Managing Change in Construction Projects E-Book

Sepani Senaratne

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 296

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Managing Change in Construction Projects: a knowledge-based approach offers a new perspective on construction project change by viewing the process of change management as a knowledge-intensive activity, where team members bring their tacit and explicit knowledge into the situation; share, create and capture this collective knowledge for future re-use in similar situations. Through this knowledge-based approach, construction teams can successfully resolve and learn from change events, leading to an overall improved performance of the industry. The book will make a significant contribution to our understanding of construction project change by offering new theoretical and practical insights and models grounded in results of case studies conducted within two collaborative construction project team settings. By demonstrating how the social construction of knowledge works in construction settings, the authors challenge the prevailing change management solutions based on 'hard' IT approaches. They put forward a balanced view that incorporates both IT-based and socially constructed approaches to effective management of construction project change. * helps construction managers to improve and learn through the process of construction project change * presents new theoretical models and offers practical guidelines * first research-based book to directly address project change from a knowledge-based perspective * draws on detailed studies with construction companies, including Ballast Construction and Kier Construction * encourages a move from the information driven, process integrated approach to a knowledge-based view

Leseprobe

Contents

About the Authors

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Need for the Investigation

1.3 Questions to Research

1.4 Summary and Link

Chapter 2 Key Issues from the Literature

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Construction Project Environment

2.2.1 Nature of construction

2.2.2 Construction project team

2.2.3 Movement towards collaborative team approaches

2.2.4 Construction teamwork issues

2.3 Construction Project Change Management

2.3.1 Change management in general

2.3.2 Nature of construction project change

2.3.3 Managing project change as a problem-solving process

2.3.4 Causes of construction project change

2.3.5 Effects of construction project change

2.3.6 Context of construction project change

2.3.7 Construction project change management approaches

2.4 Knowledge Management Perspective

2.4.1 Evolution of knowledge-based theories

2.4.2 Knowledge-based views in the construction literature

2.5 Role of Knowledge During Reactive Change Process

2.5.1 Properties of knowledge during reactive change process

2.5.2 Intra-project knowledge creation via reactive change processes

2.5.3 Inter-project knowledge transfer via reactive change process

2.6 Towards a Knowledge-Based Reactive Change Process

2.7 Summary and Link

Chapter 3 Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Case Study Research Design

3.2.1 Unit of analysis

3.2.2 Case screening and selection

3.3 Data Collection Process

3.3.1 Selection of data collection techniques

3.3.2 Interview structure

3.3.3 Interview process

3.4 Data Analysis Process

3.5 Summary and Link

Chapter 4 Case Study Results

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Case Study: Project A

4.2.1 Case study description

4.2.2 Contextual factors of change

4.2.3 Knowledge properties during change

4.2.4 Knowledge identification and utilisation during change

4.2.5 Intra-project knowledge creation during change

4.2.6 Inter-project knowledge transfer via change

4.3 Case Study: Project B

4.3.1 Case study description

4.3.2 Contextual factors of change

4.3.3 Knowledge properties during change

4.3.4 Knowledge identification and utilisation during change

4.3.5 Intra-project knowledge creation during change

4.3.6 Inter-project knowledge transfer via change

4.4 Summary and Link

Chapter 5 Cross-Case Analysis

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Contextual Factors of Change: P1 Discussion

5.3 Knowledge Properties During Change: P2 Discussion

5.4 Knowledge Identification and Utilisation During Change: P3 Discussion

5.5 Intra-Project Knowledge Creation During Change: P4 Discussion

5.6 Inter-Project Knowledge Transfer During Change: P5 Discussion

5.7 Summary and Link

Chapter 6 Conclusions

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Summary of Propositions

6.2.1 Summary of proposition P1

6.2.2 Summary of proposition P2

6.2.3 Summary of proposition P3

6.2.4 Summary of proposition P4

6.2.5 Summary of proposition P5

6.3 Comment on the Conceptual Model

6.4 Conclusions about the Overall Research Problem

6.5 Implications for Theory

6.5.1 Theory of knowledge-based reactive change process

6.6 Implications for Practice

Appendix A Interview Guidelines

Appendix B Example of an Interview Transcript

Appendix C Comparison Between Propositions and Codes

References

Index

Managing Change in Construction Projects

A Knowledge-Based Approach

This edition first published 2011 © 2011 by Sepani Senaratne and Martin Sexton

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing programme has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offices9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK2121 State Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50014-8300, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of the authors to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Senaratne, Sepani.

