THE INFORMATION PROBLEM IN BUILDING - CAUSES AND EFFECTS
Colin H. Davidson
Université de Montréal,
Canada
- SUMMARY
- THE BUILDING INDUSTRY - ITS NATURE
- PROCUREMENT, PERFORMANCE AND CONFLICT - THE IMPORTANCE OF PROJECT-RELATED INFORMATION
- THE NON-USE OF GENERAL INFORMATION
- THE FULL CIRCLE: PROCUREMENT AND INFORMATION
- NOTES AND REFERENCES
-
THE BUILDING INDUSTRY - ITS NATURE
The nature of the market for building products and services has an overriding influence on the way information is thought about, sought for and used, because it is the market that largely predetermines the way the participating businesses set about running their short-term and long-term affairs. As we will show, procurement is the matching factor that fits the building industry (considered as a resource on offer) to the need for built facilities (considered as the demand).
The enterprises that operate within the building industry do so on a project-by-project basis [1]. With the exception of a few enterprises (professional or commercial) which have established long-term links with a particular multi-project client, the general rule is that industry participants react to each emerging or firm request for their services, filtering to them through the industry, starting from each single initiative taken by each potential building client (see Figure 1, next page).
As a result, the professional offices and business enterprises within the building industry organize themselves in a way that enables them to find continuity of work by maintaining a continuous flow of individual projects in which they can appropriately take part. Through this strategy, the discontinuity of the actual demand for their products and services is transformed into a semblance of stability of operations; they have developed internal ‘mechanisms’ that enable them to reconcile strategic (i.e. long-term) planning with the tactical planning needed for each project. Thus, they succeed in maintaining a level of performance, presumably ‘satisfactory’ by their standards, in an environment of double turbulence - (a) the turbulence inherent in the building industry itself and its ‘risky’ ways of working plus (b) the turbulence percolating into it from the broader business and economic environment of each region or nation, or indeed from current globalization.
Figure 1. The building team (a temporary multi-organization) represented in its building industry environment, and the building industry (a multi-industry composed of many stable organizations) in its broader societal environment.
A recent study [2] of architects’ and engineers’ offices, and of contracting companies
"suggested that building industry organizations are resilient and robust, and are set up to weather turbulent environments and the cyclical nature of the industry. [...] Building industry firms operate on a project by project basis, and consequently, they operate in a network mode. However, the role of the ‘designer’ of the network is often assumed by the building owner [through his procurement approach] (often without him realizing it) and not by a principal actor in the industry. [...] With respect to strategy, firms operate for the most part on a tactical versus strategic level [... where] performance indicators tended to be financial for engineers and contractors, with architects more commonly focusing on issues of professional reputation."
The obligation to reconcile strategy and tactics, i.e. the long term view and the short - which is common to the building industry and to the building process as well - places each building firm in an unnatural situation. Participating in the so-called ‘building team’ - "a term generally but somewhat loosely used to describe the group of professional and commercial enterprises which design and construct a building project [and who] as they carry out their mission of designing and constructing a particular facility [must] cooperate with other parties" [3] - determines the short-term context; the strategic plan of the firm establishes the long-term setting. Significantly, the short-term project context brings with it a set of objectives and constraints (to produce the required facility within the conditions imposed by the client and supposedly accepted by the participants as they sign their several contracts), whereas the long-term setting includes typical business or professional goals and mechanisms, designed to ensure the continuing survival of the firm.
"The first level of objectives in building projects is generally defined by the client [...]. Various requirements and constraints are imposed upon the project jointly by the client and by the environment within which he/she operates and within which he/she must build; the project organization is obligated to meet them. The second level of objectives includes those which are typical of all permanent organizations, namely, their survival in the market place, enhancement of their domains and their position in it, and so on" [4].
In the world of management, this kind of situation is recognized to be rife with potential for conflict. In effect, each participating firm has to reconcile elements of its own strategic plan with the tactical consequences of its decision to participate in a particular project. In such a situation, there are generally three categories of variables which can induce inter-firm con-flict: (a) consensus about the domains of intervention of each participant in a multi-organi-zation or ‘team’, (b) the ease of access to and adequacy of information available to them, and (c) the degree of interdependence of tasks involved in carrying out the project [4].
