclusterof
morethantwentyfirmsandassociated.
The limitation to this study is that it really needs further confirmation, and although by a case study
methodologystandard,detailedinformationontwentyfirmsisconsideredtobequitealargeproject,itstillwilllack
aregionalandnationalverification.Thevalidityandreliabilityofthemodelcouldalsobe enhancedbyexploring
sectors withinthe industry a littlemore acutely. It would be most constructive to investigate the various types of
chainsinmuchmoredetailthancouldbeachievedinthisstudy.Theaimofthisstudywastotrytobringtogetheran
interpretation about the complexities of decisionmaking in relation to social, cultural and economic threads of
argumentsthatarepervasiveinacademiaanddevelopamodelforadoptionbehaviour.Oneofthemostinteresting
themes in relation to ebusiness technologies, which are innovations in the industry, is the way in which an
innovationcultureisperhapstheultimateaimoftheclusteroffirmsthatareworkingtogetherthattheprojectand
thevariouscontractsonprojectswhichtiethemtogetherarethekeytriggerstoenablingadaptationoftheparticular
ebusiness technologies. It is the combination of skills, knowledge and attitudes towards ebusiness technologies
withintheseclusterswhichrequiresfurtherexaminationtotakethemodelforward.
The final conclusion to be drawn is that governments and market leaders have a significant role in
understandingtherealimpedimentsfacedbythegroupsoffirmswhichsupplytothemandarehighlyreliantupon
them.Itisnotonlyanunderstandingbutanethicalpositiontodevelopsupportivestrategiestoenablechangeinthe
industry.Furtherresearchinwaysforwardfromtheperspective ofthesefirmsisrequired,particularlyintheway
theyoperateinternallyandwiththeirsuppliers,tohelporhinderthefutureadoptionofebusinesstechnologies,and
howthey areeithercreatingobstaclesorpavingthepathwayforwidespreadadoptionacrosstheindustry.

335

REFERENCES
AustralianBureauofStatistics.2004. Business Use of Information Technology.Canberra:AustralianBureauof
Statistics.
Bayer,J.andN.Melone.1989.Acritiqueofdiffusiontheoryasamanagerialframeworkforunderstandingadoption
ofsoftwareengineeringinnovations.TheJournalofSystemsandSoftware,9:161166.
Bennett,B.,T.CobboldandM.Phillips.2003. ICTUseandFirmPerformanceinAustralia:Evidencefromfirm
interview:workingpaper.Canberra:DepartmentofIndustry,TourismandResourcesandProductivity
Commission.
Castells,M.1997.ThePowerofIdentity.USA:BlackwellPublishers.
deBerranger.,P.andM.C.R.Meldrum.2000.Thedevelopmentofintelligentclusterstoincreaseglobal
competitivenessandlocalcohesion:thecaseofsmallbusinessesinthecreativeindustries.Urban Studies,37(10):
18271835.
Elliman,T.andG.Orange.2000.Electroniccommercetosupportconstructiondesignandsupplychain
management:aresearchnote. International JournalofPhysical Distribution and Logistics Management,30(3/4):
345360.
Frank,A.K.,Y.ZhaoandK.Borman.2004. SocialCapitalandtheDiffusionofInnovationswithinOrganisations:
Thecaseofcomputertechnologyinschools.SociologyofEducation,77(2):148172.
Gray,C.andN.Lawless.2002.Determinantsofecommerceadoptioninsmallfirms.25thInstituteforSmall
BusinessAffairsConference.Brighton:1315November.
Harvey,D.1989.Frommanagerialismtoentrepreneurialism:thetransformationofurbangovernanceinlate
capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, 71(B):317.
Inirige,B.andG.Aouad.2001. AwarenessandUsageofInformationStandardsintheUKConstructionIndustry:A
surveybytheSIENEnetwork. http://itc.scix.net/data/works/robots/w7820018.htm (accessed22May2006).
London,K.2001.Anindustrialorganisationeconomicsupplychainapproachfortheconstructionindustry.Journal
ofConstructionManagementandEconomics,19:8(777789).
London,K.2005. Constructionsupplychainprocurement modelling:PhDthesis.Melbourne:Universityof
Melbourne.
Malone,S.C.1985.Computerizingsmallbusinessinformationsystems.JournalofSmallBusinessManagement,
April:1016.
Montazemi,A.R.1998.Factorsaffectinginformationsatisfactioninthecontextofsmallbusinessenvironment. MIS
Quarterly,12:239256.
NOIE.2001. B2b ECommerce:Capturing value online. http://www.noie.gov.au/ (accessed15November2005).
Parish,A.,G.Kibblewhite,M.WoodleyandJ.Richardson.2002.TheUKelectronicindustryecommerce
initiative:astudyoftheadoptionofecommerce.Scotland:ElectronicsScotlandandDTI.
Rogers,E.1995. DiffusionofInnovations,4thedn.NewYork:TheFreePress.
Tetteh,E.andJ.Burn. 2001.GlobalStrategiesforSMeBusiness:ApplyingtheSMALLFramework. Logistics
InformationManagement,14(1/2):171180.
Veeramani,R.,J.S.Russell,C.Chan,N.Cusick,M.MahleandB.vanRoo.2002.StateofPracticeofECommerce
ApplicationintheConstructionIndustry:AReporttoConstructionIndustryInstitute.Austin:TheUniversityof
TexasatAustin.
Wenninger,J.1999.Businesstobusinesselectroniccommerce,currentissuesineconomicsandfinance,5(10):1
6.

336

Part9
SustainableConstructionfortheFuture

337

CHAPTER38

LeavingTodaysFuture
ofBuildingBehind
MartinFischer
TODAYSPERFORMANCEOFTHEBUILDINGINDUSTRYAND
FUTUREDEMAND
The construction industry creates the fixed, physical wealth of nations. There is increasing need for new and
replacement fixed assets in developing and developed countries. Global equity leads to higher aspirations of
developingcountries.Urbanisationindevelopingcountries isincreasing,andinfrastructure indevelopedcountriesis
deteriorating.Fixedcapitalfacilitiesconsumeabout50%ofenergy(includingenergyneededtobuildandoperate
facilitiesandembodiedenergyinfacilities).Constructionmaterialscontainlargeamountsofembeddedcarbon,and
constructionwasteaddhalfatonoflandfillwasteperpersonintheUSalone.TheUnitedNationspredictthatone
billionnewpeoplewillneedhomesandinfrastructureinthenextdecade.Ataconservativeestimateof$2,000per
personforinfrastructureinvestment,thisneedaloneleadsto$20tr(trillion)inconstruction.Theenvironmentaland
socialcostofbuildingasusualwillbetoohighapricetopayforthisdevelopment.Litman(2005)confirmsthat
manytrendswehavebeenaccustomedtonolongercontinueastheyhaveinthepastcentury.
The population growth is in the developing world, making it imperative to provide buildings and
infrastructure thatisaffordable,otherwisethesocialimpactmaynotbesustainable.Indevelopedcountries, anaging
populationwillneednewtypesoffacilitiestosupporttheirhealthcareandotherneeds.Changingworklife patterns
will also demandareconfiguration of existing facilitiesand the development of new types of facilities that blend
physicalanddigitalspaces.
Today, the definition, design, construction, and operations phases of facilities costs too much (in terms of
time,money,andothercosts)andisnotaspredictableasitshouldbeinthefaceofglobalcompetitionandtheneeds
for effective facility developmentas outlinedinthe paragraphabove. Construction productivityis lagging behind
productivity in other industry sectors (Teicholz 2004). The design and construction phases of projects often take
manyyearstocompletewithahighvarianceinduration,cost,andfacilityperformance.Forexample,actualenergy
consumption is often far greaterthan expected atthe beginning of a facilityproject, andthe fragmented delivery
processes make it difficult to hold a particular party accountable and to provide feedback on the lifecycle
performance of facilities (Hnninen 2006). Projects that use integrated development and lifecycle processes and
supporttheseprocesseswithadvancedinformationtechnology haveshownthepotentialfordramaticimprovements
intheperformanceofthefacilitydevelopmentprocess(Fischer2005),e.g.20to30%schedulereduction,andthe
resultingfacilities(Hnninen2006), e.g.40%reductioninenergyconsumption.

