FacilitiesEmerald Article: The effects of formalisation on coordination and effectiveness of refurbishment projectsIsmail Rahmat, Azlan Shah Ali

Article information:

To cite this document: Ismail Rahmat, Azlan Shah Ali, (2010),"The effects of formalisation on coordination and effectiveness of refurbishment projects", Facilities, Vol. 28 Iss: 11 pp. 514 - 525

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632771011066576

Downloaded on: 20-10-2012

References: This document contains references to 27 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by OAKLAND UNIVERSITY

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The effects of formalisationon coordination and effectiveness

of refurbishment projectsIsmail Rahmat

Department of Building, Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying,Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia, and

Azlan Shah AliDepartment of Building Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment,

University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose – The paper’s aim is to establish the relationships between the formalisation of constructionfirms on the level of coordination and effectiveness of refurbishment projects.

Design/methodology/approach – The approach takes the form of a literature review of publishedjournals and textbooks, a postal questionnaire survey with managing directors, project managers andcontract managers. About 94 construction companies were selected for the postal questionnairesurvey. In total, 54 (57 percent) of returned questionnaires were considered to be useful for statisticalanalysis.

Findings – Highly formalised construction firms require higher level of coordination than lowlyformalised construction firms. In highly formalised construction firms, the participants managingrefurbishment projects tend to circumvent formalisation by having more informal interactions, whichcontradicts the needs of the firms. The effectiveness of highly formalised construction firms is notsignificantly better than lowly formalised construction firms.

Research limitations/implications – The study is limited to medium and large refurbishmentprojects, with contract value above £500,000.

Practical implications – The paper highlights the need to reduce formalisation in managingrefurbishment projects. Large construction firms, which tend to be highly formalised should set upautonomous refurbishment division to manage refurbishment projects.

Originality/value – The paper shows that the formalisation of the organizational structure ofconstruction firms affects the level of coordination of refurbishment projects.

Keywords Construction industry, Cost effectiveness, Project management, Maintenance

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionMarsh (1983, p. 3) defined refurbishment as making use of what is usable in the ageingbuilding stock, the skilful adaptation of building shells (which is valuable in its ownright and not due to any historic mystique) to a new or an updated version of itsexisting use. This includes repair, conversion, renovation, restoration, retrofit andextension works. It excludes scheduled repair and maintenance, though it may includeopportunistic work of this nature.

It is difficult to determine the importance of refurbishment sector in the UK’sconstruction industry, since there is no official statistics specific to refurbishment

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

FAC28,11/12

514

Received December 2009Accepted April 2010

FacilitiesVol. 28 No. 11/12, 2010pp. 514-525q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0263-2772DOI 10.1108/02632771011066576

being published. The Department of Environment categorised refurbishment workunder repair and maintenance. Therefore, most researchers use repair and maintenance’sstatistics for monitoring trends in the refurbishment sector (Young et al., 1996). From 2000to 2008, the proportion of the repair and maintenance output constituted around 40percent of the total output of building sector in the UK (Office for National Statistics,2009). However, if illegal and unreported refurbishment works carried out by houseowners were included, the actual value of refurbishment work in the UK would be higher.

Managing refurbishment is difficult because it has to be done under uncertainty,i.e. with insufficient and incomplete information, under constantly changing conditions(Egbu, 1994). This view is supported by Okoroh (1992) who pointed out that theinadequacy of specifications from the architects makes it difficult for contractors todefine the exact scope of work in advance. According to Boyd and Weaver (1994), inorder to manage uncertainty, refurbishment projects need a flexible approach. However,this is not easy to be achieved, since many refurbishment projects are carried out byfirms with formalised organizational structure, whose managers have well-definedscope of work. Those firms tend to be bureaucratic and inflexible. The activities of thepeople working within the firms need to be coordinated.