A study of the performance of building firms, carried out in the early eighties [5], confirmed the pertinence of the three categories of variables regarding conflict, and further showed (as one might expect) that the amount of (i.e. the gravity of) inter-firm conflict is inversely proportional to the performance of the building ‘team’. To obtain a more useful view of the situation, the variables were further broken down as follows:
- the consensus variable (a) was split into (a1): clarity of the scope of participation (the greater the clarity, the less risk of inter-firm conflict and the higher performance of the team as a whole), and (a2): specialization (the greater the degree of specialization of all participants, the less conflict and the higher performance);
- the information variable (b) was split into (b1): sufficiency of information (the greater the sufficiency, the less conflict and the higher performance), (b2): access to information (the easier it is to access additional information, the less conflict and the higher performance), and (b3): rapidity of access to the information (the quicker the access, the less conflict and the higher performance);
- the interdependence variable (c) was split into (c1): interdependence of tasks (the greater the interdependence, the more conflict and the lower performance) and (c2): coordination (the better the coordination of tasks, the less conflict and the higher performance).
It was found that - taken together - these variables accounted for over 75% of the variance observed. Significantly, the highest impacting variables were in the information block, accounting for over 50% of the observed variance, with (b1) - sufficiency of information - being the most important. [In a similar study of projects procured using the construction management approach, the ‘availability and access to information’ variable (the ‘b’ block) was also found to be highly significant]:
"Due to its overwhelming importance, ‘availability and access to information’ must be considered in detail. As in many other industries, information is an increasingly important factor in the building industry as well, and its availability in sufficient amount and the task organizations’ access to further information if and when they need it, are becoming universally acknowledged to be necessary conditions for high performance" [6].
A more recent study - of delay-related claims (traced through in-court judgments related to building projects) - yielded similar results. Claims, it should be pointed out, can be inter-preted as a consequence of unresolved conflicts; they often have dire consequences in terms of costs (the costs of litigation and the amounts awarded) and time (preparing for, and going to court) which, incidentally, explain the current move to ‘ABC - Anything But Court’. Once again, it was found that, of the 22 causes of claims cited in the court docu-ments, the ‘availability and access to information’ block (containing 9 of the cited causes of claims) was mentioned in nearly 60% of the cases as a "claims’ causation factor" [7].
Other research has shown that despite the importance of information in the context of the performance of the building process, many of the participants have a ‘casual’ attitude to its exploitation and management. For example, when confronted by a problem in the design process, architects usually give up their search for information before contacting external documentation services or research centers, while engineers may only do so after exhausting internal and informal sources [8]. Searching for information is not seen as a productive activity, even though Lockley and co-authors, for example, showed that when, in the design and design-development phases of a project, a task has to be redone (with consequent loss of time and, presumably loss of profit too), it is usually because insufficient information led to faulty decisions having been made in the first place [9].
The problems stemming from the adequacy and accessibility of information that have just been described concern project-specific information. The reasons for the inherent difficulties in exchanging this kind of information, however desirable it obviously appears ‘from the outside’ that information be exchanged effectively, can be traced to specific industry characteristics.
- Firstly, there is the temporary nature of the building team, described earlier with reference to the very nature of the building industry; as a result, attitudes to, and procedures for, the exchange of information have to be built up from scratch for each project .
- Then there is the heterogeneity of the team itself, comprised of professionals and business persons, each having specific information behaviors and ‘information ethics’.
- Finally, there is the variety of information types to be handled (even within a given project), ranging from repetitive to one-off, and from virtually standardized (such as bills, shipping notes, site meeting minutes ...) to unique (such as room layout plans, structural framing diagrams and, of course, architectural designs) [10].
In addition, there are other reasons that ‘explain’ (even if they do not justify) the generally haphazard attitude to information that seems to prevail, despite the associated risks that have been mentioned.
One of the reasons for the non-use of information is the lack of focus regarding the handling and management of information in building professional education programs. A study conducted jointly for CIB’s Commissions W57 and W74 in 1987 [11] showed that:
- while about 45% of the nearly 200 respondents claimed that they "provide explicit teaching of information related matters", just under half place the emphasis on teaching the production of information and only 20% on the training of information specialists; (indeed, in their courses, the majority of the 45% emphasize acquiring skills in using information);
- however, "only twelve respondents (out of the total possible of 196) refer to information science-related documents when responding to [specific] questions about courses (or parts of courses) which are devoted to information science or information management", and:
- most of the respondents referred to course notes and documents which, in point of fact, have very little to do with a systems approach to information, often citing specification writing guides or building products’ classification systems as supporting evidence for their claim that they taught information management; in the responses, there was a pervasive feeling that "we know all the information that is needed; don’t bother us with the questions of how to get it."
