2000 Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Kagioglou M Rethinking Construction the Generic Designa and Construction Process Protocol

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 2000 7 2, 141153

Rethinking construction: the Generic Design andConstruction Process Protocol

MI CHAI L KAGIOGLOU, RACHEL COOPER, GHASSAN AOUAD* & MART IN SEXTON*

Research Institute for Design and Manufacture, University of Salford, Centenary Building, Peru Street, Salford, M3 6EQand *Research Centre for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT, UK

Abstract The complexity of construction projects and what is described in the manufacturing industry as thefuzzy front end. The participants in the process arethe fragmentation of the construction industry undertak-described in terms of the activities that need to being those projects has effectively resulted in linear, unco-undertaken in order to achieve a successful project andordinated and highly variable project processes in the UK

construction sector. Research undertaken at the Univer- process execution. In addition, the decision-makingmechanisms, from a client perspective, are illustratedsity of Salford resulted in the development of an im-

proved project process, the Process Protocol, which and the foundations for a learning organization:industryare facilitated within a consistent Process Protocol.considers the whole lifecycle of a construction project

whilst integrating its participants under a common frame- Keywords activity zones, design and construction,project process, process map, Process Protocol, stagework. The Process Protocol identifies the various phasesgateof a construction project with particular emphasis on

INTRODUCTI ON

The construction industry in the UK is plagued with anumber of problems, which have not disappeared inthe last few decades. Those problems have been illus-trated by several government reports, including Simon(1944) and more recently the Latham (1994) andEgan (1998) reports. The findings are familiar practiceto the majority of the industry, which is still strivingtowards improvements in a number of areas, but ap-parently with little success. There are three main areasfor consideration:

1. development of a solution: including consultationwith the client and development of product specifi-cations and design;

2. implementation of the solution: the construction orrefurbishment of the facility that will satisfy theclient needs and those of the project participants;and

3. the project process: the roadmap or framework thatis used for undertaking the project activities andthat delivers value to the supply chain parties.

It is, however, almost impossible to consider any ofthe aforementioned areas in isolation as they are allinterdependent and suboptimization does not guaran-tee project success.

The Latham (1994) report reaffirmed the conclu-sions of all previous studies on the subject. The report

focused on the fragmented nature of the industry as amajor contributing factor to the poor communicationbetween all parties working on a construction project.The main outcome and recommendation of theLatham report was its call for significant cost savingsby the utilization and formulation of effective con-struction processes, which will in turn lead to in-creased performance. The recommendations of thisreport were reaffirmed in a recent report by Egan(1998), which reported to the deputy Prime MinisterJohn Prescott on the scope for improving the qualityand efficiency of UK construction. This report iden-tified the following five key drivers of change that needto set the agenda for the construction industry at large:

1. committed leadership;2. focus on the customer;3. integrated processes and teams;4. quality-driven agenda; and5. commitment to people.

Within the focus for integrated processes and teams,four key elements were identified: product develop-ment; project implementation; partnering the supplychain; and production of components. Furthermore,the Egan (1998) report called for annual reductions of10% in construction cost and time and an annualreduction of 20% in project defects. This total perfor-mance improvement of 30% requires significant im-provements in the way that the construction process is

2000 Blackwell Science Ltd141

142 Kagioglou M. et al.

enacted. It will require a significant reengineering ofthe construction process and the subprocesses in-volved in undertaking construction works.

LEARNI NG FROM MANUFACTURING

The findings and recommendations of Latham andEgan relate to the state of the construction industryat the present time and offer some clues as to howsome of the problems might be overcome by transfer-ring established practices from the manufacturing in-dustry. Indeed, this view has been expressed by anumber of researchers and practitioners (Cooper et al.1998; Kagioglou et al. 1998a; Koskela 1992). How-ever, the authors believe that the transfer of knowl-edge and practices from manufacturing into theconstruction industry should be treated with cautionfor a number of reasons. First, the level of maturity ofboth processes and practices is quite different, withmanufacturing having the lead. Second, the struc-ture of the industries and of the organization of pro-ject personnel can be different, in that constructionrelies heavily on Temporary Multi-organizations(TMOs) whereas manufacturing normally operateswithin long-term partnership arrangements. Finally,comparison between the processes and the practicesof both industries must be made by considering thelevels in which they exist, i.e. strategic, managerialand operational. Therefore, clarification of processlevels can have an important influence on the man-agement of those processes.