According to Bresnen (1990), construction project organisations are facing a dilemma.On one hand, there is a need to devise a structure that directs activity towardsthe achievement of specific, but non-recurring, objectives (in projects). On the otherhand, this structure should allow for the maintenance and development of functionalspecialisation in firms. In other words, organizations need to be oriented towardsboth projects and firms. Since the project is a temporary organization whereas firm is apermanent one, the needs of a firm are normally given a priority. Therefore, Bresnen (1990)maintained that the more the construction project requires a flexible form of organisation,the less likely it is to get it. The projects require flexibility, whereas the firms requireformalisation. Thus, it would be interesting to investigate how formalisation of firmaffecting the level of coordination and effectiveness of refurbishment projects.

The objectives of this paper are to:

(1) establish the degree of formalisation of organizational structure of theconstruction firms undertaking refurbishment projects;

(2) measure the level of coordination and effectiveness of refurbishment projects;and

(3) establish the relationship between the formalisation of organizational structureon coordination and effectiveness of refurbishment projects.

The formalisation of organizational structure of construction firmsMany construction firms start as one- or two-man operations carrying out smallconstruction works and limited in scope (Birrell and Jouini, 1984). The productionmethods are based on craft work with little mechanisation. The firms’ organizationtends to be centralized and informal, with non-standardized rules and norms ofbehaviour. Functions within the firm are not well-defined. Under these conditions, a craftadministration seems to be a more efficient than a bureaucratic form (Stinchcombe,1959). Increasing size and technological advancement lead to greater complexity of taskswhich, in turn, leads to the creation of additional departments or divisions.Dewar and Hage (1978) observed that the additional new departments tend to

The effects offormalisation

515

increase the complexity of the organisation structure of the firms and create a greaterneed for coordination and control between different departments or functions. Theorganisation responds by turning to formalisation. Formalisation is defined as rules andprocedures designed to handle contingences faced by the organization. In a formalisedorganization, actions are uniform and consistent with specifications (Hall, 1992, p. 63). Itshould be emphasised that formalisation represents the use of rules in an organization.The key factor is the degree to which rules are followed, not the degree to which they arecodified. Formalisation makes the division of labour and the interactions betweenparticipants more predictable and allows joint decisions to be made more by rules thanby exception (Galbraith, 1977). The greater the formalisation, the less discretion could begiven to the people employed in the organisation.

Many refurbishment projects are carried out by construction firms with rigid andformal organizational structure. Even though refurbishment sector is important tomany construction firms, it is not their sole concern. In determining the degree offormalisation of the organizational structure, the construction firms have to considerother factors such as the size of the firm, technology and tradition.

Large organizations have greater needs to formalize their activities than do smallorganizations. A small construction firm that grows into a big and complexmultinational will experience a greater need for formalisation, as rules will need to becreated and standardized to accommodate the increased interactions between keyparticipants. The greater complexity of the organization structure, the greater theformalisation and bureaucracy.

The formalisation of organizational structure is also influenced by technology.Technology can be categorized into routine and non-routine. According to Hage andAiken (1969), if the tasks that need to deal with the environment are mostly routines,the organizations tend to be highly formalised.

The above reasons show there are very strong reasons for formalisation. Therefore,it is expected that construction firms undertaking refurbishment projects to beformalised, to a varying degree. In some construction firms, rules and procedures covermost activities, while in others the key participants are allowed to exercise their ownjudgment.

Hence, many construction firms carrying out refurbishment projects are facing thedilemma between the needs of the refurbishment projects and the needs of the firm.Winch (1989) observed that the needs of the firms are normally given a greater emphasis,to the detrimental of the projects. Walker (1989) said that the temporary nature of theproject provides few opportunities for the construction firms to get use to each other atboth corporate and individual levels, which hinder the setting up of the appropriateorganisation structure for the projects. The temporary nature of construction projectsmay discourage the construction firms from investing much time and money in makingconstruction process more efficient and effective. Thus, in managing refurbishmentprojects, flexibility that is required to manage uncertainty can be hampered by theformalisation of the organization structure of the firms. As a result, refurbishmentprojects may not get the appropriate level of formalisation they require. In order toincrease flexibility, most construction firms employ coordination devices in managingconstruction projects (Bennett, 1991). Coordination devices are methods to increase theinformation processing capacity in any organisation. The use of coordination deviceswould help to reduce the communication barriers or gaps that could emerge from

FAC28,11/12

516

message distortion and information overload. Bennett (1991) observed that the mostcommon coordination devices are meetings (formal and informal) and direct contacts(formal and informal).

