Generic devolopment proces

The rick undertaken so far has proven that the evolution of a transit map is gaining momentum within the wrench perseverance as a whole. The Lethal inspired crispy ( face Research and Innovation Strategy Panel) community has in principle adopted the plow communications protocol as a basis for its activities in terms of promoting work at thinking in the anatomical structure industry. 2. Introduction The remove for onward motion to the conventional founding and construction turn in the construction industry is well reported. Emerson (1962), bankable (1964), and Lethal (1994) keep either commented upon the get hold of for change, and separately highlight similar problem areas.Fundament altogethery, the need for improvement is re slowd to to the low-down per establishance greensly associated with engender undertakings. Typically, this performance is measured in terms of cost, clock and/or quality. Unfortunately, it is the UK building Industry response to the ne ed for change that has perpetuated and even perhaps entertained this problem. For example, Franks (1990) and Master (1992) presented the learning of the range of procurement systems currently on offer to potential construction intercommunicate clients as control ultimately by the product view, and the need to optimism cost, clip and quality. Yet, whilst many of the more recent border iodines to construction procurement (I. E.Design and Build, saying focusing) apparently attempt to address butt issues, such as communication, in reality they fundamentally fail. In a survey conducted by Hubbard & Disbarred (1996), a sample of 64 respondents (representing both clients and consultants) demonstrated that peg down judgment of conviction performance was a factor considered to be relatively in momentous, when compared to thither problems commonly associated with construction projects as leavenn in table 2. 1. Furthermore, Mortgaged & Shari (1996) reported that from a total of 21 5 projects surveyed, 136 (63%) were delivered later than expected In terms of the dates fixed by the contract or the dates given to the client for completion. No. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Variables Changing requirements Design team chat Cost control Identification of responsibility Supply of information Quality Design faults Contract time performance Other factors Type of contract Percentage 25 18 6. 3 4. 7 3. 1 1. 6 Table 2. Ranking of problems with current procurement methods (Hubbard & Disbarred, 1996) Mortgaged & Shari (1996) go on to suggest that it is the expectation kind of than the delivery which is at fault. The conventional process of generating an expected delivery date is considered the reason for this In some cases commercial, scotch or political considerations can be a driver towards setting these unrealistic goals which become expectations and contract dates for lack of informed and unbiased advice.Consequently, construction performance falls short of expectations w hich were largely unachievable when they ere feeded. A number of lessons can be learned from the manufacturing sector with regards to the implementation and practical use of a process view within the construction industry. The area within the manufacturing sector that relates closely to construction and building plant is called new product cultivation (NYPD). It concentrates in the growing of an idea, need or client requirement to the nett commercialisms of the product e. G. A building or a car. A number of similarities can be found among the two industries with regards to the activities used for developing new products.For example they include The start of a project can be initiated internally or by direct and/or indirect contact with the customers The development of the product requires the participation of a number of specialists and functions such as somaers, surveyors, marketing, stress analysts etc. The successful construction or manufacture of a building or produc t can only be achieved if all external (suppliers and consultants) and internal resources are utilizes and co- ordinate usefully The building or product is handed oer to the customer/client and provisions are made for future permit. However there are a number of obvious differences, the most important of which is that in the manufacturing industry all NYPD activities are co-ordinate, managed and controlled using a common framework which is the NYPD process.The construction industry mainly, uses ad-hoc methods for achieving the latter and therefore reducing repeatability of process execution, resulting in the same(p) mistakes occurring time after time. This shift into the establishment of a consistent process for the construction industry requires a new way of thinking entailing a change of culture and working practices. Furthermore, it requires a good understand of current practices and future trends effective communication mechanisms of such processes, such as modeling agre ement of combat-ready parties Technology can then be used to enhance integration and sharing of information. In corporation with a process map, an IT map should enable the effective use and co- ordination of technology based on a predetermined process framework.This paper proposes a process map which consists of a high train process and sub-processes (Activity Zones), which support the various phases of a construction project and the appropriate information technologies. 3. Methodology During the development of the Protocol a number of research methods have been used 1. 4. 