There are two main areas of manufacturing thatconstruction can benefit from (Kagioglou et al.1998b): the project process or New Product Develop-ment (NPD), as it is known; and the operational:pro-duction processes. The first relates very closely, bothin terms of nature and content, to the design andconstruction process. As such, it considers the devel-opment of a solution (usually a tangible product)from a need identified in the market place or inter-nally within an organization to the implementation ofthat solution and the eventual withdrawal of theproduct. This is achieved by organizing the activitiesthat need to take place in a number of phases, whichare made distinct by the determination of reviewpoints between the phases. This is very similar to theenactment of a construction project, the differencebeing that the distinction between the phases is usu-ally determined by the entry of the different parties:functions, i.e. architects, contractors etc., to theprocess. The second area is related to the way inwhich the production of a product, including material

flow, process design and resources planning, is under-taken. Indeed, a number of very effective philosophiesand practices such as Just in Time (JIT), lean pro-duction and others have a legacy of optimized pro-duction in the manufacturing sector. JIT aims toimprove production by utilizing the internal and ex-ternal supply chains in terms of people and materialflow. The similarities of JIT, for example, in the con-struction sector can be illustrated by listing a numberof the benefits, amongst many, that are offered by itssuccessful implementation:

reduced time-scales by optimizing material flow; reduced waste of both materials and processing

time by optimizing the manufacturing processes;and

supply chain integration by utilizing effectivepartnerships.

The first two benefits can be realized in the con-struction industry (see, for example, Koskela 1992)perhaps more readily than the third one, which re-quires a significant reorganization and mind-shift ofthe litigation-driven industry.

This paper concentrates on the lessons that can belearned from the NPD:project process of manufactur-ing, and reference to it is made throughout the de-scription of the Generic Design and ConstructionProcess Protocol (GDCPP).

THE GENERIC DES IGN ANDCONSTRUCTION PROCESS (GDCPP)PROTOCOL

This section presents a description of the researchmethods and the main findings of an Engineering andPhysical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) fundedproject under the Innovative Manufacturing Initiative(IMI) Construction as a Manufacturing Process ini-tiative. The project brought together a number ofcompanies, representing the construction supplychain, and the University of Salfords research exper-tise to produce the Generic Design and ConstructionProcess Protocol.

The main aims of the project were to:

develop an improved design and construction Pro-cess Protocol by analysing the current practices inthe construction industry and drawing comparisonswith similar practices in the manufacturing indus-try; and

identify the Information Technology (IT) require-ments needed to support the Process Protocol and

2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 7 2, 141153

143The Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol in construction

develop demonstrator models (the results of the ITinvestigation are presented elsewhere).

This project involved contractors, clients, IT spe-cialists and the supply chain coming togetherwith academia through a government-stimulated re-search programme to develop an improved designand construction process. This also enabled theproduction of a solution that is devised, owned andsatisfactory to all parties. The GDCPP project andthis paper relate most appropriately to the researchprogramme under which it is funded (Construc-tion as a Manufacturing Process), and the nature ofLathams and Egans philosophical approaches toachieving the resolution of client dissatisfaction, con-struction industry dissatisfaction and supply chainproblems.

Concept of Process Protocol

The concept of the Process Protocol was based ona number of issues and deficiencies of current prac-tices in the construction industry. This enabled theidentification of areas for improvement by examiningand comparing best practice in manufacturing projectprocesses. To this end, a need was identified fora model that is capable of representing the diverseinterests of all the parties involved in the constructionprocess or that is able to provide a com-plete overview. In addition, the design and construc-tion operations need to form part of a common pro-cess (model) best controlled by an integrated system.This has been achieved successfully in manufacturingand other industries through process modellingand the reengineering of those processes (Rosenau1996). In order for construction to utilize sucha model:process approach, there is a need for a co-herent and explicit set of process-related principles,a new process paradigm, which can be managed andreviewed across the breadth and depth of the industryand which focuses on changing and systematizingthe strategic management of the potentially com-mon management processes in construction whilstaccommodating the fragmentary production idiosyn-crasies. In addition, it is appreciated that there willbe no best way for all circumstances; however, ageneric and adaptable set of principles will allow theconsistent application of principles in a repeatableform. Finally, a philosophy of early entry into theprocess of the key functions needs to be incorporated,with the emphasis of the effort on design and plan-ning to minimize both error and reworking duringconstruction.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research team endeavoured to use a methodologythat was sympathetic to the issues being investigated:in effect to suit the method to the problem, and notthe problem to the method (Linstone 1978). Further-more, it was appreciated that different types of issueswould be encountered during the development of theProcess Protocol, and that these often disparate issueswould be best served by a variety of research methods.To provide the necessary contingency-based, but inte-grated, research methodology to accommodate thesediffering demands in a coherent and consistent way, anoverall research model was developed, as shown in Fig.1.

The outer ring of Fig. 1 represents the unifyingresearch philosophy, which guides and energizes theinner research approaches and research techniques.Research approaches consist of the dominant theorygeneration and testing methods. Research techniquescomprise data collection tools.