Methods of coordinationThe performance of construction projects can be measured in terms of efficiency andeffectiveness. Efficiency means doing it the right way, i.e. the ability to complete a jobwith a minimum expenditure of time and effort. Effective means doing it right, byachieving the project objectives.

An efficient process either requires fewer inputs or produces more outputscompared to a similar process, to achieve the objectives of the process. Put differently,being efficient means producing results with little wasted effort.

Many of the tasks of the key participants in refurbishment projects areinterdependent of each other. The interdependence is resulting from complex andoverlapping division of labour. The higher the need to coordinate the participants, thegreater the magnitude of coordination costs. The greater the need for ongoing taskcoordination and joint decision making between key participants, the higher theanticipated level of interdependence and coordination costs. McCann and Galbraith(1981) pointed out that one of the ways to achieve efficiency in any construction projectsis to reduce the need to coordinate, i.e. to reduce the coordination costs. Coordinationcosts can also incur when activities between firms, as in the case of strategic alliance,need to be coordinated.

Coordination costs are dependent on the extent of interdependence expected by theparticipants and the level of interaction between units or participants. Lesserinteraction leads to lower levels of coordination costs. According to White (2002), it ismore efficient in terms of coordination costs to limit the need for interaction betweentwo or more units involved in a joint task because it reduces the costs associated withcoordination mechanisms.

Winch (1989) observed that organizations coordinate the tasks through coordinationdevices in order bring about coherence between the goals for which the organisationexists and the type of uncertainty faced by the organisation. The most commoncoordination devices used in construction projects are meetings and direct contacts.

The many participants interacting in decision making of refurbishment projectsdemands increased informal communication. Face-to-face meetings provide richnessof communication, instantaneous feedback and enables immediate correction.Bennett (1991) maintained that direct meetings are generally effective in providingcoordination. The managers who involved directly in the process would know therelevant information and generally have a real interest in sharing it with others workingat the same level in the same project. When no formal arrangements are built into projectorganisation, informal contacts emerge. The main concern of using informal contacts,however, is to ensure that the information obtained directly from a particular participantis not in conflict with the interest of other participants or the project as whole. In anuncertain refurbishment project, the needs of each participant are in a state of constantchange. What is relevant to one participant, at a particular time, may no longer berelevant to the others. Thus, informal meetings are two-edged swords, it may be effectivein speeding up information flow, but may cause conflicting information in the process.

The effects offormalisation

517

Effectiveness of refurbishment projects apart from achieving efficiency by reducingcoordination costs, the main objective of refurbishment project is to performeffectively. For construction projects, effectiveness is normally measured in terms oftime and cost. Boyd and Weaver (1994) measured effectiveness in terms of costvariance and time variance. Cost variance is the ratio of actual construction to targetconstruction cost. Time variance is the ratio of actual time to expected time. Boyd andWeaver (1994) found that the effectiveness of refurbishment project is poor, with manyexceeded the budget and targeted time. Faniran et al. (1994) and Kabaskal et al. (1989)found that the organisation structure of construction firms influence the effectivenessof construction projects.

