THE PROCESS PROTOCOL: IMPROVING THE FRONT END OF THE DESIGN ANDCONSTRUCTION PROCESS FOR THE UK INDUSTRY.Running head: Generic Design & Construction Process Protocol

MICHAIL KAGIOGLOU, RACHEL COOPER and GHASSAN AOUAD TIME Research Institute, Centenary Building, University of Salford, Peru Street, Salford, M3 6EQ, UKM.Kagioglou@dct.salford.ac.uk

JOHN HINKSDepartment of Building Engineering and Surveying, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

ABSTRACT

Sir Michael Latham [1994] published a report, which identified fragmentation and confrontationalrelationships as the greatest barriers to improving quality and productivity in the UK construction industry.It was recognised that manufacturing industry is not as plagued with such problems having introduced anumber of improvement initiatives over the past twenty years. One such improvement that has beenadopted is the stage gate approach to new product development (NPD). This approach enabled progressivemanagement and monitoring of the ‘whole project’ lifecycle for all activities involved in the productdevelopment with particular attention to the ‘front end’.

This paper summarises the main findings of a funded project, which involved a number of industrialpartners from the whole spectrum of the UK construction industry. Particular attention is given to the front-end of the design and construction process and a Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol(GDCPP) map is briefly described. IT is also presented as an enabler in undertaking a consistent processand an IT map is presented.

The paper describes how a co-ordinated effort, from a client perspective, at the front-end of the Design andConstruction Process could not only improve efficiency but reduce development times, improve quality ofthe final product and increase predictability.

Keywords: Front end, design and construction, generic, manufacturing, process

Introduction

The technology and knowledge transfer of manufacturing experiences and principles into a constructionenvironment have been the subject of research in the UK for a number of years. Indeed this is furtheremphasised by the formation of the IMI (Innovative Manufacturing Initiative) and in particular the‘Construction as a Manufacturing Process’ sector, which funded the project described in this paper.

There are a number of manufacturing operations which could prove to have a number of similarities withtheir construction counterparts. The manufacturing industry's continuous mission, towards effective andmanageable production and materials handling techniques have been the subject of consideration in thepast. The attention has been in utilising material resources and machinery to implement a building,refurbishment or other solutions offered to client. This attention has resulted in moderate elimination ofnon value-add activities in a construction site and the consideration of resources much closer than was thecase in the past. However, the majority of the construction activities are the result of non (strictly speaking)construction activities. These include the identification of the client needs, the formulation of therequirements specifications for the design solution and finally the design and production information.Typically these activities contribute between 10-30 percent of the overall construction budget. Therefore itis fair to say that between 70-90 percent of a construction project's cost is determined during the initial 10-30 percent spend. This inevitably draws the attention at the 'front end' of the construction project.

The manufacturing industry has undergone the same way of thinking as described above, but at asignificantly earlier time than the construction industry. Back in the 60's and 70's new management,production, and materials handling techniques have been conceptualised and in many leading companies

implemented - particularly in Japan. MRP, MRPII, Kanban systems, JIT, CADCAM and others haveinitiated this revolution. The focus was to utilise computer technology for undertaking activities faster(CAD), more accurately (robotics), using less stock and plant space (MRP 8 JIT), whilst eliminatingsignificant changes during the transition and transformation of a design into a final product. Although theshort-term objectives of this technology push were realised, it became apparent that further improvementswere needed with regards to the actual ’soft’ processes employed. This need led the way for philosophieslike total quality management (TQM), concurrent engineering (CE) and others which, whilst utilisingemerging technologies they necessitated a certain change in the culture of organisations within as well aswith the immediate external parties like first tier suppliers. The implementation of such philosophiesrequired the formulation of consistent project and business processes.

New product development (NPD) processes have been developed in manufacturing so that the wholedevelopment of products from the first steps of identifying a need or capturing a clients’ need to the finaldelivery and replacement of a product can be considered as parts of ’one’ consistent process. NPD in itsliteral sense does not exist widely as a process undertaken by the construction industry but its principlescould potentially be applied to the construction industry [Kagioglou et al. 1998]. For the majority ofprojects undertaken by construction firms the NPD process is enacted once only, each time with a differentcombination of distribution, production and delivery techniques. That said, it could be argued that anelement of commonality exists between each ’one-off’ NPD process in construction - as it will bedemonstrated. Furthermore, IT can play an important role in utilising and NPD process for construction.