REINVENTINGHOWWEMAKEBUILDINGS
While opportunities exist to operate buildings more efficiently, the biggest opportunity to impact the lifecycle
performanceofbuildingsisinthebuildingdefinition,design,andconstructionphase,whentheperformancetargets
forabuildingaresetandrelatedtothebuildingowneranduserbusinesscase,andwhenthephysicalanddigital
infrastructure for operating the building are created. Based on research at the Center for Integrated Facility
Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford University, the following concepts and methods will be cornerstones of how
buildings aremadeinthefuture:
integratedconcurrentengineering
virtualdesignandconstruction
productorganisationprocessmodelling
aproductionbasedapproach
adesignfabricateassembleparadigm.
In concert, these methods will improve the timely involvement of critical stakeholders in the facility lifecycle
processes,enhancethedecisionmakingcapabilityofthefacilitydevelopmentteam,reducedesignandconstruction
process variability, reduce wasted human andmaterialresources,and shorten cycle times, lead times, and overall
facilitydevelopmenttime.Iimaginethatorganisationthatavailthemselvesoftheadvantagesofthisnewapproach
willdisruptthe statusquo intheirrespectivebuildingsectors(Christensen1997).

338

Integratedconcurrentengineering
Better building lifecycle performance will require and depend on the timely engagement of the critical building
stakeholders as early and as long as necessary in the building process to reduce response latency and improve
decisionmaking. In many projects today, critical economic, environmental, and social performance criteria are
introducedsequentiallyintothedevelopmentprocessandareoftennotconsideredholisticallyandinanintegrated
way,leadingtoaslowandinefficientdevelopmentprocessandfacilitiesthatarenotaseffectiveastheycouldbe.
Currently, visualisation tools provide a costeffective way to engage many types of project stakeholders when
needed.Inthefuture,automateddesignandanalysistoolswillenableintegratedconcurrentengineeringofbuildings
(Strom2003).

Virtualdesignandconstruction
CIFEdefinesvirtualdesignandconstruction(VDC)astheuseofmultidisciplinaryperformancemodelsofdesign
construction projects, including models of the product (i.e. facilities, such as building information modelling
(BIM)),organisationofthedesignconstructionoperationteam,workprocesses,and economicimpact(i.e.modelof
both cost and value of capital investments) to improve building lifecycle performance and support explicit and
publicbusinessobjectives.Whileitwillstillbesometimeuntilproduct,organisation,andprocessmodelsrepresent
the facility lifecycle realistically across phases, disciplines, and levels of detail and for many different types of
performancecriteria,currentmodellingandanalysistoolsalreadyenabledramaticallymoreefficientuseofproject
informationandanalysesthanconventional,documentbasedmethods.Manycompaniesalreadyhaveastrategyand
implementationplanforVDCbasedworkmethodstotestandcommunicatedesignalternativesvirtuallyasoftenas
necessary.

Productorganisationprocessmodelling
Buildingprofessionalscontrolthescopeofprojectsandhowtheywillbecarriedout,thatis,theorganisationand
workprocesses,withtheirdecisions.Thedesignofabuildingconstrainstheorganisationandprocessesneededto
completethebuilding.Viceversa,theavailabilityofcertainorganisationalelementsorparticularprocessconstraints
mayconstrainthedesignofabuilding.Forexample,theneedtomaintainpartialoccupancyforanofficebuilding
during renovation will likely impact the design of the mechanical systems in buildings and constrain the
construction process. Therefore, building design needs to be conceptualised as the integrated design of the
building (or product) and its corresponding development and operating organisations and processes (Kunz et al.
1996).Tools for product modelling include 3D modelling tools, BIM, and product lifecyclemanagement (PLM).
Tools for process modellinginclude CPM,locationbased schedules, and 4Dmodellingtools to integrate product
andprocessmodels.ToolsfororganisationandprocessmodellingincludeSIMVision(Levittetal.1994).

Aproductionbasedapproachtobuildingdesignandconstruction
Thecostfocusedandpushdrivenmethodsofmanagingprojectworkneedtobecomplementedand,insomecases,
replacedbyproductionbasedmanagementmethods(Fischer &Haddad2004).Thefirstgoalistoreduceprocess
uncertainties so that work in process and waste can be reduced and lead times and cycle times shortened. Value
stream mapping is an important tool to make workflow with physical and information outputs visible across the
performingorganisationsandtodesignaworkprocessthatshortensleadtimesandcycletimes.Thereductionof
cycletimesisparticularlyimportantbecauseshorterandmorepredictablecycletimesenablethereductionofvirtual
andphysicalworkinprocess.Suchareductionisimportantinreducingthevariabilityinprocesstimesforeachstep
andforaseriesofsteps.
The lower the work in process inthe buffer (queue) before each step, the shorter andmore predictable the
timetoprocessthework inprocessateachstep.Theshorterthecycletime,themorelikelyleanpulldrivenmethods
canbeused,whichminimiseswasteduetorework,inventory,etc.Thecombinationofproductionbasedmethods
andVDCbasedworkmethodsseemsespeciallypromising.VDCbasedmethodsimprovetheinformationbasisfor
theworksteps,reducingtheuncertaintyincompletingdesign,constructionplanning,procurement,andconstruction
tasksreliably. Lean,pulldriven methodsreduce the work in process, whichmakes theuse of VDC models more
manageablebecausedetailedVDCmodelscanbeproducedondemand(orjustintime)andnotjustincase,asis
often the case today. A justincase generation of VDC models leads to an excessive inventory of 3D and other
models that need to be coordinated and updated as the project design and circumstances change. Therefore,
combiningproductionbasedmanagementmethodsandVDCmethodsholds,inmyopinion,thelargestpromiseto
dramatically streamline the development of buildings. It requires, however, the cocreation of detailed work
processesandcorrespondingtoolsbytheaffectedprofessionals.

339

Adesignfabricateassembleparadigm
Tomakebuildingconstructionfasterandsafer,workneedstobeshiftedtooffsiteprefabricationfacilitiesandthen
assembledonsite,reducingthecontentofsitelabour.VDCandproductionbasedmethodsenablethegenerationof
the integrated and coordinated product and process information basis to support far greater prefabrication and
preassembly of building components than practised on most projects today. As has been shown in some cases, a
designfabricateassemble(DFA)paradigmcangreatlyshortentheonsiteconstructionperiod(Haymaker& Fischer
2001Kieran& Timberlake2003).

CONCLUSIONS
Whilenoimplementationofalltheconceptspresentedinthischapterexiststomyknowledge,theevidence from
partialapplicationsoftheseconceptsinpracticesuggeststhattheircombinedandsustainedimplementationcould
have a profound impact on the development process of facilities and on the performance of the facilities. It will
requiresignificantcontinueddevelopmentofnewtechnologiesandsustainedorganisationaldevelopment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to my colleagues and students at Stanford University, at CIFE, at CIFE member companies, and
elsewherefortheirinputto thischapter.AriAhonen,DerekCunz,ReijoHnninen,ZuhairHaddad,JohnHaymaker,
Arto Kiviniemi, Greg Knutson, John Kunz, Ray Levitt, Frank Neuberg, Dean Reed, Ben Schwegler, and Todd
Zabellehavebeenparticularlyhelpfulinthedevelopmentofthepresentedconcepts.