MethodologyThis study adopted the opinion research methodology, which is a combination ofliterature review and postal questionnaire survey. The scope of this study is for mediumand large refurbishment projects, i.e. those with contract value of more than £500,000.Such projects are normally carried out by medium and large construction firms, i.e. thosewith annual turnover of more than £1 million. Thus, the construction firms in this studymust satisfy these two criteria. The construction firms were identified from the buildingemployers confederation directory for London, Southern and Eastern region. Only 304construction firms were listed in the directory as medium and large. However, thedirectory did not indicate the firms’ annual turnover and the sizes of refurbishmentprojects carried out by them. But since it was a manageable number, the author sent apreliminary questionnaire to the managing directors to identify the construction firmsto be included in this study. About 113 questionnaires were returned, giving a rate ofreturn of 37 percent. However, only 94 construction firms were found to have annualturnover of more than £1 million and carried out refurbishment projects with contractvalue of more than £500,000. After the construction firms had been identified, a finalquestionnaire was sent to the managing directors of the 94 construction firms.The respondents were asked to select the most recent refurbishment carried out by theirfirms in which they were involved in. The respondents were instructed to complete thequestionnaire based on the refurbishment project they had selected.

About 60 questionnaires were returned. However, six questionnaires were rejectedbecause the contract value of the refurbishment projects was less than £500,000.Thus, only 54 (57 percent) of returned questionnaires were considered to be usefulfor statistical analysis. The demographic profile of the respondents is shown inTables I and II.

Table I shows that all of the respondents are middle and senior managers. Table IIshows that all of the respondents have working experience in the construction industryof more than five years. This indicates that the data obtained are reliable.

The size of the construction firms is shown in Table III.

Job title Percentage (n ¼ 54)

Managing director 29.6Contract manager 35.2Project manager 35.2

Table I.The job titleof the respondents

FAC28,11/12

518

Table III reveals that the size of the construction firms carrying out refurbishmentprojects is varied, ranging from less than £10 million per annum to more than£100 million per annum. More than 70 percent of the construction firms investigated inthis study are large/very large. The high percentage of large/very large constructionfirms undertaking refurbishment projects reflects the growing importance ofrefurbishment sector to large construction firms.

Table IV shows that nearly half of the refurbishment projects investigated are ofless than £1.5 million. Less than 10 percent of the refurbishment projects are above£5 million. Thus, very large refurbishment projects are not common.

Since the variables in this study were measured in ordinal scale, therefore,non-parametric, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient test was used to measure therelationships between the independent and dependent variables. The independentvariable is the formalisation of the organizational structure of the construction firms.The dependent variables are the coordination devices and effectiveness ofrefurbishment projects. The null hypotheses were rejected at 5 percent significant level.

Results and analysisIn this study, the formalisation of the organizational structure of the construction firmswas measured by asking the respondents to indicate the extent to which the employeesfollow written rules within their firm in carrying out their tasks. This is in line with the

Length of experience (years) Percentage (n ¼ 54)

5-10 3.711-15 13.0More than 15 63.3

Table II.The experience of the

respondents in theconstruction industry

Size (in million pounds) Construction firms (n ¼ 54) (%)

Medium (1-10) 29.6Large (11-100) 53.7Very large (more than 100) 16.7

Table III.The size of construction

firms: based on theaverage annual turnover

Project contract value (in million pounds) Refurbishment projects (n ¼ 54) %

0.5-1.0 13 24.11.1-1.5 13 24.11.6-2.0 6 11.12.1-2.5 3 5.62.6-3.0 2 3.73.1-3.5 5 9.33.6-4.0 2 3.74.1-4.5 2 3.74.6-5.0 3 5.6Above 5.0 5 9.3

Table IV.The size of refurbishment

projects

The effects offormalisation

519

method used by Faniran et al. (1994), Pugh et al. (1969) and Sozen (1985). The responseswere recorded on a three-point scale ranging from the following:

(1) few written rules;

(2) many written rules; and

(3) extensive written rules.

The firms are categorized into three: lowly formalised (following few written rules),moderately formalised (following many written rules) and highly formalised (followingextensive written rules). The results are shown in Table V.

