Collaborative Design Management

Stephen Emmitt, Kirti Ruikar

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136740954
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Tecnología e ingeniería
• Categoría: Construcción e ingeniería arquitectónica

The design process has always been central to construction, but recent years have seenits significance increase, andthe ways of approaching it multiply. To an increasing degree, other stakeholderssuch as contractorshave input at the design stage, and the designer's roleincludes tasks that were traditionally the realm of other professions.

This presents challenges as well as opportunities, and both are introduced, discussed, and analysed in Collaborative Design Management. Case studies from the likes of ARUP, Buro Happold, VINCI Construction UK Ltd, and CIOB show how technologies (BIM, podcasting), innovative working(information management, collaboration), and the evolution of roles (the designer-contractor interface, environmental compliance)have changed design management as a process.

Starting from a basiclevel, the reader is introduced to the key themes and background to the design management role, including definitions of the responsibilities now commonly involved, and the strategic importance of design. Influential technologies currentlyin useare evaluated, and the importance they are likely to have in future is explored.

This combinationof case studies from leading practitioners, clear explanations of design managementroles and activities, andan exploration ofhowto succesfully achievecollaborative design management makes this a highly topical and uniquely valuable book. This is essential reading for professionals and students of all levels interested in construction design management, from all AEC backgrounds.

1

COLLABORATIVE WORKING

There is nothing particularly new about the concept of collaboration in construction, with master builders collaborating with workers and clients to realise their objectives long before the establishment of the building professions. Similarly, the concepts of collaboration and teamwork have featured within the literature for a long time. What have changed are the technologies available to designers and constructors as the digital revolution gathers pace. Now it is possible to collaborate in real time as easily with project collaborators geographically located the other side of the world as it is with those physically located in the same place. This, in theory at least, makes the task of designing a building much easier, although we need to remember that design is a social task and that the individuals contributing to the design process need to be able to work together effectively, i.e. they need to share some common values (Thyssen, 2011). In this chapter we introduce some of the main issues that underpin collaborative working.

Background

It was during the industrial revolution that some architects and designers made a strong argument for craft and collaboration. Phillip Webb, the pioneer of the Arts and Crafts movement and architects such as John Ruskin and William Morris promoted collaboration between architects and tradesmen, while Corbusier argued for closer collaboration between architects and engineers. The Bauhaus movement also pursued a collaborative ideal in its earlier years. In particular, Walter Gropius was devoted to the notion of collaboration between the fields of design and architecture eventually setting up the Architects Collaborative in 1945 (Gropius and Harkness, 1966).

In the UK, the design of buildings does not lie exclusively within the domain of the professional designers, such as the architects and design engineers. Although it may be desirable, one might argue essential, to engage the services of an architectural practice to design a building, many new and refurbishment projects are designed by others with varying degrees of design ability, or are ‘borrowed’ from standard building layouts. In the best examples, design is very much a collaborative activity, with project participants working together to try and realise the best possible solution for the client given the restraints of time, resources and budget.

A small number of government publications has been highly influential in bringing about greater awareness and subsequent attention to the importance of effective working. Two publications, Trust and Money (Latham, 1993) and Constructing the Team (Latham, 1994), were significant in raising awareness of teamwork, collaborative working and project partnering. These fundamental tenets of construction projects were subsequently reinforced in Rethinking Construction (Egan, 1998) and Accelerating Change (Egan, 2002). Combined, the Latham and Egan reports aimed to bring about a change in attitude from an adversarial and fragmented construction sector to one that is more trusting and better integrated. The publications express similar sentiments contained in earlier reports by Simon (1944), Phillips (1950) and Emmerson (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 the language have. The government 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 (architectural, engineering and construction) sector needs to move from ‘segregated’ teams to ‘integrated’ teams to improve performance.

Integration

The word integration is used to describe the intermixing of individuals, groups or teams who were previously segregated. Integration within temporary project organisations (TPOs) can occur on a number of different levels, from seeing the whole project process as an integrated one, to viewing the concept simply bringing together two separate work packages. The term ‘integrated teams’ has come into widespread use in the AEC sector, which although tautological, seems to be used to describe TPOs that are comparatively more integrated than might otherwise be the case. The majority of the literature promotes a highly positive view of integrated teams, while failing to acknowledge the inherent sociological and psychological challenges (see Emmitt, 2010).