REFERENCES
Christensen,C.M.1997.TheInnovator'sDilemma:Whennewtechnologiescausegreatfirmstofail. Harvard
BusinessSchoolPress.
Fischer,M.andZ.Haddad.2004.Apulldrivenprojectplanningandcontrolphilosophyandapproach. WorldIT
ConferenceforDesignandConstruction(INCITE2004).Langkawi,1821February.
Fischer,M.2005.Informationtechnology inconstruction:whatsahead?inExecutiveForum,Technologyfor
ConstructionConference.LasVegas,16January.
Hnninen,R.2006.Buildinglifecycle performancemanagementandintegrateddesignprocesses.Watson
ConstructionSeminarSeries.Stanford,18January.
Haymaker,J.andM.Fischer.2001. ChallengesandBenefitsof4DModelingontheWaltDisneyConcertHall
Project:Workingpaperno.64. Stanford:CIFE.
Kieran,S.andJ.Timberlake.2003. RefabricatingArchitecture:Howmanufacturingmethodologiesarepoisedto
transformbuildingconstruction. NewYork:McGrawHill.
Kunz,J.,G.T.Luiten,M.Fischer,Y.JinandE.R.Levitt.1996.CE4:concurrentengineeringofproduct,process,
facility,andorganization. ConcurrentEngineering:Researchandapplications,4(2):187198.
Levitt,R.E.,G.P.Cohen,J.C.Kunz,C.I.Nass,T.ChristiansenandY.Jin.Thevirtualdesignteam:simulating
howorganizationstructureandinformationprocessingtoolsaffectteamperformance.Computational
OrganizationTheory,eds.K.M.CarleyandM.J.Prietula.NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Litman,T.2005.Thefutureisntwhatitusedtobe:changingtrendsandtheirimplicationsfortransportplanning.
Victoria,Canada:VictoriaTransportInstitute.
Strom,U. 2003. AddedValueofRapidConceptualDesign.Cupertino,CA:DesignPower,Inc.
Teicholz,P.2004.Laborproductivity declinesintheconstructionindustry:causesandremedies. AECbytes
Viewpoint#4,(April14): http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/2004/issue_4.html (accessed19May2006).

340

CHAPTER39

FibreCompositeInnovationsin
AustraliasConstructionIndustry
GerardVanErp
CraigCattell
DaHuang
INTRODUCTION
Australian asset owners areactively seeking solutions for therehabilitationandreplacement of deteriorating civil
infrastructure. They are faced with the problem of decreasing budgets to address an everincreasing demand for
structuralreplacementsand/orupgrades.Toaddresstheseissues,Australianassetownershaveinvestedsignificant
funds into the development of new structural systems using fibre composites. Fibre Composites Design and
Developmenthas played a majorrole in these developments. This work isnow paying dividends with arange of
newsystemsprovidingdesignsolutionswhichnotonlyofferhighlevelsoffunctionality,butdosoatacostwhichis
often directly competitive with traditional structural solutions. Several of these systems have been successfully
demonstratedinrealworldprojectsandarenowbeingdevelopedintocommercialofferings.Thischapterpresents
an overview of these developments, specifically in the areas of bridge systems, alternatives to largesection
hardwood bridge girders, and waterfront structures. It describes the path, participants and activities that lead to
successful outcomes, and highlights important lessons which have been learnt about the integrating of new
compositestechnologywithmainstreamcivilengineering.

BRIDGESYSTEMS
In February 2003, the first fibre composite bridge in the Australian road network was opened to traffic. This
structure, located near the village of Coutts Crossing west of Grafton in northern New South Wales, was the
culminationofadevelopmentprogramstemmingbacktothelate1990s.

Background
While the lack of harsh winters and associated salting of roads removes one of the major causes of bridge
deteriorationthatexistsintheUSAandEurope,Australia, too,facesamajorbridgereplacementprogram.Thereare
approximately 40,000 road bridges of 7m span or larger in Australia, with a total asset value estimated around
$10bn.Ofthese,about10,000areoftimberconstruction,mostlyonthe easternseaboard.Whileoldforesthardwood
timberisadurablematerial,manyofthesebridges,morethan60%,werebuiltbeforethe1940sandweredesigned
tolowerloadingstandardsthanwould berequiredtoday. Manyofthesestructuresrequiremajorrehabilitationor
replacement now or in the near future. Hardwood as a structural material is a rapidly diminishing resource and
infrastructureownersareactivelyseekingalternativesolutions.Withtheirpurportedhighdurabilityandabilityto
mimictimberperformancethroughjudiciousdesign,fibrecomposites havebecomeanareaofsignificantinterest.
The first fibre compositebridge in the Australian public roadnetwork was installed on 19 February 2003.
Thisinstallationwastheculminationofadevelopmentandinnovationprocesslastingoverfiveyearsandinvolving
awiderangeofinterestedpartiesincludingQueenslandDepartmentofMainRoads(QDMR),theRoadsandTraffic
Authority of New South Wales (RTA), the Department of Industry Science and Resources (DISR), Fibre
CompositesDesign andDevelopment(FCDD),WagnersCompositeFibreTechnologies(WCFT),theCooperative
Research Centre for Advanced Composite Structures (CRCACS) and consulting engineers Connell Wagner and
CardnoMBK.
The project originated with a generic design exercise commissioned by the RTA which sought to identify
which particular fibre composite bridge technologies should be encouraged. This involved the development of a
performancespecificationthatmetRTArequirementsandthesubmissionoftwoconformingdesignconcepts.One
ofthesewasanovellocalconceptdevelopedbyFCDD,thesecondwasputforwardbytheCRCACStogetherwith
engineeringconsultantCardnoMBK.ThisdesignincorporatedthelatesttechnologyfromtheUS.
The FCDD solution was selected as the preferred alternative based on a set of agreed selection criteria
(Dutton&Cartwright2001).Theconceptcombinedthehighcompressioncapacity ofplainconcretewiththehigh
strength lowweight characteristics of fibre composites. The design concept was based on the traditional plank
bridgeconcept,whereindividualbeamsarelaterallyposttensionedtocreateabridge,asshowninFigure39.1.

341

Figure39.1:BridgeCrossSectionofFCDDProposal

Theadvantagesofthisconceptinclude:
nojointsbetweendeckandgirders(thegirdersarethedeck)
excellentresistanceagainstfloodloadingandsideimpact
significantredundancyinthestructureduetolargenumberofbeams
conceptwellunderstoodbybridgeengineers
significantunderstandingofthebridgebehaviourcanbeobtainedthroughtestingofindividualbeams.
The beams in the first bridge are a box section formed using glass reinforced, polyester pultruded profiles.
Additionalcarbonfibrereinforcementwasincorporatedintothebaseofthedecktoenhancestiffness.Plainconcrete
was used to form a compression flange on top of the beams. (van Erp et al. 2003 van Erp et al. 2002a 2002b
2002c2002d).
FCDDpartneredwith WCFT,theRTAandQDMRtodeveloptheconceptintoaworkingprototype which
was installed on a Wagnerowned quarry site near Toowoomba, Queensland (Figure 39.2) in early 2002. An
extensive series of field tests followed, revealingthat the concept exceeded expectations in terms of its technical
performance(Heldtetal.2002).Basedonthisdevelopmentwork,RTAdevelopedaprojecttoinstalloneofthese
newgenerationbridgesfortrialpurposes.
Figure39.2:FullScalePrototypeofCompositeBridgeunderTest

The selected installation site was an existing timber span (circa 1940) on a bridge over the Orara River at Coutts
CrossinginnorthernNewSouthWales.ConsultingengineersConnellWagnerwereengagedbyWCFTtoreview
andmodify FCDDs fibre compositebridgeconceptto suitthesitespecificrequirementsatCouttsCrossing.The
newbridgedeckdesignwasseentooffersubstantialbenefitsovertraditionalbridgedeckdesign,including:
installationinfivedays,insteadofeightweeksfortheconventionalalternative
90%savingsontrafficcontrolcosts
75%savingonbridgetransportationcosts.
Thebridgewas constructedbyWCFTunderthesupervisionofFCDD andinstalledinFebruary2003.Initialsite
testing shows that the bridge is performing well. The RTA will continue to periodically monitor the bridge in
comingyears.