Table V reveals that the degree of formalisation of the organizational structure ofthe construction firms is fairly evenly distributed, with slight bias towards highlyformalised. The highly formalised construction firms (following extensive writtenrules) constitute the largest group, close to half of the total.

The result was expected. The target groups of this paper are medium to very largeconstruction firms. The review of literature reveals that the larger the constructionfirms, the higher the degree of formalisation (Sozen, 1985; Mintzberg, 1979). The highproportion of large construction firms participated in the postal questionnaire surveyresulted in a higher number of highly formalised construction firms.

Four coordination devices used in managing refurbishment projects were measured.Four of them were classified under lateral relations, i.e. scheduled meeting,unscheduled meeting, direct formal contact and direct informal contact.

The respondents were asked to what extent the coordination devices were used in therefurbishment projects. The responds were recorded on a five-point scale ranging from:

(1) not used;

(2) sparsely used;

(3) moderately used;

(4) mostly used; and

(5) extensively used.

The mean value of each method was calculated and used for comparison. The resultsare shown in Table VI.

Table VI shows that all the coordination devices were mostly used in managingrefurbishment projects, with meetings, both scheduled and unscheduled as the mostused coordination devices. This shows that construction firms undertakingrefurbishment projects placed greater emphasis on coordination through meetingsthan through direct contacts. Bennett (1991) observed that meeting removes overloadsfrom management hierarchy when problems involving various parties arise. The projectinformation could be disseminated more efficiently through meetings when all the key

Degree of formalisation Construction firms (n ¼ 54) (%)

Lowly formalised (few written rules) 31.3Moderately formalised (many written rules) 24.2Highly formalised (extensive written rules) 43.5

Table V.The degree offormalisation of theorganizational structureof construction firms

FAC28,11/12

520

participants are present. Meetings involved making decisions together. This impliesthat teamwork is a very important requirement in refurbishment projects.

Thus, it can be concluded managing refurbishment projects require high input incoordination, which makes them inefficient. Therefore, reducing coordination shouldbecome an important objective in managing refurbishment projects.

The effectiveness of refurbishment projects was measured in terms of cost varianceand time variance. Cost variance is the ratio of actual construction to targetconstruction cost. When the value of cost variance is more than 1, it means that theactual cost is more than the target cost. Similarly, time variance is the ratio of actualconstruction time to target construction time. When the value of time variance is morethan 1, it means the actual construction time is more than the target time.

Table VII shows that slightly more than half of the refurbishment projects exceededthe target cost. About 30 percent of the projects, the actual cost exceeded the target costby more than 5 percent.

Table VIII shows that more than half of the refurbishment projects were exceededthe target time. Like the cost variance, close to 30 percent of the refurbishment project

Coordination devices Refurbishment projects (n ¼ 54) (mean)

Scheduled meeting 4.1Unscheduled meeting 3.7Direct informal contact 3.6Direct formal contact 3.5

Notes: Score 1.0-1.8 (not used); 1.9-2.6 (sparsely used); 2.7-3.4 (moderately used); 3.5-4.2 (mostly used);and 4.3-5.0 (extensively used)

Table VI.The extent of

coordination devices usedin refurbishment projects

Cost variance Refurbishment projects (n ¼ 54) (%)

Less than 0.9 20.90.91-0.95 9.30.96-1.00 18.61.01-1.05 20.91.06-1.10 20.9More than 1.10 9.3

Table VII.The cost variance of

refurbishment projects

Time variance Refurbishment projects (n ¼ 54) (%)

Less than 0.9 7.80.91-0.95 5.90.96-1.00 33.31.01-1.05 25.51.06-1.10 15.7More than 1.10 11.8

Table VIII.The time variance of

refurbishment projects

The effects offormalisation

521

exceeded the target time by more than 5 percent. Therefore, it can be concluded that theeffectiveness of refurbishment projects is generally unsatisfactory, with more than halfof them exceeded the target cost and target time. This result also supports theargument that refurbishment projects are uncertain, and difficult to plan and determinethe outcome.