5. Retrospective and prospective case take aim analysis revue and analysis of contemporary construction processes and practices Review and analysis of concepts and practices applied within the manufacturing industries mathematical operation modeling including various modeling tools and techniques Iterative development using feedback from several industrial partners via interviews and workshop sessions and sc enario building The results to date of some of this work will be described in subsequent portionsPrinciples As a result of the initial critique of the literature, and the identification of the industry requirements through and through developmental interviews with practitioners, six key principles are considered to provide the basis for an improved process. They are drawn heavily from the manufacturing sector where process thinking and day-and-night improvement has been focused upon for some 30 years. In addition, many of the principles relate to recognized problem areas in construction, where significant improvements have been called for (interracial profitable, 1964 Lethal, 1994). The six principles are as follows Whole Project View In the construction industry the definition of a project has conventionally being synonymous to actual construction works.As such the pre-construction and post- construction activities have been sidelined and often accelerated to reach the const ruction stage or to move on to the new Job. This has resulted in poor client requirements identification and delayed the exposure of any potential solutions to the need to any internal and external specialists. Any contemporary attempt to define or create a design and construction process will have to cover the whole life of a project from recognition of a need to the operation f the finished facility. This approach ensures that all issues are considered from both a occupancy and a technical point of view. Furthermore this approach recognizes and emphasizes the inter-dependency of activities end-to-end the duration of a project.It also focuses at the front-end activities whereby attention is paid to the identification, definition and evaluation of client requirements in order to identify suitable solutions. A Consistent accomplish During the review of existing models and descriptions of the design and construction process, it was pronto established that little concurrence exist ed. In such an environment, the problems encountered by temporary multi-organizations (TOM) working can be compounded. Luck & Newcomer (1996) support this view, describing the role ambiguity commonly associated with construction projects. schooling of this generic forge Protocol provides the potential to establish its consistent application. Through consistency of use the scope for ambiguity should sicken.This, together with the adoption of a prototype approach to performance measurement, evaluation and control, should facilitate a process of continual improvement in design and construction. Progressive Design Fixity The stage-gate approach found in manufacturing processes (Cooper, 1994 ref. Fig. L) applies a consistent planning and review procedure throughout the Process. flesh Reviews are conducted at the end of each Phase with the aim of reviewing the work executed in the Phase, approving progress to the next Phase, and planning the resounding and execution of the next Phase . Cooper, in his third generation process, saw the need for conditional-go decisions at phase gates, to accommodate purviews of concurrency. This philosophy is translated in the development of the Protocols phase gates.Phase gates are classed as either soft or sullen, with the soft gates allowing the potential for concurrency in the process, whilst ensuring that the key decision points in the process are respected. Fig. 4. 1 Coopers comparison of stage-gate processes (Cooper, 1994) The potential benefit of this approach is fundamentally the progressive fixing and/or approval of information throughout the Process. As Cooper(1994) states, the discipline of the Phase Review activity improved the conventional chaotic, ad-hoc approach of manufacturing to which the anatomical structure Industry of today could be compared. Co-ordination Co-ordination is one area in which construction traditionally is perceived to perform poorly.This perception is supported by Bankable (1964) and Lethal (1994), in addition to many other reviews of the Industry. The need for improved co-ordination was also highlighted by the interviews with sr. managers undertaken during the research project. It is therefore proposed that co-ordination of the Process Protocol is undertaken, principally, by the Process and Change instruction Activity Zones. (see section 7) Appointed by the Client, the Process Manager will be delegated business office to plan and o-ordinate the participants and activities of each Phase, throughout the Process. The actions of the Process Manager are supported by the Change Manager, through which all information r intoxicate to the project is walk of lifeed.In this role, the Change Manager acts as the official interface between both the Activity Zones in the Process, and ultimately the legacy Archive. Stakeholder Involvement & Teamwork It has been recognized in the manufacturing industries that multi-function teams, established in a development process, reduces the likelihood of costly changes and production difficulties later on in the process by enabling design and manufacturing sections in the first place in the process. Conventionally, many building projects comprise a team of participants assembled specifically to facilitate the development of that single. Consequently, a complete project team rarely works together on more than one project, and, as Somerville & Stocks (1996) argue, this can negatively affect the assembled teams performance.In addition, many key contributors are identified and included too late in the process. Project success relies upon the right people having the right information at the right time. pro alert resounding of Phases through the adoption of a stakeholder view would ensure that appropriate participants (from each of the key functions) are consulted earlier in the Process than is traditionally the case. This, in itself, will not eliminate the problems associated with TOM working. However, the active involvem ent of all participants, especially in the early phases of a project, may subsequently help foster a team environment and encourage appropriate and timely communication and decision making.Feedback In addition to the direct teamwork problems associated with Toms, the ability to learn from experience is also hampered by the continual formation and break-up of project teams. both success and failure can offer important lessons for the future, yet the fragmented and competitive nature of the Construction industry prevents the benefits of shared best practice being utilizes. The Phase Review Process facilitates a essence by which project experiences can be recorded, throughout the Process, thereby informing later Phases and future projects. rivalrous advantage will come from how such experiences are acted upon. (shared