342

Lessonslearnt
Investigating the viability of new technologies (particularly in fields such as bridge engineering) is a long and
involvedprocess,involvingcarefuldeliberationsbymanyinterestedparties.Translatinganinnovativeconceptinto
a safe practical result also requires a critical review of the underlying assumptions associated with conventional
solutions.Leadershipfromtheclient/owneriscritical,asisclosecollaborationbetweeninnovatorsandpractitioners.
Withoutactiveclientinvolvement,innovationislikelytobestifled.Allparties(particularlytheowner)mustassume
andmanagerisksthatexceedthoseaddressedinroutineprojects.Suchinnovationalsorequiresenthusiasticsupport
fromthosewiththeresourcestopursueinnovativeideasandworktowardsapracticalconclusion.WCFTnotonly
tookonthecommercialriskoftheCouttsCrossingproject,butalsoassumedthegreaterresponsibilityofsubsequent
developmentoftheconceptintoafullycommercialisedproduct.Thisisasignificantchallenge.
The collaborative approach adopted by the Australian road authorities has been very successful and the
project outcome suggests significant potential for fibre composite bridges in Australia in general, and the hybrid
bridgeconceptinparticular.Thistype ofhybridsolutionisbeingincreasinglyrecognisedasasoundapproachto
developingsuperiorcompetitiveproducts.

THEBRISBANERIVERWALKPROJECT
Background
ThecentrepieceofBrisbaneCityCouncilsRiverWalkinitiativeisan850mfloatingwalkwaystretchingfromNew
FarmtotheStoryBridge(Figure39.3).Thisinnovativefloatingwalkwaydemonstrateshowpioneeringcomposites
technologycanbeusedtocreateworldclassengineeringoutcomes.
Figure39.3:CompletedFloatingWalkway

While floating marinas are used around the world, the Brisbane project posed a range of unique challenges. In
addition to a very high dynamic load scenario, Brisbane City Council (BCC) requirements mandated a 100year
designlifeforthestructureinwhatisanextremelyaggressiveenvironment.Thetrafficsurfaceofthewalkwayis
positioned a mere 50cm above the water surface, requiring that most primary structural components function
continuouslyinthesaltwatersplashzone,orunderwater.
The 5mwide walkway consists of a series of 288 floating concrete pontoons each weighing around 13
tonnes.Thekeytotransformingtheindividualpontoonsintoasafepublicaccesssystemweretheinterconnecting
beams known as walers. A 3mlong waler beam is used on either side of a pontoon to tie it to its neighbour
(Figure39.4).Thewalersareconnectedtothefloatsbystainlesssteelthroughrods,whichpassthroughthefloats
and walers, and have a nut on each side. The floats consist of two polystyrene blocks encased in stainlesssteel
reinforced concrete. The walers must be capable of transferring all required structural loads while maintaining
overallwalkwaystabilitysuchthatthepubliccantransitfreelyandconfidently.Withmostwalersbeingontheouter
edgesofthewalkway,thebeamsmustalsobecapableofresistingimpactloadsfrompassingrivertraffic.

343

Figure39.4:WalersInstalledonFloatingWalkway

Designsolution
While the pontoonwaler concept is used in most floating marinas, no available waler solution was capable of
providingaservicelifeofmorethan 10to15 years.Notonly weretraditionalhardwoodtimberandsteeltimber
solutionsprojectedtodeteriorateintheaggressiveenvironmentwithin15years,butthehighdynamicloadsdueto
rivertrafficandtidalmovementswereexpectedtoresultinseriousfatigueproblemsforsteelwalers.Useofthese
traditionalsolutionswouldhaverequiredmajormaintenanceofthewalkwayevery10yearsand,withsomesections
ofthewalkwayrequiringassemblyinadrydock,suchapathwouldhavecreatedanunacceptableburdenofaccess
disruptionandmaintenancecostsonthepeopleofthecity.
Facingaproblemtowhichtherewasnoknownsolution,BCClookedtotheuseoffibrecompositestocreate
a new type of waler beam which successfully addressed required performance and durability demands. An R&D
team including BCC, International Marine Consultants (IMC), FCDD and Longhouse Green was put together to
tackle this challenging problem. The team developed a number of new composite technologies to produce an
innovative, environmentally sustainable solution capable of meeting the demanding requirements of the project
(Figure39.5).Althoughbeingtwicethecostoftimberandsteel,thesignificantlyreducedwholeoflifecostsofthe
newwalerconceptmadethistechnologyanattractiveeconomicaloption.Theteambaseditspioneeringapproach
aroundaninnovativecastingtechniquethatcombinedanewpolymer concreteformulationwithanovel3Dglass
fibrereinforcementsystem.
Figure39.5: TheFibreCompositeWaler

The waler concept was extensively tested before being applied in the floating RiverWalk. A range of static,
dynamic, impact and fire tests were conducted toassess the performance of the walers (Figure 39.6).Testresults
demonstratedthattheproposedwalerdesignmetalltheprojectspecifications.Thewalershavebeeninstallednow
formorethanayearandareperformingwell.

344

Figure39.6:LaboratoryTestingoftheFibreCompositeWaler

Aswithmostinnovativeconstructionventures,variousproblemsaroseduringthefloatingwalkwayprojectwhich
couldnotbe envisagedattheoutset.Followingthesuccessofthe walerdevelopmentprogram,theresearchteam
wasinvitedtodevelopsolutionsto overcomeanumberof theseproblems.Oneareaofthefloatingwalkwaythat
presentedaseriousstructuralchallengewasthedownstreamend.Thissectionofthewalkwaysupportsa20mspan,
5mwide pedestrian bridge, which provides access from the waterfront onto the floating walkway. In order to
distributethehighlyconcentratedloadsfromthebridgeoveranumberofpontoons,an18mlongstructuralmember
wasrequired.Alargepartofthismemberissubmersedinsaltwater.Theextremelyhighdynamicloadsandharsh
environmentmadetraditionaldesignsolutions(steeland/orconcrete)aprohibitiveoption.Aspecialfibrecomposite
truss was developed for this application (Figure 39.7). Because of its low weight (5000kg), the truss offered
significantbenefitsintermsofconstructionandinstallationtime.Estimatesonanalternativestainlesssteelsolution
werenearlythreetimesthepriceofthecompositetruss.Thetrusshasbeendesignedtocarryanultimatebending
momentof700kN.m,is2.5mdeepandhasa1.4mdeepcutouttoaccommodatethepedestrianbridge.Itprovides
anextremelydurableandhighcapacitysolutiontoadifficultengineeringproblem.
Figure39.7:FibreCompositeTrussDevelopedfortheRiverWalkProject

Lessonslearnt
ThereisanincreasingrecognitioninAustraliathatthewholeoflifecostofinfrastructure needstobeconsideredin
theevaluation,notjusttheupfront costs.OnthisbasisBCC recognisedthatthecompositewalersofferedasolution
whichwasbothtechnicallyandeconomicallysuperiortotraditionalmethods.
Itisimportantthatorganisationslike BCCcontinuetoundertakethistypeofinnovativeinfrastructure project,
despitethepoliticalandtechnicalchallenges.Researchersneedprojectslikethefloatingriverwalkwaytocontinue
topushforwardtheboundariesofstructuraltechnology.

ALTERNATIVEHARDWOODBRIDGEGIRDERS
Background
Australian hardwoods are an excellent generalpurpose building material. This was recognised by early road
builders in Australia, and hardwood timber bridges proliferated, particularly during the first half of thetwentieth
century.Timberusedinthesestructureswastypicallythebestoftheoldgrowthforests.Australiacurrentlyhasa
largenumber of timber bridge structures in both its roadandrailnetworks, possibly as many as 20,000. A large

345

proportionoftheseareinthehighmaintenancephaseoftheirusefullife.Asaresult,manybridgeassetownersare
confrontedwiththefollowingrealitiesregardingthesestructures:
thereisanincreasingshortageoflargesectionhardwoodsuitabletorepairandrehabilitatethesestructures
thereare insufficientfundsavailabletoconstructreplacementstructures
theassetsmustremaininasafeusablecondition.
Thissituationhascreatedaneedforeffectivealternatives.