Managing change in construction projects : a knowledge-based approach / Sepani Senaratne & Martin Sexton.

p. cm. – (Innovation in the built environment)

Includes index.

ISBN 978-1-4443-3515-6

1. Building–Superintendence. 2. Building–Information services. I. Sexton, Martin, 1966-II. Title.

TH438.S445 2011

690.068–dc22

2010030546

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDF (9781444392401); ePub (9781444392418)

About the Authors

Dr Sepani Senaratne, BSc (Hons) in QS, PhD

Sepani Senaratne is a senior lecturer at the department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. She is the Research Director of the department’s research unit – Building Economics and Management Research Unit (BEMRU) and the main contact from the department for the institutional membership of the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB). Her main research area includes knowledge management within construction project settings, construction project teams and their learning processes. She has published nearly 40 journal and conference papers and presented papers at several international forums.

Professor Martin Sexton, BSc, MSc, PhD

Martin Sexton is a professor in Construction Management and Innovation at the University of Reading. His research interests range across the organization and management of construction – with a particular focus on understanding the nature and process of innovation at sector, company and project levels. Martin is the Joint Co-ordinator of the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) Working Commission 65 in the Organisation and Management of Construction. He has published widely including 3 books and over 150 journal and conference papers.

1

Introduction

1.1 Background

Construction projects often experience delays, cost overruns and non-conformance to quality, all of which lead to poor performance and dissatisfied parties (see, e.g., Latham, 1994; Egan, 1998). Egan (1998, p. 8), for example, laments that ‘more than a third of major clients are dissatisfied with contractors’ performance in keeping to the quoted price and to time, resolving defects, and delivering a final product of the required quality. … [and] … more than a third of major clients are dissatisfied with consultants’ performance in coordinating teams, in design and innovation, in providing a speedy and reliable service and in providing value for money.’ Hence an understanding of the driving forces behind such problems is a priority if ways are to be developed to overcome them and to improve the performance of the industry.

Unexpected change occurring within the design and construction phases can hinder project success to a significant extent (CII-Construction Industry Institute, 1994; CIRIA, 2001). CIRIA (2001, p. 10) defines construction project change as ‘an alteration or a modification to the pre-existing conditions, assumptions or requirements.’ These project changes are the additions, deletions or revisions within the scope of a project contract that cause an adjustment to contract price, contract time (CII, 1994) and/or quality.

Changes of this nature can directly result in a number of problems within construction projects, especially time overruns, cost overruns and quality deviations. The major cost due to change is the cost of rework, which can amount to 10–15% of the contract value (Love and Li, 2000). Further, the indirect effects of change can be considerable. Examples of indirect effects are loss of productivity, and interruption to workflows and cash flows. These effects, in turn, may lead to low morale and increased claims and disputes between project parties (Bower, 2000). The appropriate management of change is thus essential to the minimisation of the disruptive effects of unexpected change in construction projects. Effective change management allows change to take place in a more controlled way so that viable alternatives are identified and developed, and the impact is better defined before implementation.

The impact of change increases when the project moves from the design to the construction stage (CIRIA, 2001). Lawson (1997), when explaining the design process, states that many components of the design problem do not emerge until some attempt is being made to generate solutions. Design is thus full of uncertainties, both about objectives and their priorities. Even though later changes can be reduced significantly by proactive change management approaches, they are still common in the construction phase due to these uncertainties and incomplete project information. The later a change is introduced, the more disruption and cost will be incurred.

Project change can be triggered from internal or external causes. The external causes can emerge from wider business sector and inter-organisational level forces. However, many causes of project changes are internal and are generated from the intra-project environment, which can be either design- or construction-generated (Love et al., 1999). The root of these project-level causes (such as errors, omissions and poor information) can be traced back to the skills and the knowledge of project participants and how these are combined to manage construction projects (Tombesi, 2000). As Manavazhi (2004) notes, construction practitioners assess change and rework largely based on intuition sharpened by many years of experience. Hence, change management needs to address these key issues that trigger project changes.