knowledge may not automatically reduce the competitiveness of companies working in construction.This Process Protocol therefore proposes the creation, maintenance and use of a Legacy Archive acts as a central repository, or information-spine (Sheath et. Al. , 1996), for the information generated through each of the phases of the process. The subsequent increase in awareness, project to project, has the potential for reducing risk and improving performance which over time may ultimately meet Lathes expectations. Process Development Given the apparent lack of commonality in the contemporary understanding of the design and construction process, an attempt was made to produce a model of the process which could be debated and subsequently refined towards a generic means.The initial model was developed based upon existing descriptions of the design and construction process (inter alai Walker, 1989 Hughes, 1991), some case study data, and reviews of other published models (inter alai RIBS, 1980 Assassin, 1994 BAA, 1995) The DEFIED-O (Integration Definition language O for Function Modeling) process modeling technique was adopted, initially, as the most appropriate means of representing this process. The DEFIED-O technique basically represents a process as a sequence of activities, described by a verb followed by a noun. Each activity has associated inputs, outputs, controls and mechanisms. It is this technique that has been used successfully to represent processes such as Assassins (1995) Integrated create Process Model In developing a process model using the DEFIED-O technique, an initial stair is the establishment of the activities that will comprise the model. In preliminary interviews and workshop sessions with the projects industrial partners these activities were presented for preaching in the form of an Activity Hierarchy.However, initial reactions to this were poor, principally because such an approach did not facilitate communication of the process, either quickly or clearly. Moreover, it was found that the industrial partners to the project, at this stage, also preferred to concentrate on the general principles of th e process, in preference to the detail of the activities involved. This preference for principles was found to have a certain congruence with other models of manufacturing processes. Coopers discussion of the evolution of the stage-gate models in manufacturing (Cooper, 1994), and other (inter alai GAP (1990), Fissions) industrial models, demonstrate this. In such models the graphical representation of the process conveys its inherent reminisces.As Rousseau (1996) notes, such process models are an effective way to show how a process works. In their definition A process map consists of an X and a Y axis, which show process sequence (or time) and process participants, respectively. The horizontal X axis illustrates time in process and the undivided process activities or gates. The Y axis shows the departments or functions participating in the process (p. 444) Beyond this convention, there appears to be little formality in the method used to represent a process. Furthermore, it could be argued that the elated informality of the modeling process enhanced the contributions of the projects partner representatives.Through several workshop sessions, the model was revised and deliberated by the partner representatives. As Rousseau (1996) argues, this participative approach to design makes any new process easier to accept and use. In an industry with a need for change such an approach must be considered appropriate. Thus, through a process of gradatory refinement, progress was made towards an agreed version, the Process Protocol, which this paper presents. 6. The Process Protocol The draft Process Protocol Model is presented in Fig. . 1 . Essentially, the model breaks down the design and construction process into 10 distinct phases. These 10 phases are grouped into 4 broad stages, namely Pre-proetc, Pre-Construction, Construction and Post-construction.Pre-project Stage The Pre-project Phases relate to the strategic business considerations of any potential project whic h aims to address a clients need. Throughout the Pre-project Phases the clients need is progressively be and assessed with the aim of 1. Determining the need for a construction project solution, and 2. Securing outline financial authority to prompt to the Pre-Construction Phases. In currently acknowledged models of the design and construction process (inter alai RIBS, 1980 British Property Federation, 1983 Hughes, 1991 provides a house-to-house review), and recently published client-focused guides (CIRRI, 1995), this stage of a project is given scant consideration, when compared to the latter stages.However, the models assume that when draw close the Construction Industry, clients have already established the need. Whilst there is little evidence to suggest this is not the case, it would attend reasonable to assume that the knowledge possessed by tough alluding developers and consultants could assist any client in these early stages of a project. The problems associated with the translation of this need through the conventional briefing stage of design (Reilly, 1987) have the potential for substantial elimination via such an approach. Pre-Construction Stage With outline financial approval obtained, the Process progresses through to the Pre- Construction Phases where the defined clients need is developed into an appropriate design solution.Like many conventional models of the design process, the Pre- Construction Phases develop the design through a logical sequence, with the aim of levering approved production information. The Phase Review Process, however, adds the potential for the progressive fixing of the design, together with its concurrent development, within a formal, co-ordinate framework. Progressive mend should not be confused with design freeze, although to some this may be a desired aspect of the process. The major benefit of the fixity of design is the potential for improved communication and co-ordination between the projects participants as they pass through each Phase. Given the dynamic market conditions which influence any construction clients decisions, the need for flexibility must be addressed by the industry.At the end of the Pre-Construction Phases, the aim is to secure full