Ahybridcompositestimberbeamalternative
Thehybridbeamconceptusesplantationsoftwoodintheformoflaminatedveneerlumber(LVL)forthebulkofthe
beam,withcompositereinforcementmodulestoincreasethestrengthandstiffnesstoalevelequivalenttothatof
highqualityhardwood(Figure39.8).Thetimberprovidestheshearcapacityforthebeam,maintainstheseparation
between the composite reinforcement modules, and provides the functionality and workability associated with
timber.
Figure39.8:SchematicCrossSectionofaHybridGirder

The concept of a reinforced timber beam, using relatively lowperformance timber as a core, and other higher
performance materials providing additional stiffness and strength, is not new. The main novelty involved in the
approachrelatestothecombinationofmaterialsusedtoformthereinforcement.
The reinforcement modules use a patented combination of composite materials and have a modulus of
elasticityof60GPaandafailureloadofaround500kN(Heldtetal.2002Heldtetal.2004aHeldtetal.2004b).
Themodulesarebondedtothetimberusingahighstrengthepoxyadhesive.Thestressintheadhesiveisrelatively
low due to the large surface area of the modules. The hybrid nature of this reinforcing system provides a great
degreeofflexibilitytoengineerspecificpropertiesintotheendproduct.
Considerable development was necessary to advance this concept towards a preengineered alternative
hardwoodgirder.Figure39.9showstheresultsofsomerelativelysmallscaletestingofthehybridgirders.Itshows
thebehaviourofabeamofsolidF14gradeply,andthebehaviourofahybridbeamofthesamedimensions,along
with the typical design values for similar beams made of highquality Australian hardwood. In addition to the
increased stiffness and strength ofthe beam, the addition of the reinforcing modules resulted ina pseudoductile
failure mode, providing significant warning of failure through cracking of the ply and the associated large
deflections.
Figure39.9:MomentDeflectionGraphofHybridBeamTesting

346

Applicationstodate
PrototypegirdershavealreadybeeninstalledbytheRTA,QDMRandtheRailInfrastructureCorporationofNSW
(RIC).Broadly,thehybridbeamisusedintwomainapplications:
1. existinghardwoodbridgeswherethisnewgirderconceptisusedasadirectsubstitutefortraditionalhardwood
girders
2. new lightweight structures such as road and pedestrian bridges, where the properties of each beam are
engineeredtomeetspecific(strengthandstiffness)requirements.
Figure39.10showstwohybridgirdersinstalledinanexistingbridgeasadirectreplacementforhardwoodgirders,
whileFigure39.11shows18mlonghybridbeamsforuseinroadoverrailbridgeswhichrequireshallowabutment
depthtominimiseearthworks,andaflatsoffittomaintainminimumtrackclearances.
Figure39.10:HybridGirdersInstalledinanExistingBridge

Figure39.11:HybridGirdersfor18mspanRoadoverRailBridgebeforeShippingtoSiteand
Installed

Environmentalbenefits
ThishybridbeamdevelopmenthasreceivedsignificantsupportfromtheAustralianRainforestConservationSociety
andtheQueenslandDepartmentofEnvironmentasitreducestheneedforhardwoodbeamswhichhave traditionally
beenobtainedthroughunsustainableloggingofmaturenativeforests.Theconceptisalsouniqueinitswideuseof
plantation timber, thereby positioning it as an enabling frontier technology for the timber industry rather than a
competitor. Thishashadamajorpositiveeffectontheindustryacceptanceofthisnewdevelopment.
Inadditiontothemoresustainablerawmaterialsassociatedwiththisnewconcept(90%plantationtimber),
thebeamincorporatesonlyonesixththeembodiedenergy initsmanufacturecomparedtoconventionalsteeland
concretebeams,whileprovidingsuperiorloadcarryingcapacityatanequivalentcost(Daniel2003).Thebeamalso
hasapositiveenvironmentalimpactintermsofgreenhousegasgeneration,asitstores moreCO2 thanitreleases.

Discussion
Thishardwoodreplacementprojecthasshownthatthereismuchtobegainedforallconcernedbyexploringnew
possibilities, and that this requires collaboration between asset owners, product developers, bridge maintenance
staff,manufacturers,andindeedthecommunity.Thisprojectclearlydemonstratesthatalternativesolutionscanbe
found,andthat these provide exciting opportunities for new products. Ithas alsohighlighted that by establishing
composites as a synergistic agent which can work in conjunction with traditional structural materials, market
acceptanceisgreatlyimproved.

347

UNDERWATERREPAIROFSUBMERGEDBRIDGEPILESAFFECTED
BYALKALIAGGREGATEREACTION
Background
Inlate2002,TheRTAnoticedaseriousstructuralproblemaffectinganumberoftheirbridges.Thesebridgesare
relatively new bridges that have been constructed using concrete piles that now suffer from a serious decay
mechanism known as alkali aggregate reaction (AAR). This mechanism causes expansive forces within the piles
which eventually lead to large cracks at the pile surface. These cracks result in serious corrosion of the
reinforcement, in particular in submersed piles. This mechanism is significantly well understood to be largely
prevented in new structures, but many existing bridge structures require major rehabilitation. In recent times the
QDMR hasalsobecomeinvolvedinthisprojectastheyhaveanumberofbridgeswithsimilarproblems.Inorderto
address these problems ateam of experts including RTA,QDMR, FCDD and LightningComposites developed a
fibrecompositepile wrapconceptthatcanbeappliedtosubmersedpiles(Figure39.12)(Carse2004Heldtetal.
2004b).
Figure39.12:SchematicofPileWrap

Theteamproducedanumberofprototypepile wrapsandaseriesofunderwatertrialswere conductedtotestthe


effectivenessoftheconcept(Figure39.13).Aspecialpressuretestwasalsocarriedouttoestablishthattheconcept
could sustain the required highpressure loads. These tests have shown that the wrap exceeds the stringent
requirements.Furtherworkiscurrentlybeingplannedtoturnthisexcitingdevelopmentintoacommercialproduct.
Figure39.13:PressureTestandPileWrapInstallation

CONCLUSIONS
ThischapterhasreviewedseveralareasofresearchanddevelopmentundertakenbyFCDDoverthepastfewyears
aimedatprovidingAustralianassetownersandinfrastructureauthoritieswithnewdesignsolutionswhichareboth
highlyfunctionalandeconomical.Severalofthesesystemsarenowintheprocessofcommercialisationfollowing
successful demonstration and testing. It is expected that these products and technologies will make significant
inroadsintotheAustraliancivilinfrastructure marketoverthenextfiveyears.

348

FCDDhasshownthatitispossibletodevelopfibrecomposite technologiesforthecivilinfrastructure marketwhich


provideenduserswiththeperformanceandcoststructuretheyareseeking.Throughcloseinteractionwiththeend
usersthroughtheproductdevelopmentprocess,itispossibletodevelopsystemswhicharereadilyacceptedintothe
marketplace. Also, by concentrating on areas where composites and traditional materials provide a synergistic
interactionitispossibletoovercomesomeofthecostbarriersnormallyassociatedwithcompositestechnology.
In addition to the support from Queensland government departments, FCDD has greatly benefited from a
$7.5minfrastructuregrantmadeavailablebytheQueenslandGovernmentfromtheSmartStateResearchFacilities
Fund(SSRFF)supportscheme.

