Managing Interdisciplinary Projects

A Primer for Architecture, Engineering and Construction

Stephen Emmitt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• eBook ISBN: 9781134017539
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

Construction, architecture and engineering projects are complex undertakings, involving a temporary grouping of people and companies, with different agendas and experience, coming together to achieve a project goal. This book investigates the dynamics of the relationships between individuals involved in architecture, engineering and construction projects. It combines a structured theoretical framework, derived from social psychology and mainstream management theory, with case studies and research from the built environment sector. Focusing on how people interact, communicate and work together, it examines how best to manage the interdisciplinary relationships that form and reform during the project life cycle.

The book covers vital areas of project management, whose importance has recently come to be recognized, and will be valuable for students at both undergraduate and graduate level. Practitioners will also find it a useful insight into the social aspect of project management, with implications and applications that apply to all projects in the built environment sector.

1
Interfaces

A discipline is a branch of learning or instruction. Synonyms for the word ‘discipline’ include domain, field, profession, regime, subject and trade; implying a certain uniqueness or specialism. Within the AEC sector there is a wide range of established specialisms, or disciplines, which are represented by professional bodies and trade organisations. Examples of professionals are architects, engineers and surveyors; examples of tradespeople being electricians, plumbers and masons. Whatever our chosen discipline, as individuals we undertake a programme of education and/or training that is accredited by a professional institution or trade body and designed to develop subject-specific knowledge. It is through learning and training that we are exposed to unique ways of doing things, unique ways of communicating, unique ways of behaving; all of which encompass the values of our chosen discipline. Once we have successfully completed our education and/or training a final examination and interview is required to ensure that we can demonstrate the necessary knowledge to complete our rites of passage and become a member of our chosen discipline. Once we are accepted into a profession or trade our disciplinary values are further developed and reinforced through working on projects and engaging in lifelong learning activities. Taking a random sample of a profession we would expect to find differences in interests, skills, experience and knowledge gained from working on projects, but a reassuring consistency in terms of educational, professional and disciplinary values. Although we need to be careful in resorting to stereotypes, we should have a reasonable idea of what an architect, engineer or surveyor can add to a project.

Grouping together individuals from one domain (for example architecture) is termed a disciplinary group, team or organisation. A small group of architects working together as a professional partnership would be classified as a disciplinary organisation. Indeed, it is not uncommon for professionals such as architects, engineers and surveyors to work with their peers in small groups comprising five or fewer professionals. By doing this the organisation can provide architectural, engineering or surveying services to its clients. Interaction within the organisation is with people who share a common education, language and professional values. Interaction with individuals from complementary disciplines and trades will take place through individual projects, in which a wide variety of disciplines interface to realise the project goal(s).

Over a long period of time disciplines develop unique subject knowledge, specific ways of working and codified ways of communicating – a unique culture. This uniqueness serves to both identify the special characteristics of the discipline and develop stereotypes, while also helping to reinforce and protect the profession’s knowledge domain. Boundaries to a specific discipline are established and defended through education, practice and the actions of professional and trade bodies in promoting and defending their specialisms. Seen from a business perspective, it is concerned with establishing and growing market share for professional services. Seen from the perspective of the profession it is about expanding the knowledge base. Paradoxically, although the development of a discipline is a strength, it can make it difficult for those positioned outside the field to access the knowledge held within, or to fully understand the peculiarities of bespoke working practices and the language used. This has sometimes led commentators located outside the profession to conclude that professionals are arrogant and stubborn. Disciplines also run the risk of becoming so specialised that they become detached from other specialists and hence vulnerable to market forces.

Interdisciplinary

The word ‘interdisciplinary’ encompasses more than one branch of learning or instruction: the interface of different domains. Combining the disciplines of architecture and engineering creates an interdisciplinary subject in education, architectural engineering, and a hybrid professional, the architectural engineer.