In construction projects, problem-solving often takes place in team environments (Anumba et al., 2001; Gunasekaran and Love, 1998). The manner, therefore, in which the construction project team-members are integrated and co-ordinated is important (Cox and Townsend, 1997). For example, according to Constructing Excellence (2004, p. 4) ‘construction is a collaborative activity – only by pooling the knowledge and experience of many people can buildings meet the needs of today, let alone tomorrow. But simply bringing people together does not necessarily ensure they will function effectively as a team.’ Construction participants (e.g. clients, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, contractors and suppliers) are required to work effectively as a team to deliver projects successfully. This requirement has significant implications for the management of project change: effective project change management does not rely solely on the role of a project manager; rather, it requires appropriate engagement from all relevant team members. Studies in construction reveal that teamwork is significantly determined by contractual arrangements (see, e.g., Cornick and Mather, 1999). The emergence of collaborative practice in the construction industry, which includes new team approaches such as design and build (D&B), project management, partnering and other partnership arrangements provide opportunities to improve teamworking (Muir and Rance, 1995). There is a dearth of literature, however, on the management of project change within such collaborative team settings.

In summary, the effective management of change is a necessity to minimise the disruptive effects of change in construction projects. Change during the construction phase is more disruptive and costly than change during the design phase. There is a deficiency of research on the management of change during the construction phase in collaborative team environments. The literature review (see Chapter 2) identifies that managing team knowledge is of significant importance for the effective management of project change. However, the problem with this literature is its emphasis on introducing various tools and techniques to systemise the change process without properly understanding the key roles that the knowledge and experience of the participants play in managing projects. The need for this understanding is the point of departure for this book. The next section justifies this argument while briefly explaining the conceptual issues and gaps within the literature.

1.2 Need for the Investigation

Previous approaches to construction project change management adopt a variety of different perspectives. CII (1994) and CIRIA (2001), for example, take a general change management perspective by providing best practice guidelines on project change management. These guidelines are based on five principles: anticipate change; recognise change; evaluate change; resolve change; and learn from change. These principles aim to mitigate the disruptive effects of changes by suggesting a change management framework established at the start of the project. Love et al. (1999) take a more technical perspective by addressing the rework effects of project change. Their work confirms the complexity and the interdependence of project changes with the identification of various causes and effects of project changes. Other studies have approached project change from a process management perspective. Kagioglou et al. (2000), for example, introduce a separate change management process within the generic design and construction process protocol.

Drawing from the previous construction project change literature, it is evident that problem-solving has been viewed essentially as an information-processing activity rather than a knowledge-intensive activity (see, e.g., Winch, 2002). The information-processing perspective on organisation originates from the work of Simon (1957) and Galbraith (1974), which asserts that the key feature of organisation is to process information to enable managers to make better decisions. The assumption underpinning this perspective is that organisations should match their information-processing activities to their information needs (see, e.g., Daft and Lengal, 1986). However, empirical research has found that information processing across organisation boundaries presents significant barriers to effectiveness. Successful project delivery requires the development and application of a wide range of specialist knowledge located in different actors, and that actors mutually ‘know’ how their roles fit with each other. This cognitive dimension cannot be overcome by information processing alone. The limitation of the information-processing view has stimulated the development of an alternative theory of the firm, which recognises that ‘knowledge is the key asset’ and ‘knowing is the key process’, in delivering organisations’ competitive advantage. On the ‘knowledge as an asset’ perspective knowledge is often viewed as an objectively definable commodity, which can be managed and controlled by certain mechanisms. For ‘knowing as a process’ views, knowledge is a social construct, developed, transmitted and maintained in social situations. These knowledge-based views of the firm (Grant, 1996a, 1996b; Spender, 1996; Empson, 2001) open new avenues to approach effective project change management in construction.

The construction literature that addresses knowledge management, learning and innovation, shows a trend towards identifying construction problem-solving as a knowledge-intensive activity. Egbu et al. (2003), for example, identify project problem situations as a key trigger of knowledge production in construction. Winch (2002) explains that knowledge and learning are generated in solving problems that involve team discussions and dialogues during the construction process. For such problem-solving to become true innovation, the solutions reached for particular problems should be learned, codified and applied in future projects (Sexton and Barrett, 2003; Lu and Sexton, 2009). Similarly, other learning and innovation literature in construction identifies the importance of integrating project experience to the organisational business processes, to generate learning and innovation (see, e.g., Barlow and Jashapara, 1998; Gann and Salter, 2000). However, the extant knowledge-based construction literature arguably does not provide an in-depth understanding of the role of knowledge during construction problem-solving, especially during managing change.