REFERENCES
Carse,A.2004.Suitableinterventionstrategiesforstructuresaffectedbyalkalisilicareaction(ASR).5thAustroads
BridgeConference.Hobart,1921May
Daniel,R.A.2003.Environmentalconsiderationstostructuralmaterialselectionforabridge. EuropeanBridge
EngineeringConference:Lightweightbridgedecks.Rotterdam,2728March.
Dutton,SandB.Cartwright.2001.FindingsofaStudyintotheFeasibilityofBuildingaPolymerCompositeBridge
asaTechnologyDemonstratorProject:Technologydiffusionprogram:finalreport.Melbourne:Cooperative
ResearchCentre,AdvancedCompositeStructures.
HeldtT.,J.McGuffin,M.Marsh,M.YoungberryandA.Carse.2004c.FRPrehabilitationofASRaffectedpiles
Underwater. RTABridgeSeminar.Sydney,September.
Heldt,T,R.Marsh,G.vanErp,C.CattellandL.McCormick.2002.FieldTestingofFibreCompositeBridge:
Behaviouraltesting:vehicleswithtwoaxles:internalreport.Toowoomba:FCDD.
Heldt,T.J.,C.Cattell,R.Oates,P.PrasadandG.M.vanErp.2004a.Alternativehardwoodgirders:aninnovation
withcompositesforcouncilinfrastructure.TheAustralianLocalGovernmentEngineeringYearbook,ed.Executive
Media.4451.Melbourne:ExecutiveMedia.
Heldt,TJ.,C.Cattell,R.Oates,P.Prasad,W.ArthurandG.M.vanErp.2004b.Alternativehardwoodgirders:an
innovationwithcomposites.5th AustroadsBridgeConference.Hobart,1921May.
vanErp,G.M.,T.HeldtandS.R.Ayers.2002b.Analternativeapproachtofibrecomposite bridgesforthe
Australianroadnetwork.IEAustConference:RegionalTransportChallengesinCentralQueensland.
Rockhampton.
vanErp,G.M.,T.Heldt,C.CattellandR.Marsh.2003.ANewApproachtoFibreCompositeBridgeStructures.
AustralianForestProductsConference:NonWoodSubstitutesforSolidWoodProducts. Melbourne,October.
vanErp,G.M.,T.Heldt,L.McCormick,D.CarterandC.Tranberg.2002a.AnAustralianapproachtofibre
composite bridges. InternationalCompositesConferenceACUN4,CompositeSystems:MacroComposites,Micro
Composites,NanoComposites.Sydney,2125July.
vanErp,G.M.,T.Heldt,L.McCormick,D.CarterandC.Tranberg.2002d.Developmentofaninnovativefibre
composite deckunitbridge. IABSESymposiumMelbourne2002:TowardsaBetterBuiltEnvironment:Innovation,
sustainability,informationtechnology.Melbourne,1113September.
vanErp,G.M., T.J.Heldt,C.L.CattellandR.Marsh.2002c.Anewapproachtofibrecomposite bridgestructures.
17thAustralasianConferenceontheMechanicsofStructuresandMaterials.GoldCoast,Australia.

349

CHAPTER40

KeyLessonsandConclusions
KeithHampson
KerryBrown
PeterBrandon
INTRODUCTION
The many research projects outlined within this book are testimony to the high levels of research activity being
undertakenintheconstructionsector.Thecriticalchallengeisto findclear pathways fromtheresearchsettingto
constructionpractice.Implementationofnewideas,policyandprogrammaticinitiativesmayfailatmanypointsin
the adoption continuum. The construction sector tends to be well known for its general inability to innovate and
failure to establish the underpinning cultural and structural requisites for fostering innovation. However, careful
attentiontosettingtherequisitecontextual,cultural,technological,managerialandpracticalenvironmentasoutlined
inthisbook,canoffernewwaystodevelopthesector.Clientsarecriticaltothisprocess.

IDEASINTOPRACTICE:KEYLESSONS
ClientsDrivingConstructionInnovation:Movingideasintopracticehasbroughttogetherawiderangeofresearch
resultsthatoffertheopportunitytodevelopsignificantpracticalapplications.Thekeylessonshavebeendrawn,and
theresearchreportedinthisbookprovidesastartingpointforfuturedevelopmentofthesector.

Clientsdrivingconstructioninnovation
Clients can help introduce innovation at the conceptual or strategic level rather than with detailed technical or
informationalrequirements.Someexamples(Brandon,Chapter2)ofclientdrivenmeasurestopromoteefficiency
intheconstructionindustryare:
rationalisationofthesupplychain
3Dmodellingtechniques
teambasedoperations.
ThekeylessonsfromclientsdrivinginnovationinasectorwidecapacityaresummedupbyBrandon(Chapter2):
identificationof innovation champions toleadthedriveforinnovation
theneedforhighlycompetentteamstosupporttheleader
aclearvisionfortheindustryfromtheinitiators
necessitycanbeadriverwhenexistingtechnologyorprocessesareinadequateoroutmoded
ideasshouldbebroughtinfromotherindustrysectors
knowledgefromsingleapplicationscanbediffusedacrossmanyorganisationsinthesector
generic knowledge can be used to guide industry development at a national level to encourage self
improvement.
Kiviniemi (Chapter 3), in examining the role of technology programs to guide industry development in Finland,
reportedthekeydevelopmentareasas:
highqualityofinformationmanagement betweenprojectparticipants
therequirementforinformationmanagement overtheentirelifecycleoftheproject
widespreaduseofIT managementtools
reengineeringofthebuildingprocesses
useofinformationnetworks.
Theimplementationofthesesystemsandinitiatives werenecessarytomove fromasingleapplicationofspecific
companylevel data to industrywide data capture and shared frameworks and models. Kiviniemi (Chapter 3)
contendsthatthekeysuccess factorsthatwerestrengthsoftheindustrywideprogramwerethelongtermvision,
focused investment strategy and criticalmass achieved awillingness to collaborate coupled witha smallinternal
market high levels of technical and information literacy within the Finnish population and international
collaborationandcommunication.

350

Meetingclientsneeds
Determining clients needs is critical to successful completion of a project through the projectbrief stage. Shen
(Chapter 5) offers a schema for ensuring value for money and ensuring effective management of multiple
stakeholdersinthisbriefingprocess.Identifyingprojectstakeholdersthroughthe ACID testofAuthority,Consult,
InformandDo,andthenassessingtheircommitment,powerandinterestsshouldoccurpriortothebriefing.
The research by Zuo, Ness and Zillante (Chapter 6) assists in improving relationship contracting through
developingaprojectculture approach.Thefeaturesidentifiedasintegraltopromotingtheprojectcultureare:
outcomeoriented
workingtowardswhatisbestfortheproject
anoblame,nodisputeapproach
understandingeachothersroles,expectationsandvalues
highlevelofcommitmentfromallparties
supportiveteamwork
commonandalignedgoals
timelydecisionmaking
ownershipoftheproject
straighttalk
earlywarningofproblems
willingnesstoassist
alignmentofindividualobjectiveswithcollectiveobjectives
focusedandeffectivecommunication
mutualtrustandrespect
notfeelingthreatenedbyothers
flexibility.
Theclientwasidentifiedinthisresearchasthemostimportantroleindevelopingaprojectmanagementcultureas
the clients capacity and level of resources directly affected the ability to influence expectations, values and
assumptions ofotherparticipants.

Procurementandriskmanagement
FromDoylesresearch(Chapter7)acontractforclientdrivenprojects(CDP)shouldcontainthefollowingelements
inordertobalanceriskandreward:
teamingshouldonlyoccurbetweenkeyprojectparticipants
teamsshouldformandreformaccordingtoinvolvementovertime
teaminductionshouldbefocusedonestablishedteamculture
pricingmodelbasedoneffectivepricingpolicy
commercialperformanceinformationneedstobeavailabletoallkeyplayers
theteamneedsafacilitatortoundertakedisputationnegotiation,leadteamformation
detailedrecordsneedtobekeptandprojectshouldbeopenbook
probity planningandauditsshouldbedesignedtobuildandverifytrust
totallyqualitymanagementshouldbeembeddedintotheproject.
ProcurementpoliciesofgovernmentsarescrutinisedbyFurneauxetal.(Chapter8)todeterminewhetherthereare
differenttypes ofprocurementregimesinAustralia.Findingsacknowledged thattheserangedfromcentralisedto
decentralised according to organisational capability, decentralised with either a board or committee review, or
highly decentralised. It was found that capital works procurement policies and processes differ according to the
assumedleveloforganisationalcapabilityoftheclients.

Informationandcommunicationtechnologiesimprovingefficiencies
Productssuchascodecheckers,(Dingetal.,Chapter13),parametricbuildingmodelling(Crawfordetal.,Chapter
14) and digital ink sketching within 3D environments (Maher et al., Chapter 15) are outlined and assessed to
determine their applicability and effectiveness in the constructionindustry. Advanced systems andprocesses may
improve the productivity, reduce costs and allow complex calculations not possible in previous times, although
technologymaystillrequireconsiderableadaptationtoensurethattheapplicationdeliversclientrequirements.

Performancebasedbuilding
PerformancebasedbuildinganddesignisatearlystageofimplementationinAustralia.MianandMorey(Chapter
22)attempttorefineprojectsuccessfactorsandperformanceaccordingtoaprojectdiagnosticstoolthatdetermines
projecthealth.Fourstagesareidentified:initialrapidhealthassessment,identificationofpoorlyperformingareas,
remedyprescription, andcontinuedhealthmonitoring.

