Total Construction Service
The
links between construction management (CM) and construction economics (CE) and theory have not yet been strongly forged. This may be one of the reasons why they have
not gained widespread acceptance as academic disciplines and are not
seen as distinct branches of management and economics respectively. Another reason may be that products and production, the focus of management and economic theories
respectively, are not the same as projects and project management in general, and
construction projects and CM in particular.
Management theories of production tend to be more product-based than process-based. The
emphasis is mainly on the range of methods and techniques available to improve the
efficiency with which products are delivered, although many of these products are
management decisions or plans. Processes are secondary, because they are bundled with the
production decision, and despite the appearance of diversity
in the range of
management theories, the approach
taken typically treats the firm as a ‘black box’ that turns inputs into outputs using a range of capabilities. These then are a product- based
set of theories.
There
are a number of economic concepts involved in
production theory. The important ones
include returns to scale, price elasticity of demand, elasticity of substitution between input factors, and technological change. Technological change has the three aspects of rate of
technical change, acceleration of technical change over time, and the rate of change of marginal products (of factors). These economic effects come from the underlying production
process, or processes, that firms choose between when making production decisions. The economic theory of production focuses on the input demand and output supply functions
under a technical constraint that describes a range of production processes available to a
firm.
In that case, is production theory relevant to CM? The delivery of a new building or construction project is clearly about producing something. A relationship between
CM
and the economic theory of production is plausible because both are concerned with
technology choices. However, production theory is complex. The economic theory of
production developed out of the classical concern with marginal productivities into a production function focused on substitutability of factors under a technological constraint.
Can
CM be reinterpreted in these terms? Would that improve industry performance? Can a
theory be founded
on the characteristics of the
industry?
A 2012 book by Milan Radosavljevic and John Bennett took on these questions. Their Construction Management Strategies: A Theory of Construction
Management proposed a theory of construction management to
identify actions which help construction projects and companies be efficient. They created a model of CM, using five clearly differentiated methods for the delivery of building and construction projects.
What they didn’t do was draw on the many theories of management or production
available rather wanting to base their ideas on construction industry
projects and practice. On one hand this seems to be an extreme case of exceptionalism - the construction is different from all other industries school of thought. However,
Radosavljevic and Bennett argue that construction actually is different, because it is
project-based and complex:
projects have a number of interacting teams where outcomes in the future depend on the number of involved teams, the quality of relationships between interacting teams and their performance variability. In addition there is also unpredictable interference which may arise from numerous external factors (p. 77).
The
aim was to provide a “rigorous theory” based on a “tool kit of concepts and relationships” to
improve the efficiency and quality of “construction products”. The distinction between the conventional approach
of CM, where contractors deliver projects, and the idea of companies producing a product is an important element in the thinking
behind the theory proposed. The
main
factors in project performance are seen to be communication, feedback lops, and how well established relationships are,
called internal
relationships, or not, called boundary relationships.
The core concepts used, and tightly defined, were:
- Construction products and processes
- Organizations
- Interactions and relationships, and
- Learning and performance.
Radosavljevic and Bennett defined CM as “taking
responsibility for the performance of a construction organization”, measured by efficiency, which is “inversely related to the waste caused by complexity and external interference
which prevent organizations
achieving their agreed
objectives”. Through a series of propositions about CM, CM teams (task groups) and related efficiency conditions they build a detailed description of construction
organizations, processes and management. This results in “the basic concepts used in the theory of CM in mathematical terms to provide effective measures of features of construction which have a crucial impact on CM decisions”. These are the six inherent difficulty indicators” (IDIs), which are the fundamental variables in their theory of CM and are used to determine
the most appropriate CM strategy. These IDIs are:
- Established relationships – consequential relationships between interacting teams that existed before the project started;
- Relationship fluctuation – differences between times during the project with and without established relationships between teams;
- Relationship quality – time teams have spent previously working together;
- Relationship configuration – the pattern of team interactions over the project (this is a quite complex indicator because it can vary greatly over time, i.e. during a project);
- Performance variability – team performance may not be consistent between projects;
- External interference – factors outside the control of the project managers.
Radosavljevic and Bennett discuss the implications of their theory of CM and the IDIs for clients,
design companies and construction companies and strategies. There are separate sections for
the different types of construction companies and specialist contractors. They describe:
…the practical implications of the theory of construction management for customers and construction companies. The most complete application of the theory which is also the approach that delivers the highest levels of efficiency is a total construction service … other approaches should be regarded as significant steps towards the greater efficiency provided by a total construction service (p. 229).
Total construction service is industrialised building, modelled on car manufacturers, with
an emphasis on reliability, quality and continuous improvement. Not surprisingly, the Japanese construction industry features in the discussion of this total
construction
service, with the Big Five contractors and the industrialised home builders given as prime
examples of what total service is and how
it is delivered.
This view might not find total industry agreement, many firms are quite comfortable with
current industry practices. To argue that “it is understandable to want to use a familiar approach but it ... is worth considering alternatives” (p. 229) rather glosses over the many issues associated with custom and practice that are deeply embedded in the construction industry. Not
everyone will be convinced by Radosavljevic and
Bennett’s method
and conclusions. Many of their ideas are adventurous in a field where much of the literature is cautious, and in places it is ambitious in its view of how the industry could be rather than harking back to some idea of past glories. The overall framework suggested for organizing
CM
research with its propositions and delivery strategies was an important and original
contribution. There are many statements, declarations, descriptions and indeed propositions that will not get universal agreement, but they made many good points
and took a refreshingly different perspective.
Radosavljevic, M. and Bennett, J. 2012. Construction Management Strategies: A Theory of Construction
Management,
Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.