To this end, the general knowledge management literature aids in understanding the fuller role of knowledge during problem situations that is facilitated by team interactions. Accordingly, during shared activities, such as problem-solving, individuals bring various forms of knowledge that could be shared and converted into new knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Leonard and Sensiper, 1998). When considering team knowledge during change events, the theory of knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) shows how a team can advance knowledge and learning through team interactions. However, as Snowden (2002) argues, tacit knowledge need not necessarily go through a costly codification process to create new knowledge. This understanding on knowledge creation offers significant contributions in understanding the role of knowledge during shared activities. In order for knowledge to be useful it needs to pass from project to organisation level, and then back to parallel and subsequent projects. This inter-project learning can emerge when team knowledge is stored and transferred within the organisation for re-use in future projects.

In summary, this book identifies the problem of construction projects with disruptive effects due to unplanned changes. Previous approaches to managing project change adopt an information-processing view, without appreciating the significant role of knowledge in managing change. This led to the exploration of the role of knowledge during team interaction as explained in the knowledge management literature. From this knowledge-based perspective of managing project change, the research problem is articulated below.

1.3 Questions to Research

The aim of this book is to explore the role of knowledge during the ‘management of unplanned change in the construction phase within collaborative team settings’ (referred to in this research as ‘reactive change process’). This aim is progressively developed through the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the key contextual factors of the reactive change process?

RQ2: What are the properties of knowledge that the project team members use in the reactive change process?

RQ3: How does the project team identify and utilise this knowledge during the reactive change process?

RQ4: How does the knowledge that the project team use in the reactive change process, interact and form new knowledge?

RQ5: How is the knowledge that is created through the reactive change process, transferred and disseminated within the multiple organisations for potential re-use in future projects?

1.4 Summary and Link

This chapter has set out the background and principal focus for this book. The next chapter will contextualise the outlined research issues within the relevant general and construction-specific change management literature.

2

Key Issues from the Literature

2.1 Introduction

Chapter 1 introduced the principal purpose of this book. The aim of this chapter is to identify key issues in the literature in order to develop a clear understanding of the research problem. The chapter is structured as follows:

First, the construction project environment is explained in order to understand the broad context within which projects are located. The discussion starts by explaining the unique characteristics of construction. Then, the construction project team is described. The emerging collaborative team approach in construction is subsequently discussed. Finally, teamwork issues in construction settings are articulated (see Section 2.2).Second, the core research area of this book, construction project change management, is addressed. The discussion starts with the identification of general change management issues before moving on to construction project change, which is explained in terms of its nature, process, causes, effects, context and approaches (see Section 2.3).Third, to understand project change process as a knowledge-processing activity, the chapter introduces a knowledge management perspective. This is approached by explaining the evolution of knowledge-based theories and knowledge-based views in the construction literature (see Section 2.4).Fourth, the role of knowledge during construction project change is described in terms of properties of knowledge, knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and their influencing factors (see Section 2.5).Finally, the research problem statement is set out by integrating the arguments from the literature to offer a knowledge-based project change process (see Section 2.6).

2.2 Construction Project Environment

2.2.1 Nature of construction

The construction project environment is generally viewed as being distinctive from other sectors due to a number of unique characteristics. These characteristics can be grouped into six areas. First, the construction product is characterised by factors such as immobility, complexity, durability, low technology and high cost (Nam and Tatum, 1988), which makes it different and more complex compared with other products; for example, high-technology manufacturing products.

Second, a construction project is generally custom-built to a client’s bespoke needs, making it unique and one-off (Cornick and Mather, 1999; Gann and Salter, 2000). Construction projects, even though they are often unique in the specific combination of client, supplier firms, location, time and the social, economic and political environment, can be generic in terms of particular processes. For example, the generic design and construction process protocol (Kagioglou et al., 2000) provides a range of processes that are generic to a construction project. Thus, despite the unique nature of construction projects, similar processes provide scope to deliver projects in a consistent way and to learn from one project to another.