Grouping together individuals from more than two disciplines is known as a multidisciplinary group, team or organisation. In the context of the AEC sector, a multidisciplinary project group or team could, for example, include an architect, an architectural technologist, an architectural engineer, a structural engineer, a services engineer, a quantity surveyor and a project manager. Bringing together different knowledge domains within the same organisation allows the business to offer a wider range of expertise compared with the disciplinary organisation. This means not that a multidisciplinary office is better or worse than the disciplinary one, simply that the two organisations are able to offer different services and so occupy slightly different market segments.

In contrast to small organisations, the majority of large businesses are multidisciplinary organisations because a wide variety of technical and managerial skills are necessary for the business to function effectively and efficiently. Some organisations may have a heavy bias towards one domain, for example engineering, or they may be composed to create a balanced interdisciplinary organisation that is capable of contributing to a wider variety of project types, often providing their clients with a ‘one-stop-shop’ for expertise.

The term ‘interdisciplinary working’ is used to describe the interaction of individuals from different disciplines, both within organisations and within temporary project organisations. With increased differentiation within the AEC sector has come a greater need for integrated working. Interdisciplinary ideologies such as constructability (buildability) and project partnering are founded on the concept of sharing disciplinary knowledge and communicating across disciplinary boundaries to improve product delivery.

Buildings and civil engineering works are complex undertakings, which require the coordination of technological, design and management expertise if they are to be realised. Even the most simple project will require a diverse assembly of people to guide it from inception and development through to successful completion. On small projects, for example an extension to a house, this collection of individuals may form a small team that is relatively stable throughout the life of the project. When we move to larger, more demanding buildings, we find that projects are composed of many groups of individuals with complementary knowledge, drawn from a wide cross-section of disciplines and organisations, increasingly working across international boundaries and composed of individuals from many different cultures and nations. Temporarily bringing these parties together to work on an AEC project forms a loosely coupled, dynamic, multidisciplinary project coalition. Typically these project coalitions are best described as temporary project organisations or temporary multiorganisations. It is, however, still common to see the term ‘project team’ used in the literature and in everyday conversation, which can give the misleading impression of a cohesive entity, which it is not. For clarity and consistency the term ‘temporary project organisation’ is used throughout this book to describe the assorted and transient collection of organisations and individuals engaged in an AEC project.

Fundamentals

Interdisciplinary (or interorganisational) working is concerned with the manner in which individuals from a variety of disciplines interact during the life of a project, i.e. it is concerned with the effectiveness of the various temporary interfaces. As already noted, interdisciplinary working is usually achieved through a coalition of disciplinary groups and teams and multidisciplinary groups and teams, by means of a TPO. These dynamic organisations exist for the sole purpose of delivering a project, and comprise a loose coalition of multi-skilled individuals with varying values, attitudes and goals. A small number of government publications have been highly influential in bringing about greater awareness and subsequent attention to the importance of effective TPOs in the UK. Two publications, Trust and Money (Latham, 1993) and Constructing the Team (Latham, 1994), helped to highlight the issues surrounding teamwork and project partnering. The fundamental tenets of construction projects were subsequently reinforced in Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force (Egan, 1998) and Rethinking Construction: Accelerating Change (Egan, 2002). These reports aimed to bring about a change in attitude from an adversarial and fragmented sector to one that is more trusting and better integrated. The publications express similar sentiments to those contained in earlier reports by Simon (1944), the Phillips Report (1950) and the Emmerson Report (1962), which also argued for better communication and more effective interaction between project participants. In many respects the underlying message has not changed, but the context, technologies and language have.

Inadequacies reported in the government publications appear to stem from poor interaction practices during the life of the project (Emmitt and Gorse, 2003, 2007). Interaction affects the strength of the relationships between the actors and ultimately colours their ability to transfer knowledge and appropriate task-based information to complete projects successfully. Team building, the discussion and subsequent sharing of values, resolution of minor differences and conflicts, question asking and the creation of trust are just a few of the factors that are crucial to the smooth running of projects and are reliant on the ability of the actors to communicate effectively and efficiently. It follows that the interaction of individuals and organisations should be the primary concern of those charged with managing projects.