Another reason is the notion that ‘skill’ is necessary and sufficient to cope with information - a view which is implicit in the UN definition of ‘traditional building’: "the bases of design, organization and execution of building which have come to be recognized as normal practice over a considerable period of time in any country or region. It is characterized by the fact that all operations follow a set pattern known to all participants in the building operation, and by dependence on skilled craftsmanship for interpretation of instructions and execution of work" (this author’s emphasis) [12].
A study of the movement of research information out of the research institute and into the practice of building design and construction [13] showed that there were a number of obstacles that had to be overcome. These obstacles - which are ‘man-made’ in the sense that they stem from institutionalized or ritualized ways of working - occur at all stages in the flow of information from the researcher to the practitioner:
- the researchers themselves primarily publish in peer-reviewed and not professional periodicals - since their career advancement depends on accepting the ‘publish-or-perish’ syndrome;
- the research institutes (in their annual reviews, for example) only provide summary information about completed research;
- the documentation centers have difficulty in coping with ‘gray literature’ - the photocopied and essentially ephemeral fresh news about research - and in any case retrieval procedures are persistently ‘non-convivial’;
- the professional periodicals devote scant space to scientific matters, and:
- practitioners have very small office libraries and restricted subscriptions, and - as has been explained earlier - devote little time to finding information.
Figure 2. Information is supposedly emitted from the research source Rn/di (top left), passes into and then out of the retransmitters - publications and databases (center) and finally is possibly sought for by practitioners in response to their questions Pn/qi (bottom right).
The building industry is not only fragmented in the accepted sense that its participants come from different socio-professional categories and work together in loose, short-term groupings (as was stressed at the beginning of this presentation), it is also structurally disconnected from its very sources of new scientific information.
"In our field, the majority of building research is vested in specialized institutions (research stations, universities or professional institutes) who neither design nor build; the designers and the builders, on the other hand, are too harried by the stop-and-go nature of the industry to have the resources, the time and the vision to benefit from research results, let alone carry out research themselves. Bardin et al. refer to this in the following terms:
‘It seems that there are three closed communities: (i) of the researchers, (ii) of the archivists and (iii) of the practitioners. The long-term goal must be to merge them into one community whose mission is to develop a better use of information’" [14].
It is hardly surprising that Bardin and co-workers [13] found that research results are not familiar to practitioners and are not much used in practice. What is, incidentally, more alarming is that professors responsible for educating future professionals were no more familiar with nor more capable of transmitting research-based information to their students.
A set of recommendations aimed at improving the use of general information have been proposed [15]:
"1. Concerning dissemination at source:
A plan for dissemination should be included in the research plan, and be a precondition for funding,
Dissemination should follow a number of modes, adapted to the habits and ‘language’ of expected users,
Dissemination through interpersonal relationships is efficient so researchers must develop ‘invisible colleges’ with their peers and with practitioners;
"2. Concerning storage and publication:
Major publications should devote more space to research results,
Documentation centers should ‘listen for’ research results,
Data bases should develop user-friendly procedures for tracing research results,
Documentation centers and data bases should be prepared to ‘answer questions’ and not just provide references or documents;
"3. Concerning information retrieval and use:
Practitioners must be encouraged to use research results - possibly with inducements in their fee structure,
Practitioners should be invited to join ‘invisible colleges’ with researchers."
However, ‘must’ and ‘should’ are no guarantees that effective change will take place, unless there are perceived advantages for the implicated participants:
- In the case of the recommendations concerning ‘dissemination at source’, the sources of research funding are often too far removed from the applications area (here, the building industry) to be sensitive to its requirements; all that can be said is that the ‘wish’ that Bardin and others expressed has to be relayed clearly in the media that are read by staff of the research funding bodies.
- The editors of the publications will respond if - and only if - they expect their readership to increase; so far there is little to show a demand in this regard. As for the documentation centers, they are probably sensitive to ‘traffic counts’, but once again there is no guarantee that providing easier access to research information will increase their clientele.
- So there only remain the practitioners; possibly the way they might be induced to require easier access to information could be (i) through the way they receive their commissions and (ii) through a requirement in the procurement documents that they demonstrate an information-based approach to quality.
Meanwhile, all one can do is to share Lorna Tardif’s [16] astonishment:
"It is significant to note that in an ordinary project, we have:
- plans for procuring materials,
- plans for the production of shop drawings,
- plans for estimating prices,
- management plans of several sorts ...
But we have no plans for the management of information."