The nesting of the models elements generated aframework, which provided the research team with aninteractive portfolio of approaches and techniques thatbenefited from meta-level direction and cohesion.Each of the models elements will be briefly discussed.

Actor-based research philosophy

The overarching research philosophy used in the GD-CPP project was the preunderstandingunderstandinghermeneutic spiral (Odman 1985), grounded in actor

Figure 1 Overall GDCPP research model.



Figure 2 Hermeneutic learning spiral.

Action research

The methodology was infused with an action research:learning dimension, in as much as the workshops notonly facilitated the generation of new knowledge orunderstanding but also provided structured frameworksfor carrying out organizational change within theboundaries of the industrial partner research teammembers.

The action research strand was firmly anchored tothe following interactive assumptions:

the optimal way of learning about the design andconstruction process was through attempting to ini-tiate a generic Process Protocol-based changewithin it;

the industrial partners who would be affected by, orinstrumental in, these changes should as far aspossible be involved in the workshops; and

workshop participation would encourage industrialpartner members to generatively learn as they dis-covered how to make sense of the Process Protocolin terms of their own language and organizationalsetting.

The action research model shown in Fig. 3 wasimplicit in the design and implementation of the work-shop stages. The model channels the action researcheffort through an optimal flow of stagesstarting withbringing the workshop team together in the centre andthen moving to agreeing the scope for action at thetop.

research philosophy (see, for example, Berger & Luck-mann 1966; Sandywell 1975). The spiral, shown inFig. 2, depicts research as an iterative process wherebythe industrial partners and the University of Salfordresearch teams a priori knowledge, insights and experi-ence form the preunderstanding, or common language,to inform the subsequent stage of understanding, whichfurthers the development of the Process Protocol.

This understanding, in turn, is the basis for thepreunderstanding of the next stage of development,and so on.

The main conduit for the translation and elevationof preunderstanding into understanding were work-shops, although crucial preunderstanding:understand-ing was transferred and developed through an ongoingdialogue both prior to and between the workshops.The workshops and intervening dialogue improvedboth individual and collective learning throughout theproject team.

Research approaches

Case studies

A traditional case study approach was used, with Uni-versity of Salford researchers entering industrial part-ners organizations openly in the role of investigators,with the express purpose of learning more about theiractivities with respect to the design and constructionprocesses being practised. Three case studies wereundertakenone in a manufacturing organization andtwo projects undertaken by Alfred McAlpines SpecialProjects Division. Figure 3 The action research process model.



The process is not linear, but interactive.

Techniques of research

Questionnaire surveys

Use was made of self-completion questionnaires dur-ing the initial scoping and case study elements of theproject. The questionnaires collected predominantlyqualitative data from the partners in the project.

The questionnaire surveys aimed to generate factualand attitudinal information and understanding (see, forexample, Ackroyd & Hughes 1983). The factual ele-ments of the questionnaires sought to gain informationfrom individuals within the industrial partners firmsconcerning the material aspects of design and con-struction processes: for example, project durationtime. The attitudinal aspects of the questionnairesaimed to secure data on what individuals felt about agiven issue: in this case, for example, what they feltabout the effectiveness of the prevailing performancereview process.

Workshops

The workshops carried out during the project werecentral to fruitful preunderstanding and understandingprogression. Each workshop had a specific task toinvestigate, which was set out and managed by aUniversity of Salford co-ordinator. The workshopconfiguration, in effect, created a boundary-spanningteam, which could tackle complex process issues bybringing together and harnessing a diverse range ofexpertise in a structured way.

The Workshops were designed and implemented to:

Provide feedback such that the co-ordinator facilitatedlearning by providing workshop members with feed-back about the consequences of issues being raisedand decisions being taken.

Stimulate questioning: the co-ordinator facilitatedlearning by asking questions that stimulated partici-pants to think in new ways. For example, issueswere often reframed from a manufacturing perspec-tive and returned to the forum as a question.

Permit modelling and validation: the co-ordinator en-couraged learning and understanding through pro-cess models that participants could either adopt,modify or reject. For example, the Process Protocolmap itself underwent numerous changes as a directresult of workshop debate.

Provide support: the co-ordinator facilitated learningby providing a psychologically supportive environ-ment, thereby creating a climate where novel issuesand questions could be raised. For example, ideaswere generated from a variety of construction per-spectives as well as an injection of diverse theoreti-cal views.

Structuring: the co-ordinator facilitated learning bystructuring the flow of work. For example, in oneworkshop, a hypothetical construction case was de-veloped to explore process issues.