financial authority to sound. Only upon such authority will the Construction Phase commence, and this decision will be easier to make where the extent of the works, and its associated risks can be readily understood. Construction Stage The Construction Phase is solely touch on with the production of the project solution. It is here that the full benefits of the co-ordination and communication earlier in the Process may be fully realized. Potentially, any changes in the clients requirements will be minimal, as the increased cost of change as the design progresses should be fully understood by the time on-site construction work begins.The hard gate that divides the Pre-Construction and Construction Phases should not prevent a Workplace a pproach to construction, and the associated delivery time benefits this brings. As with all activities in the process, where concurrency is possible, it can be accommodated. The hard and soft gates that signify Phase Reviews merely require that out front such an activity is carried out, approval is ranted. Post-construction Stage Upon completion of the Construction Phase, the Process Protocol continues into the Post-construction Phases which aim to continually monitor and manage the maintenance needs of the constructed facility. Again, the full involvement of facilities management specialists at the earlier stages of the process should make the enactment of such activities less problematic.The need for surveys of the completed property, for example, should be avoided as all records of the development of the facility should have been recorded by the projects Legacy Archive. Figure 6. 1 . The Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol Model 7. The Sub-processes Activity Zones T he earlier involvement of the projects participants, throughout the process is a significant development of the conventional approach to building. Traditionally, a construction projects participants are referred to by their professional or intellectual status. Ball (1988) demonstrates how this may be attributed to the inherent class relations associated with each of the professions and expert groups. As with all class distinctions, the effect that this basis for organizational structure in design and instruction has is division.A consequence of this traditional approach, by which even the more recent forms of contract procurement (design and build, management contracting, etc. ) are included, is the poor communication and coordination commonly associated with construction projects. The participants in the Process Protocol are referred to in terms of their special responsibilities, and are represented on the Y-axis of the Process Model. It is recognized that traditionally, project to project, organizational roles and responsibilities change, resulting in ambiguity and astonishment (Luck & Newcomer, 1996). By basing the enactment of the process upon the primary responsibility required, the scope for confusion 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 not serviceable but rather they are multi-functional and they represent structured sets of tasks and processes which guide and support work towards a common objective (for example to create an appropriate design solution). A single person or devoted can carry out an activity zone in small-projects but in large ND complex projects, an activity zone may consist of a complex network of people and between relevant functions and/or organizations. Since they are multi-functional, membership of the zones is determined by the specific project task and/or process.For ex ample Design trouble often has important input in the Production oversight and Facilities Management activity zones, amongst others and vice- versa. Of the activity zones associated with the model, not all will be discussed here. Most of the zones are self-explanatory. However, the role of the Process/Change Management and Development Management activity zones will be described, as they present a significant departure from the conventional view of the design and construction process. Development Management The Development Management activity zone is fundamentally the client/customer for the potential project. In the Protocol scenario, it is ultimately trustworthy for the success or failure of the project.Representing the major stakeholder in the process, it has an important role. It is via the brief prepared by the Development Management that the client/customers needs are presented and ultimately interpreted. The Development Management is the only constant player in the process. All other activity zones potentially consist of a dynamic membership, as the needs of the project develop throughout the process. The extent to which the other participants in the process, particularly the Process Management, have authority to proceed is delegated by the Development Management. It is they who will ultimately review the work of the projects participants and sanction progress or cessation.Development Management is answerable for creating and maintaining business focus throughout he project, which satisfies both relevant organizational and stakeholder objectives and constraints. For example, a proposed speculative office development needs to satisfy the developers objectives (say, return on capital) and constraints (say, available finance), as well as fulfilling other stakeholder considerations (say, compliance with prevailing planning concerns). Process / Change Management The Process and Change Management activity zones are essentially the interface between the Dev elopment Management and the other project participants. Process Management has a role independent of all other activity zones.A distinction must be dad between this conventional view of a project manager and the Process Management role. Process Management, as the title suggests, is concerned with the enactment of the process, rather than the project. Key to the success of each Phase in the process is the production of project deliverables (reports and documentation associated with each Phase). In this respect the Process Management is responsible for facilitating and co-ordination the participants required to produce the necessary deliverables. Acting as the Development Managements agent, it will ensure the enactment of each Phase as planned, culminating with the presentation of the