Editorial
Article Type: Editorial From: Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Volume 16, Issue 1
ECAM reaches its 16th year and this is launched with Vol. 16 No. 1. It is appropriate to use the first issue of 2009 to wish readers, authors and referees a happy and prosperous new year. My editorial campaign last year was to encourage a richer range of research methods and to encourage researchers to see their research into application. Progress is being made but not enough.
The predominant research method used is questionnaires. I have reservations about questionnaires, which seems to be research at arm’s length. The researchers never see the practitioners, neither is influenced by the other and any exchange of data may or may not reveal something of value. I believe we need researchers and practitioners to be in close contact and dialogue so that the researchers can learn of problems and issues facing construction and understand the practitioners’ needs to which research should respond. Direct contact also educates the practitioners as to what research can deliver for them. When our colleagues in industry take this step of understanding this they become enthusiastic participants in the research process and some even fund research. I believe it is the researchers responsibility to reach out, embrace and work closely with the practitioners, the practitioners rarely come to the researchers. Sending out a questionnaire may be a comfortable way of conducting research but it is a very limited.
My second theme of seeing research through to practice also continues. Unused research is of little value and in a practical field such as our is probably worth even less than little. Researchers should not be content to conduct a research project publish papers and move onto the next research topic. What is required is for the research work to be followed through to implementation. Too many papers propose a “model” a “system” a “new approach” and end by saying these have been evaluated by “discussion”,“simulation”, “scenario testing” but rarely “applied”,“installed”, “working” and “changing the industry”. The responsibility for taking research forward, in our society, rests with the researchers. I would like to see more papers on applied and implemented research and I would really like to see many more papers written jointly by an industrialist and a researcher, we get some but many more would be evidence of working closely to change our industry.
My campaign on these two themes will continue in 2009.
Vol. 16 No. 1 again has a varied group of papers from an international group of authors.
The six papers in Vol. 16 No. 1 has taken 15 authors to produce with one single authored paper, two papers with two authors, and two papers with three authors and one paper with four authors. There are two authors from Australia,but not on the same paper, two from India, one from Palestine and one from Gaza,one from Dubai and eight from the UK. However, of particular interest is the growing number of papers from more than one institution and these include:Wolverhampton and Brunel; Herriot Watt and Salford; IUG Palestine, Griffiths Australia and an industrialist from a project in Gaza and finally Salford and the British University in Dubai.
The papers in this issue include: safety management information systems; the culture of project organisation; a model for company budgeting; claims management in Palestine; road infrastructure in India; and measuring knowledge retention. The papers in this issue are as follows:
Kamardeen proposes a strategic safety management information system targeted on building projects in Singapore. The system is proposed for use in the Singapore quality – fee method for tender evaluations. The quality evaluation includes the safety management proposals in the tender. The researcher has developed a model and translated it into a decision support system. The author claims validation using five projects but the details of this is not presented. The author also claims the model is a systematic approach for predicting accident risks. A future paper evaluating and assessing the usage of the safety management information system would be welcomed.
Ankrah, Proverbs and Debrah conducted an empirical study into the factors,influencing the culture of a construction project organisation. Using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews and quantitative data on project features the authors attempt to identify the cultural dimensions of construction projects.
The authors identify five cultural dimensions and associate these with project features such as size, complexity, participants, health and safety and the number of variations. Interestingly the method of procurement did not feature. The authors claim that this paper offers an insight but they seem to fall short of translating this insight into a useful means of designing an effective project organisation. In that respect the paper is academic rather than practical. Perhaps the next stage will take this step.
Kaka and Khosrowshahi propose a mathematical model for company budgeting taking account of future, unknown contracts. The authors claim that incorporating future unknown contracts into their annual financial budgets. Using the model to predict future contracts the model assumes a starting point,a build up curve, average duration and total value of work needed to achieve target turnover. The model also assesses the capital requirements. The paper uses hypothetical scenarios to evaluate the model. As ever a future paper evaluating the models use in practice would be welcomed.
Enshassi, Mohamed and El-Ghandor, discuss problems associated with claims management in Palestine. Palestine’s experience of construction contracts includes many contracts delayed for causes well outside the control of both owners and contractors. This has given rise to exceptional claims and much conflict. The paper reviews the experience from the perspective of the local contractors.
The data source is a questionnaire survey. The paper catalogues the results of the survey. Differences from other such studies could be highlighted as inaccessibility or unavailability of data and the conflicts between owner and contractors during negotiations.
This is an interesting insight as to how difficult it is to conduct business as a contractor in somewhat extreme circumstances.
Sharma and Vohra evaluate the road infrastructure in India. The aim was to evaluate the availability of required length and quality of roads in comparison with other economies. The authors also attempt to assess attractiveness of private sector participation in road infrastructure development. The Indian road sector development targets are compared with the current road status of China. Growth trends and the relationship with manufacturing has been incorporated.
The conclusions are that the road infrastructure development is inadequate relationated to comparators the quality of the roads is below expectations and poor connectivity is affecting economic growth.
This paper should be of value to the authorities responsibility for road infrastructure development in India. Whether publication in ECAM will bring it to the attention of these authorities remains to be seen.
Arif, Egbu, Alom and Khalfan move us into an area of knowledge management in particular “measuring knowledge retention” and to illustrate their arguments they use a case study from the United Arab Emirates studying a construction consultancy company. The authors identified a four-stage knowledge retention process and four levels of maturity. Maturity indicators in each of the four stages provides a measure of knowledge retention. The model was tried out on the case study reported.
It would be helpful to use the model to design a knowledge retention system,and it is to be hoped that such a use would be reported in a later paper.
Ronald McCaffer