The government-led reports have inspired many books, reports and articles that present a very positive argument for relational (interdisciplinary and collaborative) forms of working; examples being Baden Hellard’s Project Partnering: Principle and Practice (1995) and Trusting the Team by Bennett and Jayes (1995). The message is that the AEC sector needs to move from ‘segregated’ teams to ‘integrated’ teams to improve performance and hence deliver better value to customers and the users of buildings. Although there has been an increase in the number of AEC projects that use relational forms of contracting (such as project partnering), it is still relatively modest compared with the more traditional approaches (such as competitive tendering). The majority of projects are still conducted in ways that, on the surface at least, are based on distrust and non-integrated or isolated working. This does not necessarily mean that the majority of projects are less efficient or less effective than those conducted in a spirit of trust and collaboration; it simply means that the project philosophy, i.e. attitudes of the participants, is different. Applied research into how individuals interact within AEC projects (see Emmitt and Gorse, 2007) indicates that the issues relating to project work are not simple or straightforward. For a balanced approach it is necessary to consider the fundamental characteristics of all types of interdisciplinary project, be they collaborative, competitive, integrated or fragmented.

Temporary project organisations

The way in which people from different domains are brought together and how they interface with other disciplines to realise project goals in an effective and efficient manner is a concern to the sponsors of projects, who desire value from their investment. Similarly, this is also a concern to those participating, who need to demonstrate value to their clients and make a reasonable profit from their contribution. TPOs represent short-term business relationships involving a variety of organisations and individuals with complementary skills, but with varying business objectives. The overall performance of the TPO will be determined by the collective effectiveness of the contributors, i.e. their ability to work with others towards a common goal.

Successful realisation of the project is dependent upon many inter-related factors, which tend to relate to the management of the process and people issues. Project managers need to establish the most appropriate processes for a project and engage the most suitable organisations and individuals. This calls for an understanding of many complementary domains and how participants from these domains are likely to interact. Participants need to be able to work with the agreed processes and the communication technologies employed for the project; they also quickly need to be able to establish ways of working with their new colleagues. Taken at face value this would appear to be a relatively simple thing to do, although the reality is a little more complex given the characteristics of AEC projects.

Temporary project organisations are set up for the life of a project and disbanded on successful completion of the building (or at specific stages of some large and complex projects). This usually creates new relationships for each project, a temporary social system, which provides the project manager with the immediate challenge of team building, establishing open communications and developing a level of trust between the project participants as quickly as possible. Many suppliers work across different sectors, for example the manufacturers of an energy-saving paint also produce skin products for the cosmetic industry. With a few exceptions of repeat building types and clients with very large property portfolios there are few established or stable supply chains, unlike, for example, the car industry. Interfaces within projects are rarely stable and with the exception of some repeat projects supply chains are unique to each project. In situations in which the organisations have worked together previously, for example on repeat projects or in strategic alliances, the individuals involved in the project are not always the same as those involved in previous projects, and so team building is still necessary to develop relationships at the interfaces. Further challenges relate to the timely exchange of accurate information and managing the web of inter-related and interdependent activities necessary to achieve project completion.

Concomitant with all forms of human interaction, AEC projects will be prone to difficulties as relationships form and evolve during the life of the project. Individuals may find themselves working with others whom they perceive to be less than trustworthy or whom they simply do not like, and it would be foolish to think that incompatibility will not influence the effectiveness of the project. It is also inevitable that there will be a constant and creative tension between the design and the realisation of buildings as the TPO collectively strives to deliver value to the sponsor of the building project (the client), generate value for its own organisations (and shareholders) and in a wider sense demonstrate value to society (both current and future generations). Successful design managers and project managers are able to manage relationships so that the positive aspects of interaction are encouraged and the negative aspects dealt with quickly so as not to undermi...

Table of contents

• Contents
• Introduction
• 1 Interfaces
• 2 Communication
• 3 Trust
• 4 Discussions
• 5 Decisions
• 6 Context
• 7 Assembly
• 8 Development
• 9 Learning
• 10 Implementation
• References
• Index