Interviews

Interviews were used throughout the research process.In total, there were 30 interviews helping the develop-ment of the Process Protocol and 30 interviews duringthe case study investigations. They were generallysemi-structured in nature to allow it to have an overallpurpose but be sufficiently flexible to explore issues asthey arose during the discussion. The contents ofinterviews were validated by the sending of case studyreports for comment to the relevant industrialpartners.

Approaches to modelling the process

Given the apparent lack of commonality in the con-temporary understanding of the design and construc-tion process, an attempt was made to produce a modelof the process that could be debated and subsequentlyrefined towards a generic representation.

The initial model was developed based on existingdescriptions of the design and construction process(inter alia Walker 1989; Hughes 1991), some casestudy data and reviews of other published models (interalia RIBA 1980; Sanvido 1990; BAA Plc. 1995)

The Integration Definition language 0 for FunctionModelling (IDEF-0) process modelling technique wasadopted, initially, as the most appropriate means ofrepresenting this process. It is this technique that hasbeen used to successfully represent processes such asSanvidos Integrated Building Process Model (Sanvido1990).

In developing a process model using the IDEF-0technique, an initial step is the establishment of theactivities that will comprise the model. These activitieswere presented for discussion in preliminary workshopsessions with the projects industrial partners. How-ever, initial reactions to this were poor, principallybecause such an approach did not facilitate communi-cation of the process, either quickly or clearly.



Moreover, it was found that the partners, at thisstage, also preferred to concentrate on the generalprinciples of the process (see later section) rather thanthe detail of the activities involved.

This preference for principles was found to have acertain congruence with other models of manufactur-ing processes. Coopers discussion of the evolution ofthe stage gate models in manufacturing (Cooper1994) and other (inter alia GPT, Fisons) industrialmodels demonstrate this. In such models, the graphi-cal representation of the process conveys its inherentprinciples.

Furthermore, the IDEF-0 technique has been foundto be effective when modelling as-is processes; how-ever, it shows limitations when the modelling of animproved will-be process is attempted. In response tothis, the project team has adopted a scenario-buildingtechnique whereby the participants of workshops wereasked to act the roles of various functions in theindustry. In such, the current pitfalls of the design andconstruction process were identified and improve-ments suggested. Those improvements were furtherdesigned in a diagrammatic illustration of the process(see Fig. 6), which was easy to understand and com-municate while at the same time offered a vision of thefuture.

Literature review

A wide literature review of primary, secondary andtertiary sources was carried out.

The following literature reviews were undertaken.

Literature review of NPD in manufacturing

NPD in manufacturing relates closely to the designand construction process. This literature review iden-tified the development of the stage gate approachthrough three generations and its use in the manufac-turing industry. It also identified the key principlesunderlying stage gate methodologies, which could betransferred to the construction sector.

Literature review of process in construction

This identified the various research groups conductingrelevant work. For example, Agile construction (BathUniversity), Design Management (LoughboroughUniversity), Construction Business Process Reengi-neering CORE (Southampton University), Sanvido(Pennsylvania University) and Lean Production (VTTFinland). The review also identified some construc-

tion-related process maps such as BAA, RIBA plan ofwork and British Property Federation (BPF).

Literature review of IT support for construction

Projects such as Architecture, Methodology and Toolsfor Computer-Integrated Large-Scale Engineering(ATLAS), COmputer Models for the Building INdus-try in Europe (COMBINE), COnstruction Modellingand Methodologies for Intelligent information inTe-gration (COMMIT), Simultaneous Prototyping for Anintegrated Construction Environment (SPACE), Infor-mation:integration for CONstruction (ICON), OpenSystems for CONstruction (OSCON) were investi-gated as to their relevance to the project.

These literature reviews enabled the development ofthe key principles underlying a process for design andconstruction. In conjunction with an assessment ofprocess modelling techniques, the reviews contributedto a first model of the Process Protocol and the IT,which could support it.

KEY PRINC IPLES OF THE PROCESSPROTOCOL

As a result of the initial review of the literature and theidentification of the industrys requirements throughadditional interviews with practitioners, six key princi-ples are considered to provide the basis for an im-proved process. They are drawn heavily from themanufacturing sector, where process thinking and con-tinuous improvement has been focused on for some30 years. In addition, many of the principles relate torecognized problem areas in construction, where sig-nificant improvements have been called for (inter aliaBanwell 1964; Latham 1994). The six principles are asfollows.

Whole project view

In the construction industry, the definition of a projecthas traditionally been synonymous with actual con-struction works. As such, the pre- and postconstruc-tion activities have been sidelined and oftenaccelerated to reach the construction stage or to moveon to the new job. This has resulted in poor clientrequirements identification and has delayed the expo-sure of any potential solutions to the need to anyinternal and external specialists. Any contemporaryattempt to either define or create a design and con-struction process will have to cover the whole life ofa project from recognition of a need to the operation of



Figure 4 The stage gate approach.

the finished facility and, finally, to its demolition. Thisapproach ensures that all issues are considered fromboth a business and a technical point of view. Further-more, it recognizes and emphasizes the interdepen-dency of activities throughout the duration of aproject. It is also focused at the front end activities,whereby attention is paid to the identification, defini-tion and evaluation of client requirements in order toidentify suitable solutions.