Third, construction projects are generally delivered by temporary organisations, where a new team is formed for each building. The implication of this transitory nature is that ‘the management of innovation is complicated by the discontinuous nature of project-based production processes, in which there are often broken learning and feedback loops’ (Gann and Salter, 1998, p. 435). Project-based firms thus often lack the organisational mechanisms for the knowledge acquired in one project to be transferred and used by other projects (Prencipe and Tell, 2001; Lu and Sexton, 2009). However, emergence of collaborative arrangements such as partnering (discussed in Section 2.2.3) may provide long-term learning curves within construction (Black et al., 2000).

Fourth, a construction project consists of team members who come from different backgrounds and cultures, to form a ‘multiple organisation’ (Cornick and Mather, 1999). Therefore, construction project settings not only differ from permanent settings but also from other project-based settings where teams are formed by drawing individuals from a single company. In construction, as Bresnen et al. (2003) point out, discontinuities are added by the fragmentation of the construction project team into different professional disciplines. A construction project team, for example, can be made up of architects, contractors, suppliers and financiers. The differences between parties encourage them to prioritise their own interests to the detriment of the overall project interest and, in so doing, compete against each other. The construction industry, as a consequence, is often characterised by its deep-rooted adversarial culture (Gil et al., 2001), which works against successful teamworking.

Fifth, the construction industry is fragmented, with a large number of firms that are geographically distributed (Latham, 1994). The project team frequently becomes a virtual team, as it has to work together from many different locations, over the life of a project. Beyond the immediate project team, construction firms need to further manage networks of suppliers, customers and regulatory bodies, as knowledge is differentiated and distributed within, and across, these supply networks (Gann and Salter, 1998).

Sixth, there is a growing body of knowledge that emphasises the knowledge-intensive nature of construction. Lu and Sexton (2009) note the knowledge intensification of construction in line with the broad trend towards knowledge economies. This intensification, they argue, is indicated by the sharp and ongoing rise in the scale and scope of knowledge-intensive professional service firms.

On the whole, the long-established nature of construction, with characteristics such as complex products, one-off nature, temporary multiple organisational settings, adversarial cultures and fragmentation, can significantly hinder learning and knowledge advancement within the industry (the issue of learning and knowledge dissemination in construction is addressed further in Section 2.4.2). At a project level, knowledge and learning are very much affected by the activities of project team members.

The manner in which the construction project team members are integrated and co-ordinated is, therefore, important (Cox and Townsend, 1997). According to Constructing Excellence (2004, p. 4), for example, ‘construction is a collaborative activity – only by pooling the knowledge and experience of many people can buildings meet the needs of today, let alone tomorrow. But simply bringing people together does not necessarily ensure they will function effectively as a team.’ Construction participants (e.g. clients, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, contractors and suppliers) are required to work effectively as a team to deliver projects successfully. Accordingly, understanding the nature of the construction team and the issues that can result from construction teamworking is important and is discussed in the next section.

2.2.2 Construction project team

A review of the general literature on teams and groups reveals a lack of consensus on a single definition of a ‘team’ or a ‘group’. According to Fishers et al. (1997), there are two categories of authors: those who use the terms ‘team’ and ‘group’ interchangeably and imply that the ‘work team’ is similar to the ‘work group’; and those who view the ‘team’ as a ‘group’, but with something extra. This distinction between group and team can be explained through the following definitions. A ‘group’ is any number of individuals who interact with one another, are psychologically aware of one another, and perceive themselves to be a group (Schein 1970, cited in Fisher et al., 1997). Conversely, a ‘team’ is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993a, 1993b). Thus, a ‘team’ is essentially a ‘group’, but with additional characteristics such as complementary skills, mutual accountability and commitment.

In construction, since members from different backgrounds with complementary skills need to work together towards the project goals and are accountable for their individual tasks, they can be regarded as a team, as opposed to a group. Cornick and Mather (1999) compare and contrast a construction team with an ideal team (such as a sports team): although the construction team is committed to a common purpose, which is determined by the client, they differ from an ideal team, as they have a vested interest in their own firm, which may or not be the same as the overall project interest. Further, in construction the team composition is generally determined by technical and financial considerations rather than teamworking abilities. Above all, the method of working in construction projects is determined by contractual conditions, which might promote or hinder a committed approach and mutual accountability. A recent study confirms that construction project teams have these features, with the following definition: ‘the construction team is a collection of two or more people with complementary skills, who come from different disciplines and organizations, to perform a common objective, but with individual objectives and, operating from different locations with multiple reporting relationships, whose accountability and leadership are significantly governed by the contractual arrangements’ (Senaratne and Hupuarachchi, 2009, p. 223). With this emphasis on contractual conditions in construction settings, the next section explores procurement arrangements and their relationship to teamworking.