It was hypothesised that the degree of formalization of organizational structure ofthe construction firm is associated with the extent to which the coordination devicesare used in the decision making of refurbishment projects. The Spearman’s rankcorrelation technique was used to establish the relationship. Null hypothesis is rejectedat 0.05 percent significant level. The results are shown in Table IX.

Table IX shows that the degree of formalization of the organizational structure issignificantly correlated with two coordination devices. Thus, it can be concluded thatthe degree of formalization of the organizational structure reduces the efficiency ofrefurbishment projects.

The formalisation of the organizational structure construction firms tends to causeinflexibility, which creates communication barriers between the key participants.To reduce these barriers, the key participants involved in refurbishment projects tendto circumvent the formalised procedures by placing more emphasis on direct informalcontact and organising special meetings, especially when speedy decisions are needed.This shows that in many formalised construction firms, informal interactions are usedto circumvent formalisation of the firm. This support Walker’s (1989) observation thatwhen an organisation is inappropriately designed, it can still perform adequately, aspeople have the ability to construct informal organisation structures that circumventthe formal organisation structure. However, a strong informal organisation structurecan work against organisation coordination and control. The ideal is when theorganisation is sufficiently well designed that it does not generate an informalorganisation structure. When the organisational structure of the firms contradicts theprocess of managing refurbishment projects, conflicts may occur.

It was hypothesised that the formalization of organisation structure affects theconstruction firms’ effectiveness. The results from the Spearman rank correlationtechnique are shown in Table X.

Coordination devices Formalisation

Scheduled meeting 0.27Unscheduled meeting 0.37 *

Direct formal contact 0.04Direct informal contact 0.38 *

Note: *0.01 significant level

Table IX.The correlations betweenthe formalisation of theconstruction firms andthe coordination devicesused

Effectiveness Formalisation

Cost variance 0.14Time variance 0.20

Table X.Correlation betweenorganisation structureand effectiveness ofrefurbishment projects

FAC28,11/12

522

Table VIII reveals that there is no significant correlation between the formalisation ofthe organizational structure of the construction firms and the effectiveness ofrefurbishment projects.

In general, the findings show that refurbishment projects require a flexibleorganizational structure to reduce coordination and improve efficiency. This suggeststhat large construction firms which tend to be highly formalised need to find a strategyto increase flexibility. Rahmat (1997) found that creating an autonomous division forrefurbishment within the construction firm is one option used by many largeconstruction firms. Alternatively, many smaller firms chose to specialised inrefurbishment projects and design their organizational structure informally.

ConclusionThe literature review reveals that the construction firms face the dilemma of satisfyingthe needs of the firm and the needs of the projects. The needs of the construction firmsare reflected in the formalization of the organizational structure, which are influencedamong others, size and technology. However, many refurbishment projects which arenoted for being complex and uncertain require a flexible structure. This study foundthat a high proportion of construction firms undertaking large refurbishment projectsare highly formalised, thus inflexible. The more formalised the construction firmsappear to require higher input in coordination in managing refurbishment projects.In highly formalised construction firms, the participants involved in refurbishmentprojects overcome the formalisation by having more informal contacts. Therefore, thisstudy suggested that large construction firms which tend to be highly formalisedshould create an autonomous refurbishment division to ensure that the refurbishmentprojects they carried out get the appropriate organization structure it requires.

References

Bennett, J. (1991), International Construction Project Management General Theory and Practice,Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Birrell, G.S. and Jouini, K. (1984), “The construction contractor’s managerial ‘hiccup’ as he evolvesfrom a one man operation to an organised company”, Proceedings of the 4th InternationalSymposium on Organisation and Management of Construction. University of Waterloo,Waterloo, pp. 125-33.