A consistent process

During the review of existing models and descriptionsof the design and construction process, it was quicklyestablished that little consistency existed. In such anenvironment, the problems encountered by TMOsworking can be compounded. Luck & Newcombe(1996) supported this view, describing the role ambi-guity commonly associated with construction projects.Development of this generic Process Protocol providesthe potential to establish its consistent application.Consistency of use should reduce the scope for ambi-guity. This, together with the adoption of a standardapproach to performance measurement, evaluationand control, should facilitate a process of continualimprovement in design and construction.

Progressive design fixity

The stage gate approach found in manufacturingprocesses (Cooper 1994) applies a consistent planningand review procedure throughout the process, asshown in Fig. 4.

Phase reviews are conducted at the end of eachphase with the aim of reviewing the work executed inthe phase, approving progress to the next phase, andplanning the resourcing and execution of the next one.Cooper (1994), in his third generation process, sawthe need for conditional-go decisions at phase gates,to accommodate aspects of concurrency. This philoso-phy is translated in the development of the protocolsphase gates. Phase gates are classed as either soft orhard, with the soft gates allowing the potential forconcurrency in the process whilst ensuring that the keydecision points in the process are respected, as shownin Fig. 5.

The potential benefit of this approach is fundamen-tally the progressive fixing and:or approval of informa-tion throughout the process. As Cooper (1994) stated,the discipline of the phase review activity improved theconventional chaotic, ad hoc approach of manufactur-ing to which the construction industry of today couldbe compared.

Co-ordination

Co-ordination is one area in which construction istraditionally perceived to perform poorly. This percep-tion is supported by Banwell (1964) and Latham(1994), in addition to many other reviews of theindustry. The need for improved co-ordination wasalso highlighted by the interviews with senior managersundertaken during the research project.

It is, therefore, proposed that co-ordination of theProcess Protocol is undertaken, principally, by theprocess:change management Activity Zones (see Fig.6). Appointed by the client, the process manager willbe delegated authority to plan and co-ordinate theparticipants and activities of each phase throughoutthe process. The actions of the process manager aresupported by the change manager, through whom allinformation related to the project is passed. In thisrole, the change manager acts as the official interfacebetween both the Activity Zones in the process and,ultimately, the legacy archive.

Stakeholder involvement and teamwork

Manufacturing industries have recognized that multi-function teams, established in a development process,reduce the likelihood of costly changes and productiondifficulties later on in the process, by enabling designand manufacturing decisions earlier in the process.

Conventionally, many building projects comprise ateam of participants assembled specifically to facilitatethe development of that single project. Consequently,a complete project team rarely works together on morethan one project and, as Sommerville & Stocks (1996)argued, this can negatively affect the assembledteams performance. In addition, many key contribu-tors are identified and included too late in the process.



Project success relies on the right people having theright information at the right time. Proactive re-sourcing of phases through the adoption of a stake-holder view should ensure that appropriateparticipants (from each of the key functions) are con-sulted earlier in the process than is traditionally thecase. This, in itself, will not eliminate the problemsassociated with TMO working. However, the activeinvolvement of all participants, especially in the earlyphases of a project, may subsequently help to foster ateam environment and encourage appropriate andtimely communication and decision-making.

Feedback

In addition to the direct teamwork problems associ-ated with TMOs, the ability to learn from experienceis also hampered by the continual formation andbreak-up of project teams. Both success and failurecan offer important lessons for the future; however, thefragmented and competitive nature of the constructionindustry prevents the benefits of shared best practicebeing utilized. The phase review process facilitates ameans by which project experiences can be recordedthroughout the process, thereby informing later phasesand future projects. Competitive advantage will arisefrom how such experiences are acted upon. Sharedknowledge may not automatically increase the compet-itiveness of companies working in construction. ThisProcess Protocol, therefore, proposes the creation,maintenance and use of a legacy archive, which acts asa central repository or information spine (Sheath et al.1996), for the information generated through each ofthe phases of the process. The subsequent increase inawareness, project to project, has the potential forreducing risk and improving performance, which, overtime, may ultimately meet Lathams expectations.

Process Protocol elements

The Process Protocol model is presented in Fig. 6.Essentially, the model breaks down the design andconstruction process into 10 distinct phases. These aregrouped into four broad stages, namely preproject,preconstruction, construction and postconstruction.