Integrated design, supply and production processes are facilitated by cooperative interdisciplinary working arrangements. Integrated teams encompass the skills, knowledge and experiences of a wide range of specialists, often working together as a virtual team from different physical locations. Multidisciplinary teams may be formed for one project only, or formed to work on consecutive projects. Although there has been a move towards more collaborative working arrangements based on the philosophy of project partnering and strategic alliances, it is difficult to see evidence of real integration; instead there are pockets of collaborative work within and between projects.

Focusing on integrated processes is only part of the challenge. It is also necessary to look at the individuals involved with the project and look at how integrated their contribution is. How and when, for example, are the contractor and main sub-contractors involved in the early design phases? Are they an integral part of the design decision-making process or are they merely invited to attend meetings and asked for their opinion. For real integration to work, there needs to be social parity between actors, which means that professional arrogance, stereotypical views of professionals and issues of status have to be put to one side, or confronted. It also means that, in many cases, project teams need to be restructured and the project culture redefined through the early discussion of values, e.g. via value management exercises.

Integration of design and construction activities can achieve significant benefits for all project stakeholders. Improvements in the quality of the service provided and the quality of the completed project, reduced programme duration, reduced costs, improved value and improved profits are some of the benefits. Traditional procurement practices are known to perpetuate adversarial behaviour and tend to have a negative impact on the product development process and hence the project outcomes. Focus has tended to be on limiting exposure to risk and avoiding blame at the expense of creativity and innovation. The creation and maintenance of dynamic and integrated teams is a challenge in such a risk adverse environment. Fostering collaboration and learning within the project frame requires a more integrated approach in which all stakeholders accept responsibility for their collective actions. Project partnering is one approach that can help to bring the actors together, which combined with value management techniques, can help the project collaborators to deliver value to the client. Using new technologies and new approaches, such as off-site production, is another approach, which may change relationships (for example, the manufacturer may take the place of the main contractor). Similarly, the use of collaborative (relational) contracts and integrated project delivery approaches can help to provide value to client and fellow project participants.

Collaboration

Collaborative working takes place within organisations and within projects. Within organisations, work may be within a department or take place across departments. Collaborative working in projects is usually achieved through a coalition of disciplinary groups and teams and multi-disciplinary groups and teams. This dynamic and temporary organisation is usually referred to as a project team, or more accurately a temporary project organisation or a temporary project coalition. TPOs exist for the sole purpose of delivering a project within a specific set of parameters. They comprise a loose coalition of multi-skilled individuals with varying values, attitudes and goals. This temporary alliance is held together by legal contracts and the desire of the participants to achieve a shared objective. The quality of the project (the process) and the quality of the resultant building (the product) will be affected by the way in which these organisations and individuals interface and the effectiveness of the working relationships that develop over the course of the project. It may be an obvious statement to make, but the better the collaboration, the better the outcome of the project.

The word collaboration (or collaborative) is sometimes used as substitute for participation (or participative) and vice versa. Participation usually involves various levels of responsibility and power, thus some participants’ interaction will carry more weight compared to others. Participation is the act of sharing or taking part in group decision making processes. In the context of a project, participative processes should include a wide range of stakeholders, from building sponsor and the professionals working on the project through to the building users and representatives of the local community in which the building is located. The intention of a participatory process is to achieve a higher degree of synergy by bringing multi-disciplinary actors together to share their knowledge, hopefully resulting in an outcome that would not be possible working individually. Outcomes are by consensus and the group members share ownership of ‘their’ decisions. Sometimes actors have equal participation rights, although it is more common for participants to have different levels of responsibility within the project.

Collaborative processes are concerned with equal participation, equitable power and shared decision making responsibilities. This is the philosophy of relational contracting such as partnering. Collaboration refers to cooperation with others, the uniting of labour to achieve a common objective. A collaborative project is one that involves multiple actors who work together and hence are mutually dependent upon one another. Collaborators should be prepared to listen to others, treat their ideas with respect and give each actor equal decision-making power. The aim is to resolve problems more effectively and also produce better outcomes compared to those likely via non-collaborative approaches. This often means that individuals and the organisations that they represent may have to relinquish power; which can be difficult for some participants to deal with, especially if they are more oriented towards a conflict based approach to business. It follows that it is useful to recognise and collaborative processes may not suit everyone, thus care is required when selecting the members of the temporary project organisation.