Boyd, D. and Weaver, P. (1994), “Improving the management and operations of refurbishmentprojects”, Proceedings of the 10th ARCOM Annual Conference, Loughbrough University ofTechnology, Leics, 14-16 September.

Bresnen, M. (1990), Organising Construction: Project Organisation and Matrix Management,Routledge, London.

Dewar, R. and Hage, J. (1978), “Size, technology, complexity and structural differentiation:toward a theoretical synthesis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 449-69.

Egbu, C.O. (1994), “Management education and training for construction work within theconstruction industry”, PhD thesis, University of Salford, Salford.

Faniran, O.O., Oluwoye, J.O. and Lenard, D. (1994), “Effective construction planning”, Journal ofConstruction Management and Economics, Vol. 12, pp. 485-99.

Galbraith, J.R. (1977), Organization Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

The effects offormalisation

523

Hage, J. and Aiken, M. (1969), “Routine technology, social structure, and organizational goals”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 366-76.

Hall, R.H. (1992), Organizations: Structure and Process, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kabaskal, H.E., Sozen, Z. and Usdiken, B. (1989), “Organisational context, structural attributesand management systems in construction firms”, Construction Management andEconomics, Vol. 7, pp. 347-51.

McCann, J. and Galbraith, J. (1981), Interdepartmental Relations, Oxford University Press,New York, NY, pp. 60-84.

Marsh, P. (1983), The Refurbishment of Commercial and Industrial Buildings, Construction Press,London, p. 3.

Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organisations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Office for National Statistics (2009), Output in the Construction Industry, 1st Quarter, StatisticalBulletin, Office for National Statistics, Newport.

Okoroh, M.C. (1992), “Knowledge-based decision support system for the selection andappointment of subcontractors for building refurbishment contracts”, PhD thesis,Loughbourough University, Loughbourough.

Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J. and Hinnings, C.R. (1969), “An empirical taxonomy of workorganisations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 65-105.

Rahmat, I. (1997), “The planning and control process of refurbishment project”, PhD thesis,University College London, London.

Sozen, Z. (1985), “Size, technology and aspects of structure in construction firms in Turkey”,Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 233-47.

Stinchcombe, A.L. (1959), “Bureaucratic and craft administration of production: a comparativestudy”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 80-94.

Walker, A. (1989), Project Management in Construction, 2nd ed., BSP Professional Books,London.

White, S. (2002), “Cooperation costs, governance choice, and alliance evolution”, working paper,INSEAD Working Paper Series, INSEAD, Fontainebleau.

Winch, G. (1989), “The construction firm and construction project: a transaction cost approach”,Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 7, pp. 335-45.

Young, B., Torrance, V.B. and Egbu, C.O. (1996), Managing Refurbishment Works in theConstruction and Shipping Industries, Faculty of the Built Environment, UniversityCollege London, London.

Further reading

CIOB (1988), Project Management in Building, 2nd ed., Chartered Institute of Building, Ascot.

March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organisations, Wiley, New York, NY.

Walsh, J.P. and Dewar, R.D. (1987), “Formalisation and the organizational life cycle”, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 215-31.

About the authorsIsmail Rahmat is an Associate Professor in the Department of Building, Faculty of Architecture,Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. He obtained his PhD inConstruction Management from Universiti College London, UK. He is a corporate member ofthe Chartered Institute of Building, UK. He has published a number of papers and a book

FAC28,11/12

524

on refurbishment works. Ismail Rahmat is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:ismail046@salam.uitm.edu.my

Azlan Shah Ali is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Building Surveying, Faculty of BuiltEnvironment, University of Malaya, Malaysia. He has a PhD in Built Environment, specialisingin building refurbishment, and a Bachelors degree (honours) in Building Surveying fromUniversiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. He is a corporate also a corporate member of theInstitution of Surveyors Malaysia and The Chartered Institute of Building, UK. Dr Azlan hasbeen involved in a number of academic research and publications. He has published severalpapers, both in local and international journals.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The effects offormalisation

525