This paper examines the development of an NPD process for design and construction and the use of IT asan enabler within a consistent process.

The project

The Design and Construction Process Protocol project was funded by EPSRC under the IMI ’Constructionas a Manufacturing Process’ sector. It’s two-year duration involved the participation of a number ofcompanies from the whole spectrum of the UK construction industry e.g. clients, contractors,subcontractors, consultants, suppliers and IT specialists. Its main aim was to develop a design andconstruction process protocol based on Manufacturing NPD and to examine how IT can facilitate such aprocess. The methodology employed throughout the project involved the distribution of questionnaireswithin the industrial partners companies, semi-structured interviews with the industrial partners andindustry experts, interactive workshops to inform and validate the development and the expert help of alarge manufacturing co-operation.

Finding a common ground

Any attempt made to determine the common issues between manufacturing NPD and the design andconstruction process will have to be based not only on the individual elements of the process but on theundertaking of the process itself in terms of organisation and post project issues. Based on manufacturingindustry process development throughout the past three decades the research team concentrated on thefollowing issues in an attempt to find the ’common ground’ when developing the design and constructionprocess protocol:

• Overall process structure/framework and decision making mechanisms• Identification and classification of the steps involved in the design and construction process with

particular attention to the front end• Organisation of project participants to utilise the process• Learning organisations• The role of IT as a facilitator/enabler to the process• Cultural issues

Figure 1 presents the implementation of the above issues in the Generic Design and Construction ProcessProtocol.

Fig. 1 The Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol

Process structure

Rosenau [1996] notes, that process models are “an effective way to show how a process works” and as adefinition:

“A process map consists of an X and a Y axis, which show process sequence (or time) and processparticipants, respectively. The horizontal X axis illustrates time in process and the individual processactivities (and) or gates. The Y axis shows the departments or functions participating in the process...”

Beyond this convention, there appears to be little formality in the method used to represent a process. Theresearch team and industrial partners of the research project have agreed to employ such a method byrepresenting the project/process phases on the X axis, and the project participants on the Y axis. Anestablished process of this kind is proposed by Cooper [1993] which in addition introduces the concept of'gates' between the stages of the project for decision making purposes. These gates or phase review pointsreview the project and a report is produced (phase review report) which aims to inform the client of thestatus of the project. In an attempt to streamline the process and eliminate the sequential undertaking ofprojects, as was traditionally the case, Cooper [1994] introduced the concept of 'fuzzy' gates. These gatesare referred to as 'soft' gates in the context of the process protocol. They represent decision points but withthe exemption that the project does not necessarily come to a halt but certain activities are allowed tocontinue. In contrast 'hard' gates require the temporary overhaul of the project until a decision (usuallymade by the client body/representative) grants the continuation of the project and resources are allocated.

Process stages/steps

According to Hughes [1991], the identification of the steps or stages through which a construction projectpasses is essential if improvement is to occur. Hughes asserts that:

"…every project goes through similar steps in its evolution in terms of stages of work. The stages vary intheir intensity or importance depending upon the project."

In support of this Hughes reviewed seven 'industry standard' plans of work (codes of practice and textbookdescriptions). These plans of work represented contemporary practice in both the public and privateconstruction sectors. Many of them offered little more than a 'check-lists' of activities to be undertaken orissues to be addressed. The industrial partners to the project and the research team concentrated on theformulation of an agreed description of those steps that were consistent to the process structure whilst at thesame time providing for decision making and imply generic properties that could be applied by all projectparticipants. In addition the effort concentrated at the steps for the effective undertaking of the front end.The process of deciding on the process steps involved a number of debates through workshops which wereinformed by established process steps such as those of the RIBA plan of work [RIBA, 1991]. Furthermore,the steps in the process were classified into broad stages as shown below:

