THE PROCESS PROTOCOL: IMPROVING THE FRONT END OF THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS FOR THE UK INDUSTRY.

Running head: Generic Design & Construction Process Protocol MICHAIL KAGIOGLOU, RACHEL COOPER and GHASSAN AOUAD TIME Research Institute, Centenary Building, University of Salford, Peru Street, Salford, M3 6EQ, UK M.Kagioglou@dct.salford.ac.uk JOHN HINKS Department of Building Engineering and Surveying, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

ABSTRACT Sir Michael Latham [1994] published a report, which identified fragmentation and confrontational relationships as the greatest barriers to improving quality and productivity in the UK construction industry. It was recognised that manufacturing industry is not as plagued with such problems having introduced a number of improvement initiatives over the past twenty years. One such improvement that has been adopted is the stage gate approach to new product development (NPD). This approach enabled progressive management and monitoring of the whole project lifecycle for all activities involved in the product development with particular attention to the front end. This paper summarises the main findings of a funded project, which involved a number of industrial partners from the whole spectrum of the UK construction industry. Particular attention is given to the frontend of the design and construction process and a Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol (GDCPP) map is briefly described. IT is also presented as an enabler in undertaking a consistent process and an IT map is presented. The paper describes how a co-ordinated effort, from a client perspective, at the front-end of the Design and Construction Process could not only improve efficiency but reduce development times, improve quality of the final product and increase predictability. Keywords: Front end, design and construction, generic, manufacturing, process

Introduction The technology and knowledge transfer of manufacturing experiences and principles into a construction environment have been the subject of research in the UK for a number of years. Indeed this is further emphasised by the formation of the IMI (Innovative Manufacturing Initiative) and in particular the Construction as a Manufacturing Process sector, which funded the project described in this paper. There are a number of manufacturing operations which could prove to have a number of similarities with their construction counterparts. The manufacturing industry's continuous mission, towards effective and manageable production and materials handling techniques have been the subject of consideration in the past. The attention has been in utilising material resources and machinery to implement a building, refurbishment or other solutions offered to client. This attention has resulted in moderate elimination of non value-add activities in a construction site and the consideration of resources much closer than was the case in the past. However, the majority of the construction activities are the result of non (strictly speaking) construction activities. These include the identification of the client needs, the formulation of the requirements specifications for the design solution and finally the design and production information. Typically these activities contribute between 10-30 percent of the overall construction budget. Therefore it is fair to say that between 70-90 percent of a construction project's cost is determined during the initial 1030 percent spend. This inevitably draws the attention at the 'front end' of the construction project. The manufacturing industry has undergone the same way of thinking as described above, but at a significantly earlier time than the construction industry. Back in the 60's and 70's new management, production, and materials handling techniques have been conceptualised and in many leading companies

implemented - particularly in Japan. MRP, MRPII, Kanban systems, JIT, CADCAM and others have initiated this revolution. The focus was to utilise computer technology for undertaking activities faster (CAD), more accurately (robotics), using less stock and plant space (MRP 8 JIT), whilst eliminating significant changes during the transition and transformation of a design into a final product. Although the short-term objectives of this technology push were realised, it became apparent that further improvements were needed with regards to the actual soft processes employed. This need led the way for philosophies like total quality management (TQM), concurrent engineering (CE) and others which, whilst utilising emerging technologies they necessitated a certain change in the culture of organisations within as well as with the immediate external parties like first tier suppliers. The implementation of such philosophies required the formulation of consistent project and business processes. New product development (NPD) processes have been developed in manufacturing so that the whole development of products from the first steps of identifying a need or capturing a clients need to the final delivery and replacement of a product can be considered as parts of one consistent process. NPD in its literal sense does not exist widely as a process undertaken by the construction industry but its principles could potentially be applied to the construction industry [Kagioglou et al. 1998]. For the majority of projects undertaken by construction firms the NPD process is enacted once only, each time with a different combination of distribution, production and delivery techniques. That said, it could be argued that an element of commonality exists between each one-off NPD process in construction - as it will be demonstrated. Furthermore, IT can play an important role in utilising and NPD process for construction. This paper examines the development of an NPD process for design and construction and the use of IT as an enabler within a consistent process.