Preproject stage

The preproject phases relate to the strategic businessconsiderations of any potential project that aims toaddress a clients need. Throughout these phases, theclients need is progressively defined and assessed withthe aim of:

determining the need for a construction projectsolution; and

securing outline financial authority to proceed tothe preconstruction phases.

In currently acknowledged models of the design andconstruction process (inter alia RIBA 1980; BritishProperty Federation 1983; Hughes 1991 provides acomprehensive review) and in recently publishedclient-focused guides (CIRIA 1995), this stage of aproject is given scant consideration, when comparedwith the latter stages. However, the models assumethat clients have already established the need whenapproaching the construction industry. Whilst there islittle evidence to suggest that this is not the case, itwould seem reasonable to assume that the knowledgepossessed by speculative building developers and con-sultants could assist any client in these early stages ofa project. The problems associated with the translationof this need through the conventional briefing stage ofdesign (OReilly 1987) have the potential for substan-tial elimination via such an approach.

Preconstruction stage

With outline financial approval obtained, the processprogresses through to the preconstruction phaseswhere the defined clients need is developed into anappropriate design solution. Like many conventionalmodels of the design process, these phases develop thedesign through a logical sequence, with the aim ofdelivering approved production information. Thephase review process, however, adds the potential forthe progressive fixing of the design, together with itsconcurrent development, within a formal, co-ordinatedframework. Progressive fixity should not be confusedwith design freeze although, to some, this may be adesired aspect of the process. The major benefit of thefixity of design is the potential for improved communi-

Figure 5 The fuzzy gate approach.




Fig

ure

6Th

eG

ener

icD

esig

nan

dC

onst

ruct

ion

Pro

cess

Pro

toco

l(G

DC

PP

).


cation and co-ordination between the projects partici-pants as they pass through each phase. Given thedynamic market conditions that influence many con-struction clients decisions, the need for flexibilitymust be addressed by the industry. At the end of thesephases, the aim is to secure full financial authority toproceed. Only on such authority will the constructionphase commence; this decision will be easier to makewhen the extent of the work and its associated riskscan be readily understood.

Construction stage

The construction phase is solely concerned with theproduction of the project solution. It is here that thefull benefits of the co-ordination and communicationearlier in the process may be fully realized. Potentially,any changes in the clients requirements will be mini-mal, as the increased cost of change as the designprogresses should be fully understood by the timeon-site construction work begins.

The hard gate that divides the preconstruction andconstruction phases should not prevent a work pack-age approach to construction and the associated deliv-ery time benefits that this brings. As with all activitiesin the process, where concurrency is possible it can beaccommodated. The hard and soft gates that signifyphase reviews merely require that approval is grantedprior to such an activity being carried out.

Postcompletion:construction stage

Upon completion of the construction phase, the Pro-cess Protocol continues into the postconstructionphases, which aim to continually monitor and managethe maintenance needs of the constructed facility.Again, the full involvement of facilities managementspecialists at the earlier stages of the process shouldmake the enactment of such activities less problematic.The need for surveys of the completed property, forexample, should be avoided as all records of the devel-opment of the facility should have been recorded bythe projects legacy archive.

The subprocesses: activity zones

The earlier involvement of the projects participantsthroughout the process is a significant development ofthe conventional approach to building. Traditionally, aconstruction projects participants are referred to bytheir professional or expert status. Ball (1996) demon-strated how this may be attributed to the inherent class

relations associated with each of the professions andexpert groups. As with all class distinctions, the effectthat this basis for organizational structure in designand construction has is division.

A consequence of this traditional approach, bywhich even the more recent forms of contract procure-ment (design and build, management contracting etc.)are included, is the poor communication and co-ordi-nation commonly associated with constructionprojects.

The participants in the Process Protocol are referredto in terms of their primary responsibilities and arerepresented on the Y-axis of the process model. It isrecognized that traditionally, project to project, organi-zational roles and responsibilities change, resulting inambiguity and confusion (Luck & Newcombe 1996).By basing the enactment of the process on the primaryresponsibility required, the scope for confusion is po-tentially reduced and the potential for effective com-munication and co-ordination increased. The ProcessProtocol groups the participants in any project intoactivity zones. These zones are not functional butrather they are multi-functional and represent struc-tured sets of tasks and processes that guide and sup-port the work towards a common objective (forexample, to create an appropriate design solution).

A single person or firm can carry out an activity zonein small projects; however, in large and complexprojects, an activity zone may consist of a complexnetwork of people and between relevant functionsand:or organizations. Because they are multi-func-tional, membership of the zones is determined by thespecific project task and:or process. For example, de-sign management often has important input in theproduction management and facilities management ac-tivity zones amongst others and vice versa.