• Pre - project stage:• Demonstrating the need• Conception of need• Outline feasibility• Substantive feasibility study and outline financial authority

• Pre - construction stage:• Outline conceptual design• Full conceptual design• Coordinated design, procurement and full financial authority

• Construction stage:• Production information• Construction

• Post completion stage:• Operation and maintenance

Project participant organisation

The earlier involvement of the project’s participants, throughout the process is a significant development ofthe conventional approach to building. Traditionally, a construction project’s participants are referred to bytheir professional or expert status. Ball [1988] demonstrates how this may be attributed to the inherent classrelations associated with each of the professions and expert groups. As with all class distinctions, the effectthat this basis for organisational structure in design and construction has is division. A consequence of thistraditional approach, by which even the more recent forms of contract procurement (design and build,management contracting, etc.) are included, is the poor communication and co-ordination commonlyassociated with construction projects.

The participants in the Process Protocol are referred to in terms of their primary responsibilities, and arerepresented on the Y-axis of the Process Model. It is recognised that traditionally, project to project,organisational roles and responsibilities change, resulting in ambiguity and confusion [Luck & Newcombe,1996]. By basing the enactment of the process upon the primary responsibility required, the scope forconfusion is potentially reduced, and the potential for effective communication and co-ordination increased.The Process Protocol groups the participants in any project into ‘Activity Zones’. These zones are notfunctional but rather they are multi-functional and they represent structured sets of tasks and processeswhich guide and support work towards a common objective (for example to create an appropriate designsolution). A single person or firm can carry out an activity zone in small-projects but in large and complexprojects, an activity zone may consist of a complex network of people and between relevant functionsand/or organisations. Since they are multi-functional, membership of the ‘zones’ is determined by thespecific project task and/or process. The activity zones for the Process Protocol are the following:

• Development management• Project management• Resources management• Design management• Production management• Facilities management• Health and safety, statutory and legal management• Process management• Change management

The majority of the activity zones are self-explanatory but for the process and change management. Theseactivity zones are essentially the interface between the Development Management (predominately the clientbody) and the other project participants. Process Management has a role independent of all other activityzones. A distinction must be made between this conventional view of a project manager and the ProcessManagement role. Process Management, as the title suggests, is concerned with the enactment of theprocess, rather than the project. Key to the success of each Phase in the process is the production of projectdeliverables (reports and documentation associated with each phase). In this respect the ProcessManagement is responsible for facilitating and co-ordinating the participants required to produce thenecessary deliverables. Acting as the Development Management’s ‘agent’, it will ensure the enactment ofeach process phase as planned, culminating with the presentation of the deliverables at each end of PhaseReview.

The Change Management function is further distinct from the Process Management zone, as this role solelyconcerns (as it’s name also suggests) the management of change(s) which occur during the process. As theproject becomes increasingly defined as each phase is enacted, changes (or rather updates) to theinformation required for the development of the project will be produced. These updates will be containedwithin the work required to develop the deliverable documentation associated with each phase. Withrespect to this, the Change Management (CM) activity zone facilitates the holding, review anddissemination of all this information, as the project progresses.

Learning organisation

A learning organisation learns from its experiences, which can either be successful or unsuccessful andapplies those lessons to future projects. Furthermore, it can apply those lessons to train future and currentemployees. To do so an organisation will need to store and maintain the relevant data in an efficient andstructured manner. The Process Protocol aims to provide this by the creation, use and maintenance of a’Legacy Archive’. The structure and undertaking of the process offers itself to such a mechanism due to itsconsistency through the phase review reports for each phase of the project development. These phasereview reports and other relevant documentation can be stored either on a paper driven system or ideallybased on IT where the data can be interrogated and presented in different views. Furthermore such asystem could provide a communication spine for the whole project team through the creation of Intranetsites and other IT based solutions. Taking under consideration that construction projects will typically lasta considerable time the availability and easy access of project information could prove very important whenmaking future decisions.