351

Occupationalhealthandsafety
Acriticalissueisoccupationalhealthandsafety(OHS)intheconstructionindustryasitischaracterisedbyunsafe
workingconditions,andahighincidenceofdeathandinjury.Dingsdagetal.(Chapter24)determinethatasafety
cultureisrequiredtobe supportedbyseniormanagement,safetypoliciesandlegislation,andadequateresources.
Preconditions for a safety culture rely on appropriate communication channels, leadership and management
commitment.Lingardetal.(Chapter26)exploretheissueofhealthandsafetyimprovementthroughinterventionat
thedesignstageof construction.TheauthorssuggestthatadecisionsupporttooltointegrateOHS considerations
intothedesignphasewouldbeausefulaidinassistinginriskmanagement.Theimplicationsofacodeofpractice
for OHS are examined by Pillay et al. (Chapter 27). Key issues are identified as warranting attention across all
constructionprojectstagesincludingsafetyroleandresponsibilities,contractorselection,hazardidentificationand
control,designingforsafety,equipment,training, andsafetyreviews.
Workerhealthissuesalsoariseintermsofworklifebalance(WLB)intheconstructionindustry.Bradleyet
al. (Chapter 25) offer that management attitude (flexibility and recognition that WLB was important) and
managementbehaviour(matchingtalkwith actionaboutWLBandlivingahealthylifestyle)arekeyenablers
forasuccessfulWLBstrategy.

Facilitiesmanagement
Facilitiesmanagement(FM)hasemergedtobecomeamajoractivity withinthebusinesssupportsector.VanRee
andMcLennan(Chapter29)outlineawaytoestablishservicequalitywithintheFMsectorderivedfromameasure
offirmefficiency(throughdecreasingcosts)andeffectiveness(throughincreasingworkerproductivity).
Chevezetal.(Chapter30)offeranalternativestrategyfordeterminingtheFM approachthroughafourprong
approach:
1. facilityassessment
2. developanenduserprofile
3. matchingtheenduserprofilewithalternativeworkingarrangements
4. balancingtheorganisationalecology.
It is suggested that consideration of each of these aspects will assist in developing novel types architectural
structuresthatmatchalternativeworkorganisationusheredinthroughnewtechnology.

Industrydevelopment
Theshiftfromverticallyintegratedorganisationsintheconstructionsectortohorizontallinksthroughoutsourcing
and supplychain arrangements has engendered greater interest in making those linkages more costeffective and
productive. The research by Ryan et al. (Chapter 31) examines relational and collaborative approaches withinan
industrydevelopmentframeworkandtheroleofpolicyactorsinfosteringthesearrangements.
TheadoptionofroboticsintheAustralianconstructionindustryislow.Aninvestigationintothebarriersfor
automationandroboticsfoundthemostsignificanttobe:
costofbuying
costofupdatingandmaintaining
incompatibilitywithexistingpracticesandoperations.
It was argued (Mahbub and Humphreys, Chapter 35) that the widening of construction companies markets,
enabling greater economies of scale throughrepetitive use of technology and by encouragingmorerepetitive and
highlystructuredworkprocesses,wouldpromoteadoptionofrobotictechnology.
LondonandBavinton(Chapter37)offerthattheadoptionof ebusinessisdependenton:
rewardsandincentivesbygovernment
managementcharacteristicsoffirms
organisationalculture
flexiblespecialisationwithinSMEs
productionfactorsassistingebusinessadoption
reductionintransactioncosts.

Sustainableconstructionforthefuture
Martin Fisher (Chapter 38) argues that the following concepts will form the cornerstones of future building
construction:
integratedconcurrentengineering
virtualdesignandconstruction
productorganisationprocessmodelling
aproductionbasedapproach
adesignfabricateassembleparadigm.
These elements are contended to offer the prospect of costeffective, timeefficient andmore sustainable ways of
building.

352

vanErpetal.(Chapter39)suggestthatfibrecompositebuildingmaterialsareattheforefrontofmovestoinvent
new buildingmaterials that canreplace deterioratingand costly civil infrastructure.Trials undertaken inareas of
bridges,pipesandoverwaterwalkwayshavedemonstratedsignificantcostandlengthofprojectreductions.

CONCLUSION
Formulating research programs, gathering and analysing the data for evidencebased research is a first step in
shiftingfromanideatoapracticaloutcome.Movingideasintopracticeisnotasimpleprocess,however,andthe
disseminationofresultsfromthefindingsofresearchisasecondcriticalstepinprogressingthisagenda.Translating
researchresultsintoidentifiablepracticebasedoutcomesisafinalstageinachievingindustryadoptionandtakeup
oftheresultsofindustryresearch.
The key themes outlined in this book have foreshadowed new areas of research and opportunities for
constructionrelated practice to lead the construction sector into greater productivity and performance. Research
withintheconstructionindustryoutlined andexaminedinthisbookhasopenedthepossibilityforcapitalisingonthe
existingopportunitiesandidentifiedcriticalpointsforfurtherdevelopmentofthesector.

353

Index
3DCAD,30,80,84,86,87,88,132,303,305,310
3Dvirtualworld,133,135,139,140,141,142
ACA,43,47,203,204,205,216,218,238,242
ACIDtest,35,351
adjacencygraph,121
adversarial, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 192, 220,
236,267,268,270,271
alliance,16,44,61,127,132,226,285
alliancing,16,44,48,52,53,60,61,83,127,132,
168,174,226,285
argumenttree,230,232,233
Australian Constructors Association (ACA), 43,
47, 52, 74,75, 78, 203, 204, 205, 216, 218, 238,
242
benchmark,20,21,77,79,83,179,193,194,197,
199,205,268
BIM,16,27,28,31,126,339
budget,61
building and construction industry, 56, 57, 215,
220
buildinginformationmodelling,16,27,114,339
CAD, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 80, 84, 86, 87, 88, 113,
114,115,116,117,122,126,127,131,132,143,
153,167,189,227,233,234,285,296,298,303,
305,310,322
CDP,60,351
cladding,93,94,97
clientdrivenprojects,351
codeofpractice,235,237,238,239,240,241,242,
352
Cole Royal Commission, 25, 27, 31, 43, 52, 155,
194,199,201,213,235,236, 237,243,286
collaboration,3,4,16,17,20,21,22,52,126,132,
133,136,141,142,169,174,175,201,203,204,
213,219,235,236,237,238,241,242,267,269,
270,271,272,288,303,306,311,317,318,343,
347,350
commercialisation,23,80,306,307,311,348
communication,2,3,7,8,9,15,17,21,22,33,34,
37,38,40,49,52,60,61,82,112,133,136,137,
138,139,142,157,163,168,192,201,202,204,
213,215,218,236,238,241,257,262,270,278,
282,288,289,290,291,292,293,294,303,309,
310,311,314,315,316,317,318,319,321,323,
324,327,331,334,335,350,351,352
competingvaluesframework,45
competitiveadvantage,287
complex product systems (CoPS), 276, 277, 278,
279
conceptualcoordination,143,144
conceptualmassmodels,128
Construction2020,62,71,88,155,163,173,243,
267,268,269,270,271,273,311
constructionsite,25,31,201,244,300
constructors, 2, 25, 26,28, 33, 43, 47, 52, 55,61,
74,75,78,95,111,202,203,204,216,238,239,
240, 242

