Editorial
Volume 14 Number 2 of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management has a collection of papers covering issues such as partnering,learning, technology readiness of managers and delays. In addition, the issue of“considerate construction” attracted my attention as it was a topic that I had not considered before. The remaining paper on “rich picture diagrams’ as a means of presenting data was also new to me. The six papers have three from the UK, two from Malaysia and one from Norway. A total of 15 authors contributed with four papers having two authors, one having three authors and one having four authors.
Swan and Khalfan address issues relating to “partnering” in the public sector. They see as an impediment the difficulties arising from the setting of mutual objectives between the partners. The authors analyse partnering reports from the Northwest (of England, not the UK) and identify what objectives have been selected and the reasons behind these. The public sector has been slow to embrace partnering, bedevilled as it is by the need for public accountability. The European Construction Institute’s reports “Partnering in the public sector” and “Partnering in the social housing sector”are relevant to these issues.
Glass and Simmonds introduce us to the term “considerate construction”. Considerate constructors are those who have care and consideration for the community as they go about the business of constructing. Too often, the authors argue that the intrusion of contractors into, particularly, a residential community, is the intrusion of unwelcome and uninvited guests. The authors use the case studies from the Southeast of the UK to study current practices and report on these practices and the high variability between the practices.
As originally a refugee from the swashbuckling, no-problem-is-unsolvable,production-rates-rule world of contracting, I must confess this paper made me think, but age could be a factor in that.
Brønn and Lê address the important issue of learning and the authors wish to transfer learning across large construction projects. The authors argue the benefits of learning and examine the factors involved, and based on this they produce a framework for diagnosing an organisation’s learning characteristics. The framework refers both to structure and culture. Learning is important. It is a subject that has attracted many researchers and this is the latest contribution.
I happened to come across a paper by an academic from San Francisco named Higgins who produced interesting data which claimed to show that in the first five years of employment 98 per cent of the employees had the ability to learn but after 18+ years of employment only 2 per cent had the ability. He called this “unlearning”. If he is correct, then steps are needed to keep the inquisitiveness of employees sharp. It is also the argument for refreshing and regenerating the workforce. It also explains why as academics we are fortunate to have around us a cohort of eager and keen young PhD students who provide the new ideas to the aging academics. I’ve long regarded the PhD students as the bubbling cauldron of intellectual fervour in the academic system.
Sutrisna and Barrett introduce us to the concept of rich picture diagrams(RPD) to be used for the purpose of modelling case studies and capturing the“richness” of the data. I’m not yet sure there is a clear definition as to what “rich” means and I’m presuming it encompasses data and information from many sources. The author demonstrates the use of RPD by using case studies.
Jaafar, Ramayah, Abdul Aziz and Saad have been assessing the technology readiness of managers in Malaysia construction firms. The authors use a Technology Readiness Index previously developed to assess the propensity of staff to embrace and use technology for accomplishing their goals at home and in work. Their findings are based on 400 questionnaires and are to be used in steering Malaysia into the technology era. This is a disciplined approach to the issue of such widespread development that I haven’t come across before, so it is interesting.
Alaghbari, Kadir and Salim return us to one of our perennial and recurring topics – delays. The subject of delays has been studied many times and reasons for delays explained. Either the world doesn’t learn or there are new reasons but the constant seems to be that there is always delays. While there are delays they are worth examining to determine if we can get it better next time. The authors have used a questionnaire based on 31 factors. The resulting data has been ranked and the means of correcting the underlying cause examined. The biggest cause of delays in Malaysia is financial difficulties, and the second is co-ordination problems. I’m willing to guess that there will be future papers with similar results. We need the academic community to address how this is corrected.
Ronald McCaffer