IT: an enabler to the process

The legacy archive presented above is only one of the tools that can be created by utilising IT. There are anumber of IT solutions that could be applied throughout the lifecycle of a project to undertake diverseactivities from modelling of a projects’ solution to the production of ’manufacturing’ information andoperation of the finished facility in a virtual world. The aim is to provide an integrated IT system where ITcan be utilised. Attention is drawn in implementing IT from a process focus rather than was the casetraditionally where IT solution were and in some cases still are, developed as stand alone tools without aclear place in the design and construction process. Figure 2 illustrates how IT could be integrated in theProcess protocol and enable communications between project participants, as well as speeding up thedevelopment of a project solution.

As part of the research for the production of the IT map a survey was undertaken of both academia andindustry to help establish views on what areas of IT will be of crucial importance to the constructionindustry in the next 10 years [Aouad et al. 1998]. The results of the survey assisted in the incorporation ofthe needs and requirements of the participants.

Aouad et al [1998] suggests that when IT usage is similar to that shown on the IT map it should be possiblefor the client to walk through and interrogate various aspects of the designed building, such as cost andspecification using VR, and also the information stored in the integrated database. It could be possible forthe QS to select the most appropriate procurement path using neural networks techniques. The designercould be able to select the most suitable design using case-based reasoning techniques from informationstored within the legacy archive of the integrated intelligent database. With the use of the intelligentintegrated database and improved communication applications information flow between applications andproject participants would be transparent and the data would remain unduplicated and uncorrupted.Although all of the above mentioned points may be correct, it could be argued that the costs, in terms ofpurchasing / developing the software, cost and time of training personnel to use the software, managementand maintenance of the applications and associated data, communications links, etc, could far outweigh anycost benefits of implementing such a wide ranging system on a project basis. However, within apartnership arrangement there could be long term benefits.

Also industry wide reluctance may prevent the adoption of this overall system because of threats to variousprofessional practices, such as professional property developers who would normally undertake economicappraisal at the early stages of a project, and quantity surveyors may have a reduced involvement during thewhole project, etc.

The ownership of the information produced could be a bone of contention that may hinder theimplementation of such an overall system. For example the contractor may want all of the informationproduced to be incorporated into their archive, the client would possibly expect all of the projectinformation to be theirs and copyrighted, as they paid for the building, etc.

Fig. 2 IT and the Process Protocol

Cultural issues

Some of the problem factors, for the pre-project phase of existing design and construction processes areissues relating to the culture of the construction industry, and the interpretations of this culture by the clientbody. This is a culture which is neither homogenous across the entire depth of the industry or, within allsectors of the industry. There is also a culture which, post-Latham, a lot of the industry’s lead bodies wereworking very hard to try and change. Indeed, there appeared to be a desire for change towards a more co-operative, less confrontational culture within the construction industry, which the industry itself wasworking for. This was seen as being a major potential advantage for production of a unifying processprotocol potentially capable of unifying the design and construction process.

It was also clearly identified by the industrial participants in the projects that there is an important need forchanges in contractual arrangements, possible to include retention-based approaches or consultative-fee-based arrangements for pre-project consultation from a variety of professionals. This could improve therequirements capture phase for the clients, and allow them to make their early stage decisions onconstruction or alternative project solutions from a base of informed knowledge rather than inexperiencedignorance. Clearly, in order to protect the industry professionals and industry organisations against the lossof ideas, and work, some retentive or consultative arrangements need to be established.

The issue of copyright over ideas and transfer of copyright of ideas between products and processes fromindividual projects generally or from project to project also needs to be considered before this system canpracticably be operated. These sorts of changes in contractual and consultative arrangement are most likelyto be facilitated through implicit, or, particularly, explicit strategic, (term) partnering arrangements betweenclients and contractors and also between contractors and sub-contractors within the industry.

Implementation issues

A product-oriented emphasis (rather than a process-oriented emphasis) focuses on the differences betweenproducts and processes operating in other sectors. One of a kind products do tend to limit the feedbackpotential [Koskela, 1992] and focus reviews on product feedback and not process feedback. By focusing onthe uniqueness of the product, rather than the commonality of the process for the management of theirproduction, the construction industry continues to put its efforts into solving and resolving individualproduct -focused problems without creating the managerial systems which could help avoid, overcome,and/or learn from product and process solutions.