Of the activity zones associated with the model, notall will be discussed here in detail. Most of the zonesare self-explanatory. However, the role of the process:change management and development managementactivity zones will be described, as they present asignificant departure from the conventional view of thedesign and construction process.

Process:change management

The process:change management activity zones areessentially the interface between the developmentmanagement and the other project participants. Pro-cess management has a role independent of all otheractivity zones. A distinction must be made betweenthis conventional view of a project manager and the



process management role. Process management, as thetitle suggests, is concerned with the enactment of theprocess rather than the project. Key to the success ofeach phase in the process is the production of projectdeliverables (reports and documentation associatedwith each phase). In this respect, the process manage-ment is responsible for facilitating and co-ordinatingthe participants required to produce the necessarydeliverables. Acting as the development managementsagent, it will ensure the enactment of each phase asplanned, culminating with the presentation of the de-liverables at each end of phase review.

The change management function is further distinctfrom the process management zone, as this role issolely concerned with (as its name also suggests) themanagement of change(s) that occur during the pro-cess. As the project becomes increasingly defined aseach phase is enacted, changes (or rather updates) tothe information required for the development of theproject will be produced. These updates will be con-tained within the work required to develop the deliver-able documentation associated with each phase. Withrespect to this, the change management activity zonefacilitates the holding, review and dissemination of allthis information as the project progresses.

It is within the change management function that ITpotentially plays a fundamental role. Given the vastamount of information generated throughout aprojects lifecycle (Aouad et al. 1994), and the need forits quick and effective dissemination, IT may offer acapable solution. However, the need for judgementand discretion, especially in the earlier strategic phasesof the process, will always involve the developmentmanagements intervention and this alone is likely toprohibit the use of IT as a total solution. Aouad et al.(1998) further described the role of IT within theProcess Protocol.

Deliverables

Each gate of the Process Protocol represents a deci-sion-making point. The decisions are based primarilyon documented project and process information,which are called deliverables. They are primarily com-piled by project management to form the phase reviewreport. The report includes all the deliverables (see Fig.6) specific to the phase and as they are defined by theProcess Protocol for the specific project. This phasereview report forms the basis for the client body (i.e.development management) to make a decision con-cerning the future of the project.

The deliverables are live documents, which changethroughout the majority of the process. They can be inone of the following states:

initial: preliminary information is presented; updated: current information is updated; revised: major changes:decisions will significantly

alter the content and context of the deliverable; and finalized: the information presented is agreed and is

unlikely to change throughout the duration of theproject.

Summary and concluding remarks

The principles of the Process Protocol can, therefore,be summarized as a framework model that is capableof representing the diverse interests of all the partiesinvolved in the process, which is sufficiently repeatableand definable to allow IT to be devised to support thismanagement and information management. There-fore, a mechanism by which the systematic and consis-tent interfacing of the existing practices, professionalpractice and IT practice support tools can be facili-tated. The simplicity within the protocol allows itsinterpretation and flexible application. This is achievedat a variety of strategic levels across a variety of scalesof projects, using combinations of virtual teams and ITsystems; all are based within clarity in terms of what isrequired from whom, when and with whose co-opera-tion; for whom the requirements are to be delivered,for what purposes and how they will be evaluated(through the phase review board). Other principlesunderlying the Process Protocol were the standardiza-tion of deliverables and roles associated with achievingmanaging and reviewing the process and the product.

The Process Protocol is divided into a series ofsubphases defined as preproject, preconstruction, con-struction and postconstruction; within each of thesemajor phases are subphases that can be operated con-currently or concatenate to make the process moreefficient in smaller scale projects.

Novelty arises within the Process Protocol in a num-ber of areas, in particular: the extension of theboundaries of design and construction process into therequirements capture phase of prebriefing client deci-sion-making; the extension of the boundary of theprocess beyond practicable completion to allow themanagement of use and the learning from performancein use to improve the product and process for futureprojects; the creation of an explicit process manage-ment and change management role to co-ordinate thefunctionaries and deliverables associated with the pro-



cess, the information that supports the functional rolesand is delivered via the creation and products, and astable platform to allow innovations in process and inproducts and operations to be facilitated in a co-ordi-nated and repeatable manner.

Subprocess development

The effective implementation of the Process Protocolwill greatly depend on its ability to effectively translatethe strategic to the operational level. To this end,further work (which has been initiated) is needed inexamining the subprocesses (activity zone) and to pro-duce generic maps for those subprocesses.

In such a way, the underlying principles andphilosophies of the Process Protocol will form theframework for company:project-based wide adoptionand effective implementation. This is confirmed by theadoption of the Process Protocol by the CRISP Pro-cess Group with the comment that sublevel processdefinition needs to be defined. In addition, such devel-opment will address all of the issues identified in theConstruction Round Table (CRT) Agenda forChange. Furthermore, a number of companies suchas Alfred McAlpine, BT, Tarmac, AMEC, BNFL,BAe, and institutions such as the International Al-liance for Interoperability (IAI) Client Briefing Do-main have adopted the Process Protocol as aframework and process management mechanism.