2.2.3 Movement towards collaborative team approaches

As Constructing Excellence (2004) proposes, to improve construction teamwork the projects need to move away from the traditional adversarial culture and build a team culture that includes shared vision, joint responsibilities, openness, mutual trust and regular reviews. Muir and Rance (1995) explain the emergence of collaborative practice in the construction industry, which includes new team approaches such as design and build, project management, partnering and other partnership arrangements.

Among these new team approaches, partnering is becoming popular as a means of achieving ‘collaborative’ and ‘teamwork’ approaches to solve construction industry problems (see, e.g., Black et al., 2000; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000; Humphreys et al., 2003). Partnering is defined as ‘a management approach used by two or more organisations to achieve specific business objectives by maximising the effectiveness of each participant’s resources. The approach is based on mutual objectives, an agreed method for problem resolution, and an active search for continuous measurable improvements’ (Reading Construction Forum, 1995, p. 2). Partnering can be applied with most procurement methods in use, and can be either project partnering used in one-off projects or strategic partnering used as long-term arrangements between clients, contractors, consultants, and even with the subcontractors and suppliers down the supply chain. Partnering arrangements provide opportunities for long-term team learning and effective sharing of knowledge between the parties.

Other integrative or collaborative approaches, as Baiden et al. (2006) identify, include design-and-build procurement paths. In these arrangements, contractors and consultants form a single organisation, known as a design-and-build firm. Due to features such as single point responsibility, improved project performance and better client satisfaction, this method has become popular in the UK construction industry (Akintoye, 1994). The design-and-build integrated approach not only provides opportunities to leverage speciality knowledge of contractors but also enables joint creation of new knowledge (Gil et al., 2001).

On the whole, the above-explained team approaches in construction have been introduced to overcome the adversarial culture in construction (Latham, 1994). However, empirical studies repeatedly show that the adversarial culture itself has been the barrier to gaining effective benefits from such approaches. Even though the collaborative approaches provide opportunities to increase team interaction, in order to gain real benefits of collaborative arrangements, an open team environment against the traditional adversarial environment needs to be explicitly established (Moore and Dainty, 1999, 2001; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000; Gil et al., 2001). Baiden et al. (2006) use the term ‘integrated construction project team’ to describe this type of collaboration in construction projects. Hence, to achieve an integrated construction project team, effective teamworking is a recurring issue despite the emergence of collaborative arrangements in construction. The next section captures these teamwork issues related to construction.

2.2.4 Construction teamwork issues

Teamwork in construction starts with the forming of a project team (Busseri and Palmer, 2000). From this point, as Adair (1986) explains, the team faces issues such as defining project goals against individual goals and clarifying team roles including leadership and client roles. The project-based nature of construction projects disrupts the team development process. Although the construction team undergoes the forming, storming, norming stages of Tuckman’s (1965) model, when the team comes to its performing level at the end of a project, the team often has to disband (Cornick and Mather, 1999). Project-based teams thus lack further opportunities to improve as a team and they have to go through a new ‘learning curve’ at the beginning of each project.

In general, teamwork studies in construction have looked into various factors that affect team performance, such as team leadership (Cheung et al., 2001), team culture (Moore and Dainty, 1999), team communication (Perry and Sanderson, 1998), team evaluation (Busseri and Palmer, 2000), team members’ participation (Leung et al., 2004) and team design factors (Ahmad and Sein, 1997). However, the key factors that contribute to team performance are problem-solving and decision-making (Guzzo and Salas, 1995).