To promote such a process emphasis it is essential that the parties involved in project teams are operating toa consistent process, which requires broadly similar process capabilities of the various team members. Thiswill mean that industry-wide process improvement is required for the design and construction process toachieve repeatability and hence manageability [Hinks et al. 1997]. This means linking the professionalcapabilities in the pre-construction phases as well as the production phase parties, and linking capability andprocess involvement across the phases. The alternative could be a greater level of stratification andfragmentation within the industry, which would be self defeating, since solving the problems of processdepend on all parties for their coordinated resolution.

There is also a requirement for a range of support tools that are needed by the various organisations, whichwill be operating the process protocol. Training is needed in order to allow the industry to establish theirprocess capability and prioritise changes in process capability, and to allow them to identify and integratean existing IT support change in the process. Implementing the process protocol would be a matter ofbusiness re-engineering as well as process re-engineering. It will require to be operated across the depth ofthe industry as well as its breadth, in co-ordination with clients and those parties involved in the use andmanagement of buildings beyond their completion.

The future

It is most probable that the process protocol will itself be a catalyst for change and it will require to changeflexibly as the industry adopts it partially as part of its change process. The evidence from the prospectivecases is that change management and process management are seen as some of the key process changes

which need to be put into place first; and that co-ordination of information technology or informationsystems is another essential requirement. These activities will allow the process to be controlled in aconsistent and predictable manner, which will allow the maximum enhancement of capability toaccommodate product and process innovation. It will be essential to benchmark the processes as a whole,across the industry as well as the individual organisational processes. This may be a national bench markinginitiative which can prove to be a useful mechanism for promoting the process protocol and the changes inindividual organisational processes required in order to move to something more harmonised than theexisting fragmented system.

It was considered to be an essential element of the process protocol that the efforts of the process team wereloaded towards the planning effort at the pre-project and pre-construction phases of the process. Thisassumption might allow the minimisation of ambiguity and late stage design changes, thereby allowing agreater pre-production planning efficiency and a smoother and more controllable production phase to beachieved. This would also allow the greater predictability associated for production and would also allowthe more rapid and cost effective introduction of standardisation prefabrication, the current problems ofwhich tend to occur at the interfaces between trades and elements for which pre-planning effort is requiredto make improvement. It is absolutely essential that risk and risk allocation is considered as an explicitfunctional role within the early stages of stakeholder involvement and assembly of the virtual design andconstruction team.

Towards the end of the project it was considered that rather than it being a generic process protocol it maybe more representative to consider it as being a prototypical process model; that is a process model which initself provides a prototype of how the local customised solutions may be designed in a more typical set ofrules than exists currently, and also that this should be done at a strategic rather than operational level.

The concept of genericity embodied within the process protocol extends little further than the managementand process principles which would be applied by process managers and the phase review board in definingthe phases activities associated with the various stages of the process. It is foreseeable that in specificprojects, the application of process protocol would involve a lot of customisation. In this context the modelshould be seen as being more prototypical than generic. Interpreted thus the strategic application of theprocess protocol should be possible without constraining the flexibility of the product innovation or theprocess. It would also be possible to instigate the process protocol from within the existing professionaland industry divisions and practices, thereby allowing it to be an agent of change rather than a goal orunobtainable process requiring quantum change.

The effective implementation of the Process Protocol will greatly depend on its ability to effectivelytranslate the strategic to the operational level. To this end further work is needed (and is currently underway at the University of Salford) in examining the sub-processes (Activity Zone) and produce generic mapsfor those sub-processes.