1. The building industry is not unique in this regard; the entertainment industry also operates in this way, as does ship building - the latter with generally longer-term projects and a higher level of supporting investment. Indeed, in many industries, such as aircraft manufacture, prototype design is considered separately from production and is described as ‘a project’ as opposed to ‘a program’. (Go back)
2. Katsanis, Constantine J. (1998). An Empirical Examination of the Relationships Between Strategy, Structure and Performance in Building Industry Organizations, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Montréal, Université de Montréal, Faculté de l’aménagement, xv + 163 pp. (Go back)
3. Davidson, Colin H. (1988). "Building Team", in: Wilkes, Joseph A. and Robert T. Packard (eds.), Encyclopedia of Architecture: Design, Engineering and Construction, New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc., pp. 509-515. (Go back)
4. Mohsini, Rashid, and Colin H. Davidson. (1991). "Building Procurement - Key to Improved Performance", Building Research and Information, 19:2, 106-113. A similar analysis (with 6 variables instead of seven) is reported in: Mohsini, R.A., and Colin H. Davidson. (1992). "Determinants of Performance in the Traditional Building process", Construction Management and Economics, 10, 343-359. (Go back)
5. Mohsini, R. (1984). Building Procurement Process: a Study of Temporary Multi-Organizations. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Montréal, Université de Montréal, Faculté de l’aménagement. (Go back)
6. Mohsini, R.A., R. Sirpal, C.H.Davidson. (1995). "Procurement: a Comparative Analysis of Construction Management and Traditional Building Processes", Building Research and Information, 23:5, 285-290. (Go back)
7. Abdel Meguid, Tarek Ahmed. (1997). Managed Claims Procurement Strategy (MCPS): a Comparative Study of the Performance of Alternate Building Procurement Strategies, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Montréal, Université de Montréal, Faculté de l’aménagement, xxi + 181 pp. (Go back)
8. Davidson, Colin H. (1995). "Documentalistes, où vous placez-vous? Entre la recherche et la pratique!", Documentaliste, Sciences de l’information, 32:4/5, 199-204. See also: Mackinder, Margaret. (1982). Design Decision Making in Architectural Practice, York, The University of York Institute for Advanced Architectural Studies Research Paper 19, and BRANZ. (1984). Abbreviated Report of Information Dissemination Strategies, Porirua (N.Z.), Building Research Association of New Zealand, 60 pp. (Go back)
9. Lockley, S.R., T.J.Wiltshire and S.J.M.Dudek. (1987). "Information Transfer and Knowledge Based Systems in Architectural Desing" (sic), in: ARECDAO, 1st International Symposium of Computer Aided Design in Architecture and Civil Engineering, Barcelona, Institut de Tecnologia de la Construccio de Catalunya. (Go back)
10.The IF Research Corporation conducted a survey in the mid-nineties (unpublished) for the EDI Institute, from which it became clear that the greatest volume of information exchanged in all projects concerned highly standardized and repetitive matters - both in terms of content and of support. (Go back)
11.Davidson, Colin H., and David M. Jaggar (members of the Joint Working Group). (1987). CIB Questionnaire on Information Science and Information Management in Professional and Technical Education in Building and Construction - Compilation of Responses and Commentary, CIB, Montréal and Liverpool, 20pp + annexes. (Go back)
12.U.N. (1959). Government Policies and the Cost of Building, Geneva, the Economic Commission for Europe. (Go back)
13.Bardin, Sylvie, Gérard Blachère and Colin H. Davidson. (1993). "Are Research results Used in Practice?", Building Research and Information, 21:6, 347-354. See also: Bardin, Sylvie, and Gérard Blachère (collab. Colin H. Davidson). (1992). Amélioration de l’efficacité de la diffusion des résultats de la recherche en bâtiment, Paris, Auxirbat, 2 vols., 344 pp. (Go back)
14.Davidson, Colin H. "The Building Centers - CIB’s Information Allies", Building Research and Information, 25:5, 313-317. (Go back)
15.Bardin, Sylvie, Gérard Blachère and Colin H. Davidson. (1992). "From research to Practice - a Problem of Communication/Le passage de la recherche à la pratique - un problème de communication", CIB ’92 - World Building Congress, Poster Book - Recueil d’affiches, Ottawa, Institute for research in Construction, Vol. 2, 528-529. (Go back)
16.Tardif, Lorna. (1998). "Procurement: Communicate - or Else ...", in: Davidson, Prof. Colin H. (ed.), Procurement - The Way Forward/La maîtrise d’ouvrage de demain, CIB Proceedings - Publication 217, Montreal and Rotterdam, IF Research Corporation/ CIB, pp. 47-52. (Go back)
Copyright © IF Research Corporation and CIB 1998