Editorial
Article Type: Editorial From: Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Volume 15, Issue 6
ECAM Vol. 15 No. 6 is another rich and varied edition. The topics include company strategy, sustainable evaluation practices, barriers to partnering, downtime of construction plant, construction and its impact on working couples and measuring organisational learning.
Encouragingly there is evidence of a more varied approach to research methodology with three papers based on surveys, one on “action research”and two on face-to-face interviews. Action research and face-to-face interviews should get the researchers closer to the practitioners. My belief is the more real interaction with practitioners the more effective the research will be. I am uncertain that surveys can deliver to the same degree.
Also three papers make clear their next step on how to take forward their research into practice. This is useful and I am confident the authors will follow through. More research needs to be implemented to establish the value of research effort. Research that is valued will attract more attention from academics and more support and funding from sponsors.
The six papers in this edition have taken 12 authors to produce, with all six papers having two authors. This is a very rare pattern of authorship. One paper on construction management strategy comes from two institutions and one on construction downtime by an author from industry and an academic.
As ever ECAM Vol. 15 No. 6 draws on the international community with two authors from the USA, two from UK, one from Sweden with the co-author being a UK national based in Sweden, two from Thailand, two from Australia and two from Malawi.
The papers in this edition are as follows.
Anikeeff and Sriram offer us an insight into creating a construction management strategy and measuring the resulting developer performance. Their strategy is directed towards developers and begins with the question whether developers should include construction as part of the firm or outsource it. It is interesting that these authors are from business schools and the vast majority of our authors are from construction schools. The difference being that our construction academics with their hearts in construction would probably have started from the perspective of a construction company and asked the question should the construction company encompass development to feed the main business of construction. So we are delighted to see this different perspective. Based on a survey of 80 real estate agents and the researchers offer comments and observations. One interesting point is that the smaller developers who outsource construction out performed, as companies, those that did construction in-house.
Essa and Fortune are in the growing research field of sustainability and this paper examined the pre-construction evaluation practices of sustainable housing in the UK. A UK government scheme requires a rating of “very good”for Eco Homes before a grant is available and this policy is at the heart of social housing projects. The researchers surveyed 600 quantity surveyors,Housing Associations and architectural organisations to study project price forecasting and the evaluation of sustainability at the feasibility stage of social housing projects. The data indicates that in this type of project environmental aspects were more dominant than economic or social benefits. They identified the need to develop an aid for practitioners in such evaluations. Hopefully these researchers will produce this aid.
Eriksson, Nilsson and Atkin address the barriers to partnering arising from cultural and organisational aspects. Based on interviews with eight clients and a survey of 87, the conclusions are that the clients favour greater interaction with the other actors in a project. However this does not alter their approach to procurement through competitive bidding. The researchers conclude that there may not be enough incentive for clients to, in effect, change their practices.
This resonates with a study we conducted some years ago when the views of 100 estates directors for universities were surveyed. Asked why they remained with traditional procurement routes the most common reply was that they would not be criticised for a traditional approach but if any “new” approach to procurement went wrong then the “director” would get the blame. This was at a time when the common mantra was “the client is king” and every need must be serviced. Our view was that there was a need for some competence appraisal of clients who, in most cases, desperately need professional advice but many are not capable of understanding the implications of such advice. We should have a new research topic – the competence of clients. We need them rated and ranked and a tabulation of the advice required against each ranking.
Prasertrungruang and Hadikusumo examine the downtime of construction plant used by contractors in Thailand. The source of their data was face-to-face interviews with five contractors. They argue that there are “influential factors” that cause downtime, but equally important are the dynamics of the use of the equipment. Using simulation to demonstrate their conclusion they propose several policies to improve performance. We look forward to a later paper describing the effectiveness of these policies in practice.
Lingard and Francis pursue the eradication of gender inequality in the construction industry. They argue that such studies need to be conducted at a couple-level analysis. The reason being that couples lead linked-lives and coping with working hours is a linked issue. The way to solve the issues raised is to develop adaptive strategies. However the evidence is that the failure to provide regular and reasonable working hours in construction perpetuates the under-representation of women in construction.
Kululanga and Kuotcha attempt to measure organisational learning through project reviews. Some 60 construction contractors in Malawi were surveyed. The purpose was to determine whether the organisational learning that takes place in construction companies is followed through in later projects or lost. To do this the researchers developed a project review process and a “measuring instrument” to measure the development of organisational learning that seemed to be missing from the literature. The use of these tools should prove valuable in the development of contractors. A later paper explaining the use of the tools and the benefits to contractors would be welcomed.
At the end of 2008 and volume 15 we pay our thanks to the referees and acknowledge their efforts as our guardians of quality. In 2008 ECAMvolume 15 has had six editions, with 36 papers from a total of 80 authors and underpinning this we relied on 126 referees.
The publishers and the editorial team are extremely grateful to all these referees for their time, their wisdom and their support.
Ronald McCaffer