Collaborative design

Building design is rarely the product of one person's thinking process; rather it is the result of many different disciplines’ collective knowledge (see also Chapter 2). Although it is possible to design a building by working independently, this is rarely the case in practice as professionals exchange information and ideas, discuss, negotiate and agree to a collective building design. However, for a true collective design process it is necessary for the project contributors to collaborate and develop the design together, a process that has been made somewhat easier by the development of information communication technologies and single virtual models (see Chapter 6 and 7).

Collaborative technologies

Information technologies continue to transform the way in which buildings are designed, manufactured, assembled and used. Improvements in the visualisation of designs, modelling, and communication between the participants has helped to provide a better understanding of the management of intricate processes. In particular, the development of IT and ICT such as project websites has made it easier to work concurrently and collaboratively from remote locations. 4D CAD models and building information modelling (BIM) provide the means for addressing the fourth dimension, time. These virtual models provide the interconnection between design information and the planning and scheduling activities (3D + time), providing animations of construction sequences. BIM provides users, regardless of their physical location, with the opportunity of testing, revising, rejecting and accepting design ideas in real time, i.e. it provides the means for collaborative design. BIM also provides a tool for improving the efficiency of communication within the TPO, since it is able to handle the vast amount of information required for coordination. Technical concerns over interoperability of various software packages and the availability of bandwidth to allow the large volume of data traffic to flow smoothly are ongoing concerns, but are being addressed. There is a perception (promoted by the vendors of the software) that better software will lead to better designs and better management of projects, although there appears to be a discrep-ancy between what the vendors claim and what happens in practice (Otter and Emmitt 2007). We need to remember, for the time being at least, that people, not software, manage construction projects.

Collaborative procurement

Although there has been an increase in the number of AEC projects that use relational forms of contracting (such as project partnering and integrated project delivery), it is still relatively modest compared to the more traditional approaches that rely on competitive tendering. Thus the majority of projects are still conducted in ways that, on the surface at least, are based on distrust and non-integrated working. This does not necessarily mean that the majority of projects are less efficient or less effective compared to those conducted in a spirit of trust and collaboration, but simply means that the project philosophy, i.e. attitudes of the participants, are different. The point to make is that the procurement route and the contract(s) used will help to colour the behaviour of the project participants. To promote collaborative working and collaborative design, management requires an appropriate contract.

The desire and ability to work in a collaborative manner varies depending on the procurement route and the legal contracts employed. This relates to risk avoidance and risk transfer. Collaborative procurement is often defined as a means of seeking value for money through a partnership of purchasers and suppliers. For example, local councils may work together to jointly purchase goods and services, and in doing so save money. In the AEC sector, the term collaborative procurement is also known as relational contracting or relation-based procurement, examples being partnering, joint ventures and (strategic) alliances. These are usually based on negotiated contracts that rely on open communication, transparent transactions and trust; the core values of collaborative working and also values essential to the adoption and effective application of BIM.

Case study 1A

The challenges of working collaboratively from a design manager's perspective

Paula Bleanch, Northumbria University

Before I took up an academic position at Northumbria University, I worked as a design manager, first for main contractors and then for an architect's practice. I often tell my students that this gave me a view of what it is like on ‘both sides of the fence’. The role when working as a design manager for a contractor and a designer were similar, although the means were perhaps a little different. However, the aim was fundamentally the same and the way I approached my job did not alter between employers. What changed around me were my colleagues’ attitudes. I found that when I worked for a contractor, my own team of builders, project managers and quantity surveyors would often accuse me of being ‘too much on side with the designers’. On the other hand, when I ‘changed sides’ and worked for an architectural practice I was told that I cared too much about construction, and that working out how to build our design was not our job!

From my point of view I was doing the same thing, making decisions that put the project first. Sometimes this did not tally with my own personal interests, or indeed with my employer's interest (either designers or builders), however, I would say that working for the right outcome means supporting the project and this does not usually result in keeping all of the people happy all of the time. In fact, as a design manager I do not think that it is possible to make everyone happy, and nor should you aim to. Design is about commitment, compromise and trying to find ‘win-win’ solutions, but sometimes one has to have the courage to tell your colleagues, or fellow design team members, things they do not want to hear in order to get the right outcome for the building project.

For my undergraduate thesis, I investigated whether construction and design team members’ traditional attitudes affected the design management process. You may not be surprised to learn that the design managers I interviewed did indeed find that attitudes affected their work, often in a negative way. We know that there is conflict in construction projects, but this is no surprise. But the really interesting question in the design versus build conflict is not about how it affects the design manager, although that's important. The important question is why the conflict exists at al...