In such a way the underlying principles and philosophies of the Process Protocol will form the frameworkfor company/project based wide adoption and effective implementation. This is confirmed by the adoptionof the Process Protocol by the CRISP Process Group with the comment that sub-level process definitionneeds to be defined. In addition such developments will address all the issues identified in the ConstructionRound Table (CRT) ‘Agenda for Change’

Conclusion

The principles of the process protocol can therefore be summarised as a model which is capable ofrepresenting the diverse interests of all the parties involved in the design and construction process, which issufficiently repeatable and definable to allow IT to be devised to support its management and informationmanagement. A mechanism by which the systematic and consistent interfacing of the existing practices,professional practice and IT practice support tools can be facilitated. Also, simplicity within the protocol,which allows its interpretation and flexible application at a variety of strategic levels across a variety ofscales of project using combinations of virtual teams and IT systems should be accommodated. Theyshould all be based in clarity of terms of what is required from whom, when and with whose co-operation,for whom the requirements are to be delivered for what purposes and how they will be evaluated (duringphase reviews). Other principles underlying the process protocol where the standardisation of deliverables

and roles associated with achieving managing and reviewing the process and the product. The introductionof organisational wide and industry wide co-ordinating process improvement programmes whichincorporated the facets of process capability and information technology/information system capability; allof which is grounded in a philosophy of early entry (at the front end) of the maximum proportion of stake-holders and functionaries, with a predominant emphasis of effort on the design and planning to minimisethe error and reworking during the construction phase.

The process protocol is divided into a series of sub-stages defined as pre-project, pre-construction,construction and post-completion, and within each of those major stages there are sub-phases which can beoperated concurrently or concatenate to make the process more efficient in smaller scale projects.

The process protocol introduces a number of novel principles in a number of areas, in particular theextension of the boundaries of design and construction process into the requirements capture phase of pre-briefing client decision making. Also the extension of the boundary of the process beyond practicablecompletion to allow the management of use and the learning from performance in use to improve theproduct and process for future projects. In addition the creation of an explicit process management andchange management role to co-ordinate the functionaries and phase deliverables associated with theprocess, the information that supports the functional roles and is delivered via the creation of products, anda stable platform to allow innovations in process and products and operations to be facilitated in a co-ordinated and repeatable manner.

Acknowledgement

The research team wishes to thank IMI for providing the resources for the research project and theparticipating companies for their contributions to the project.

References

Aouad, G, Cooper, R, Kagioglou, M, Hinks, J and Sexton, M (1998) A synchronised process/it model tosupport the co-maturation of processes and IT in the construction sector. Proceedings of CIBWorking Commission W78 - Information Technology in Construction Conference, Royal Institute ofTechnology, Stockholm, Sweden, June 3rd - 5th , pp.85-95.

Ball, M (1988) Rebuilding Construction. Routledge, London, UK.Cooper, R G (1994) Third-Generation New Product Processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

Vol.11, pp. 3-14.Cooper, R G (1993) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. Addison-

Wesley Publishing Company. Canada.Hinks, J, Aouad, G, Cooper, R, Sheath, D, Kagioglou, M and Sexton, M (1997) IT and The Design and

Construction Process: A Conceptual Model of Co-Maturation. International Journal of ConstructionInformation Technology, Vol.5, No.1, pp. 1-25.

Hughes, W (1991) Modelling the construction process using plans of work. Proceedings of an InternationalConference - Construction Project Modelling and Productivity, CIB W65, Dubrovnik

Kagioglou, M, Cooper, R, Aouad, G, Sexton, M, Hinks, J and Sheath, D (1998) Cross-industry learning: thedevelopment of a generic design and construction process based on stage/gate new productdevelopment processes found in the manufacturing industry. Proceedings of the Engineering DesignConference ’98 - Design Reuse, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK, June 23-25, pp. 595-602.

Koskela, L (1992) Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction. Technical Report 72.Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland.

Latham, M (1994) Constructing the Team. H.M.S.O.Luck, R and Newcombe, R (1996) The case for the integration of the project participants’ activities within a

construction project environment. The Organization and Management of Construction: Shapingtheory and practice (Volume Two), Langford, D A and Retik, A (eds.), E. & F. N. Spon.

R.I.B.A (1991) Architect’s Handbook of Practice Management, RIBA, 4th ed., UK.Rosenau, M (1996) The PDMA handbook of new product development. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., U.S.A.