In construction projects, problem-solving often takes place in a team environment (Anumba et al., 2001; Gunasekaran and Love, 1998). Recent construction research has focused largely on information technology (IT)-enabled collaboration systems to support team problem-solving environments in construction projects. Examples of these systems include: ADePT – Analytical Design Planning Technique (Austin et al., 2002); CONSCOM – a decision-support software tool for construction scheduling and change order management (Karim and Adeli, 1999); HYCON – a virtual prototyping system to aid at the conceptual design stage (Zhang et al., 2004); and CLEVER – Cross-sectoral Learning in the Virtual Enterprise (Al-Ghassani et al., 2004). A detailed account of IT-enabled collaborative arrangements developed by various research projects is given in Kamara et al. (2000). Other hard approaches include rational models such as fuzzy-based systems (Yang et al., 2001) and multi-agent systems (Anumba et al., 2001) to support collaborative decision-making. However, with the complexity and messiness of construction project environments, the capability of these hard methods to capture soft issues and the applicability of these research studies in practice are major concerns (Barrett and Barrett, 2003). In fact, several studies have identified that IT-enabled collaborative environments alone are insufficient for problem-solving (see, e.g., Ingirige, 2004; Lurey and Raisinghani, 2001).

Ingirige (2004) explored the use of IT in knowledge sharing mechanisms and revealed that IT alone cannot deliver success. Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) stress that despite technology playing an important role in connecting virtual teams who are separated across space, time and/or organisational boundaries, technology alone is insufficient and face-to-face interactions are still essential to promote effective teamworking. In fact, Maznevski and Chudoba (2000) show that a rhythmic temporal pattern of interaction incidents can be developed within virtual teams by regular face-to-face meetings. Similarly, Busseri and Palmer (2000) note that team meetings are an important platform for team communication and solving project problems. Thus, understanding soft aspects of problem-solving enabled by team interactions is important before devising IT communication systems. Li and Love (1998, p. 721) confirm this when they state, ‘current research in construction problem-solving has been focused heavily on developing decision aids, innovative techniques and methods for construction professionals to formulate and solve problems. There is very little research that has been done in understanding construction problem-solving as a cognitive process.’

The importance of addressing soft issues in problem situations, which arise especially through project changes, has been identified in the literature. For example, CIRIA (2001) argues that the soft issues of project change management, which cannot be captured by hard tools and methodologies, are of significant importance. Wu et al. (2004) explain that due to the complexity of change orders and the uncertain nature of the interaction among them, a simple statistical summation is often unable to describe fully the characteristics influencing change orders. Moore and Dainty (1999, 2001) stress that the adversarial cultures and communication issues within the construction industry affect the effectiveness of managing change and, therefore, team issues need rethinking. In their study on the project team, Sommerville and Dalziel (1998) conclude that the essential factors for effective teamworking in construction are related to participants’ knowledge and the activities connected with problem-solving and team interactions. This study attempts to understand these soft issues, in essence the team interactions and participants’ knowledge flows during problem situations, specifically during reactive change situations in projects.

Unexpected changes generally become the basis of a problem within a project (Cornick and Mather, 1999). As established in the background section in Chapter 1, project changes are the most common source of disruption, disagreements, dissatisfaction and even litigation among participants in construction projects (CII, 1994). Therefore, major problem-solving activities within construction projects can be identified as ‘managing change situations’. Before addressing the team interaction processes and participants’ knowledge flows during change situations, the next section explores the project change management process based on previous research studies.

2.3 Construction Project Change Management

2.3.1 Change management in general

Change, as described in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, is the act or an instance of making or becoming different, an alteration or a modification. This is a very broad definition of change. Change at the organisational level has been extensively researched within the organisational change and organisational design literature. Organisational change can take many forms, ranging from globalisation to redesigning of firms through to changes in office administrative processes. Planned organisational change is distinguished from the change that comes about by accident or by impulse or that might be forced on an organisation (Burnes, 2000). Lewin’s (1951) three-step planned change model – unfreezing, moving, freezing – provides a general framework to understanding the process of planned organisational change. However, later emergent approaches to change processes argue that change cannot be managed through such linear steps and stress the unpredictable nature of change (see, e.g., Mintzberg and Waters, 1982).

Organisational change studies (see, e.g., Weick and Quinn, 1999) describe the distinction between ‘continuous, evolving and incremental’ and ‘episodic, discontinuous and intermittent’ changes. This distinction between continuous versus episodic change exists in organisational change research in different ways – such as incremental versus radical, first-order versus second-order, and convergence versus divergence (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Weick and Quinn, 1999). At a project level, the ‘design development’ can signify the continuous change type whereas the episodic change type can occur at any stage, especially during the construction phase. Organisational inertia (Weick and Quinn, 1999), which is the inability of organisations to change as rapidly as the environment, is identified as a key concept that drives episodic change. Thus, by being responsive to the environment, construction firms can reduce the need for episodic change.