Furthermore, a generic (subprocess) process willalso contribute to cultural change in terms of improvedcommunication and process management between thefragmented groups within the construction industry.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribu-tions of John Hinks, Darryl Sheath, all of the partnercompanies and those companies and institutions whoenabled the data collection. In addition, we are grate-ful to the Engineering and Physical Sciences ResearchCouncil (EPSRC) for their funding and support.

REFERENCES

Ackroyd, S. & Hughes, J. (1983) Data Collection in Context.Longman, London.

Aouad, C., Brandon, P., Brown, F., Cooper, G., Ford, S.,Kirkham, J., Oxman, R., Sarshar, M. & Young, B. (1994)Integration of construction information (ICON): final reportintegrated databases for the design construction and manage-ment of construction. University of Salford.

Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Cooper, R., Sheath, D.M., Kagioglou,M. & Sexton, M. (1998) An IT map for the Generic

Design and Construction Process Protocol. Journal of Con-struction Procurement, 4, 132151.

BAA Plc. (1995) The Project Process. BAA Plc., UK.Ball, M. (1996) Rebuilding Construction. Routledge, London.Banwell, H. (1964) Report of the Committee on the Placing and

Management of Contracts for Building and Civil EngineeringWorks. HMSO, London.

Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Constructionof Reality. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.

British Property Federation (1983) Manual of the BPF Systemfor Building Design and Construction. British Property Feder-ation, London.

Construction Industry Research and Information Association(1995) Planning to Build?. Special Publication 113.

Cooper, R., Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M.& Sheath, D. (1998) Development of a generic design andconstruction process, pp. 205214. European Conference onProduct Data Technology, PDT Days 98, BRE.

Cooper, R.G. (1994) Third-generation new product pro-cesses. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 314.

Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions, London.

Hughes, W. (1991) Modelling the construction process usingplans of work. Construction project modelling and productivity.Proceedings of an International Conference CIB W65, Du-brovnik.

Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team. HMSO, London.Linstone, H.A. (1978) The Dephi technique. In: Handbook of

Futures Research (ed. J. Fowles), pp. 293300. GreenwoodPress, London.

Luck, R. & Newcombe, R. (1996) The case for the integra-tion of the project participants activities within a construc-tion project environment. In: The Organization andManagement of Construction: Shaping Theory and Practice,vol. 2 (eds D. A. Langford & A. Retik), pp. 458470.Spon, London.

Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M.& Sheath, D. (1998a) A Generic Guide to the Design andConstruction Process Protocol. University of Salford, UK.

Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Sexton, M., Hinks, J.& Sheath, D. (1998b) Cross-industry learning: the devel-opment of a generic design and construction process basedon stage:gate new product development processes found inthe manufacturing industry. In: Engineering Design Confer-ence 98 (eds S. Sivaloganathan & T. M. M. Shahin), pp.595602. 2325 June, Brunel University.

Koskela, L. (1992) Application of the new production philosophyto construction. Technical Report c72, Center for Inte-grated Facility Engineering, Department of Civil Engineer-ing, Stanford University, USA.

Odman, P. (1985) Hermeneutics. In: The International Ency-clopaedia of Education (eds T. Husen & N. T. Postleth-waite), pp. 21622169. Pergamon, Oxford.

OReilly, J.J.N. (1987) Better briefing means better buildings.Building Research Establishment Report BR 95, B.R.E.,Garston, UK.

RIBA (1980) Handbook of Architectural Practice and Manage-ment. RIBA, London.

Rosenau, M. (1996) The PDMA Handbook of New ProductDevelopment. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Sandywell, B. (1975) Problems of Reflexivity and Dialectics inSociological Inquiry. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.



Sanvido, V. (1990) An integrated building process model. CICTechnical Report No. 1, Pennsylvania State University,USA.

Sheath, D., Woolley, H., Hinks, J., Cooper, R. & Aouad, G.(1996) The development of a Generic Design and ConstructionProcess Protocol for the UK construction industry. Proceedings ofInCIT96, Sydney, Australia.

Simon, E. (1944) The Placing and Management of BuildingContract. HMSO, London.

Sommerville, J. & Stocks, B. (1996) Realising the clientsstrategic requirements: motivating teams. Proceedings of CO-BRA 96, University of the West of England.

Walker, A. (1989) Project Management in Construction, 2ndedn. BSP Professional Books, Oxford.


.

Documents

2000 Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Kagioglou M Rethinking Construction the Generic Designa and Construction Process Protocol