contractor,9,12,47,48,49,52,56,57,58,59,60,
75,76,77,78,100,177,178,179,180,191,197,
199,236,239,241,242,244,256,268,269,273,
285,291,292,297,298,303,304,307,309,312,
313,322,352
contributing factors (CFs), 2, 185, 193, 194, 195,
196,197,198
CoPS,276,277,278,279
CORENETKnowledgeBase,226
costperformanceindex(CPI),194
critical success factors (CSFs), 40, 41, 42, 193,
194,195,196,197,198,199
culture,2,3,8,10,13,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,
50, 51, 52,60, 82, 164, 173, 189, 201, 202, 203,
204,205,206,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,
220,224,240,249,250,260,264,271,272,291,
298,307,308,309,314,315,316,317,322,326,
330,331,333,334,335,351,352
Demand Support Systems (DSS), 149, 152, 153,
154,155
design,7,13,19,29,30,31,41,42,71,83,88,98,
99, 100, 110, 111, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127,
131,132,137,138,140,142,143,145,146,147,
148,152,154,155,170,173,177,182,187,190,
225,227,233,243,260,264,285,305,340,341,
344
designandbuild(D&B), 43, 50,52,100,103,195
DesignandConstruct(D&C),3,57,58,60,76,77,
197, 285
design process, 12, 30, 42, 57, 99, 104, 110, 113,
126,131,133,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,
143,182,187,188,225,226,233,245,298
DesignCheck, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120,
121,122,126
DSSs,149,153,155
earlydesignstage,32,127,128,129,131,132
ebusiness, 4, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319,
320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,
330,331,333,334,335,352
ecologically sustainable development (ESD), 44,
81,82,90,179
ecoprofiling, 80,82, 84,85
EcoProp,166,186,187
EDM,113,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,309
education,22,31,41,71,147,174,214,215,218,
240, 245,306,311,312,336
electronic document management (EDM), 113,
118,119,120,121,122,123,124,309,311
engineeringprocurementconstruction,50,52
entrepreneurship,6,11,13,268,273
EPC,50,52
equipment,240
ESD,44,81,82,90,179
Executive LeadershipTeam(Elt),48
expert,233
facilitator,48

354

facilitiesmanagement,2,3,20,21,22,42,60,86,
163,165,172,174,185,187,189,190,232,244,
246,247,248,249,250,251,254,256,260,262,
263,264,265,270,349,352
FAST,36,37,39
fibre composites, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 348,
349,353
fibrecompositesdesignanddevelopment(FCDD),
341,342,344,348,349
filtering,28,105,106
Finnish real estate,15,23
FPS,34
functionanalysissystemtechnique(FAST),36,37,
39
functionalperformancespecification,34
globalisation,74,268,279,295,297,302
hazard,36,208,209,210,211,212,217,229,231,
236,239,240,242,245,352
human resources (HR), 217, 242, 249, 262, 264,
331
Hut600project,17,18,19
ifthen,150,226,227
IFCs,17,22,113,131,226
IMT,48
industrialisation,25,26,27,28,29,30,31
industrydevelopment,2,4,286,302,350,352
industryfoundationclasses(IFC),16,113
information and communication technologies
(ICT), 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22, 23, 55, 80, 81,
82,86,87,112,169,170,171,172, 189,225,248,
249,254,255,261,262,264,271,274,293,306,
307,309,311,317,318,321,323,324,325,326,
327,330,331, 336, 338,340,349,350, 351
information management, 15, 17, 20, 27, 41, 313,
350
infrastructure, 13, 23, 44, 63, 64, 65, 77, 81, 111,
153,173,251,258,263,264,269,286,295,297,
298,303,305,309,313,338,341,345,347,348,
349,353
innovationsystems,277,278,279
integratedmanagementteam(IMT),48
integration,6,16,19,23,26,27,28,29,31,37,38,
52, 71, 100, 110, 113, 117, 126, 149, 167, 172,
187,189,190,234,235,236,242,262,267,272,
273,277,279,286,298,314,315,318,327,331,
333,338,339
International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI),
16,21, 127,131,132,226
interoperability, 15, 16, 17, 19, 84, 87, 113, 116,
127,132,150,167,169,226
keyperformanceindicators(KPIs),193,194,196,
198,199,313
knowledgeintensivecomputeraideddesign(KIC),
226
knowledgetransfer,7
knowledgebasedsystem(KBS),225,226,230
LCADetail,80,81,87,89
leadershipstyle,202
legislation,113

lifecycle,15,17,18,81,83,84,85,92,95,96,97,
98, 129, 165, 169, 183, 187, 188, 189, 197, 225,
226,269,270,303,304,306,310,311,338,339,
340,350
losttimeinjuryfrequency (LTIF),198
manufacturing,7,85,173,199
massingmodels,128
measurementissues,7,241,256,298
motivation,5, 11, 275
nDmodels,89,167,169,170,172,173,174
occupational health and safety (OHS), 3, 44, 46,
50,52,97,107,110,173,187,192,193,196,200,
201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,
211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,225,
226,227,228,229,230,231,233,234,235,236,
237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,273,
274,352
ontology,149,150,151,152,155
outsourcing,3,11,43,52,74,243,244,247,248,
249,251,258,267,268,270,272,273,274,292,
352
partnering, 17, 44, 52, 53, 58, 61, 168, 244, 267,
270,271,272,273,285,307,311
PartnershipforAdvancingTechnologyin Housing
(PATH),25,26,28,31
PeBBu, 163, 173, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181,
182,189,190
performance baseddesign(PBD),182,183,189
performancebased building (PBB), 3, 163, 164,
165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,
175,176, 177, 178,180,181,182,188,189
performancebasedbuilding network,163,182
performancebaseddesign,170
PM4D,17,18,20,23
policy,4,23,31,52,62,64,71,74,77,113,169,
174,264,267,271,272,275,279,280,287,293,
308
preconstruction,52
probity,48,60,63,70,351
procurement,2,3,9,13,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,
42,43,44,45,46,47,49,50,51,52,53,54,61,
62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,75,
76,77,78,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,99,100,101,
102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,164,
168,173,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,
183,184,194,196,197,199,237,239,242,243,
244,245,248,267,268,269,272,273,274,276,
277,279,304,308,313,314,336,339,351
productmodelling, 16, 17,19,339
productivity,19,25,26,58,70,75,79,97,99,127,
171,178,186,188,189,195,220,223,226,239,
251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,261,
275,279,287,293,295,296,297,308,327,330,
336,338,340,351,352,353
ProITproject,16,19, 20,23
projectdiagnostics,191,198
projectmanagement,21,41,42,52,111,199,219,
233,238,244,273
projectmanagementconsultant,50,51,320

355

project manager, 33, 35, 36, 38, 48, 50, 62, 90,
191,204,206,208,213,219,221,222,223,224,
238,240,292,320
purchasers,73
relationshipbuilding,203
relationshipcontracting,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,
50,51,52,180,304,351
research and development (R&D), 3, 13, 15, 16,
22,23,82,163,164,165,171,172,173,175,177,
189,226,233,281,283,284,285,286,291,293,
295,297,298,303,306,307,308,344,348
reworkratio (RR),197
riskcontrolhierarchy,229
risk management, 3, 44, 47, 54, 55, 60, 70, 225,
228,229,230,232,233,234,240,285,330,351,
352
RobensReport,215,216,217,227,236,244
robotics,4,156,161,295,296,297,298,299,300,
301,302,352
safetycompetency,3,202,205,207,213
safetyculture,213
safetyleadership,219
safetycriticalroles, 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 213,
218
secondary performance indicator (SPI), 194, 196,
197,198
servicequality,256
SMEs,72,76,77,78,81,235,236,242,247,248,
267,268,269,270,271,272,273,303,304,306,
307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,318,
352

software,16,52,131,137,161,336
stakeholdermanagement,33,34,37,41,42
standardisation,16,29,298,322,323
stigmergy,157
supplychain,307,319
supplychainmanagement,236,270,271,336
sustainability, 2, 4, 15, 62, 80, 82, 83, 85,86,87,
88,89,90,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,106,108,
109,110,149,163,164,168,176,183,237,239,
265,270,274,305,306,337,349,352
technicalcompetence,109,281,283,284,286,309
technology diffusion and adoption, 280, 293, 303,
305,349
technologytransfer,4,28,303,306,307,308,309,
310,311
time,61,196,221,273,299,300,305
TotalQualityManagement(TQM),42,52,53,60,
223,224
training,2,15,27,49,51,52,136,147,172,175,
179,180,192,202,204,205,210,211,212,215,
216,217,218,228,229,236,237,239,240,242,
244,285,298,306,307,310,311,321,327,330,
334,352
urbandevelopment, 31,149,163
valuemanagement,32,34,35,39,40,41,42
VeraProgramme,16,17,18,21,22,23
virtualbuilding,20,23
worklifebalance,220,221,222,223,224,352
YIT,16,19

356

You might also like