The project The Design and Construction Process Protocol project was funded by EPSRC under the IMI Construction as a Manufacturing Process sector. Its two-year duration involved the participation of a number of companies from the whole spectrum of the UK construction industry e.g. clients, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, suppliers and IT specialists. Its main aim was to develop a design and construction process protocol based on Manufacturing NPD and to examine how IT can facilitate such a process. The methodology employed throughout the project involved the distribution of questionnaires within the industrial partners companies, semi-structured interviews with the industrial partners and industry experts, interactive workshops to inform and validate the development and the expert help of a large manufacturing co-operation.

Finding a common ground Any attempt made to determine the common issues between manufacturing NPD and the design and construction process will have to be based not only on the individual elements of the process but on the undertaking of the process itself in terms of organisation and post project issues. Based on manufacturing industry process development throughout the past three decades the research team concentrated on the following issues in an attempt to find the common ground when developing the design and construction process protocol: Overall process structure/framework and decision making mechanisms Identification and classification of the steps involved in the design and construction process with particular attention to the front end Organisation of project participants to utilise the process Learning organisations The role of IT as a facilitator/enabler to the process Cultural issues

Figure 1 presents the implementation of the above issues in the Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol.

Fig. 1 The Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol

Process structure Rosenau [1996] notes, that process models are an effective way to show how a process works and as a definition: A process map consists of an X and a Y axis, which show process sequence (or time) and process participants, respectively. The horizontal X axis illustrates time in process and the individual process activities (and) or gates. The Y axis shows the departments or functions participating in the process... Beyond this convention, there appears to be little formality in the method used to represent a process. The research team and industrial partners of the research project have agreed to employ such a method by representing the project/process phases on the X axis, and the project participants on the Y axis. An established process of this kind is proposed by Cooper [1993] which in addition introduces the concept of 'gates' between the stages of the project for decision making purposes. These gates or phase review points review the project and a report is produced (phase review report) which aims to inform the client of the status of the project. In an attempt to streamline the process and eliminate the sequential undertaking of projects, as was traditionally the case, Cooper [1994] introduced the concept of 'fuzzy' gates. These gates are referred to as 'soft' gates in the context of the process protocol. They represent decision points but with the exemption that the project does not necessarily come to a halt but certain activities are allowed to continue. In contrast 'hard' gates require the temporary overhaul of the project until a decision (usually made by the client body/representative) grants the continuation of the project and resources are allocated.

Process stages/steps According to Hughes [1991], the identification of the steps or stages through which a construction project passes is essential if improvement is to occur. Hughes asserts that: "every project goes through similar steps in its evolution in terms of stages of work. The stages vary in their intensity or importance depending upon the project." In support of this Hughes reviewed seven 'industry standard' plans of work (codes of practice and textbook descriptions). These plans of work represented contemporary practice in both the public and private construction sectors. Many of them offered little more than a 'check-lists' of activities to be undertaken or issues to be addressed. The industrial partners to the project and the research team concentrated on the formulation of an agreed description of those steps that were consistent to the process structure whilst at the same time providing for decision making and imply generic properties that could be applied by all project participants. In addition the effort concentrated at the steps for the effective undertaking of the front end. The process of deciding on the process steps involved a number of debates through workshops which were informed by established process steps such as those of the RIBA plan of work [RIBA, 1991]. Furthermore, the steps in the process were classified into broad stages as shown below: Pre - project stage: Demonstrating the need Conception of need Outline feasibility Substantive feasibility study and outline financial authority Pre - construction stage: Outline conceptual design Full conceptual design Coordinated design, procurement and full financial authority Construction stage: Production information Construction Post completion stage: Operation and maintenance

Project participant organisation The earlier involvement of the projects participants, throughout the process is a significant development of the conventional approach to building. Traditionally, a construction projects participants are referred to by their professional or expert status. Ball [1988] demonstrates how this may be attributed to the inherent class relations associated with each of the professions and expert groups. As with all class distinctions, the effect that this basis for organisational structure in design and construction has is division. A consequence of this traditional approach, by which even the more recent forms of contract procurement (design and build, management contracting, etc.) are included, is the poor communication and co-ordination commonly associated with construction projects. The participants in the Process Protocol are referred to in terms of their primary responsibilities, and are represented on the Y-axis of the Process Model. It is recognised that traditionally, project to project, organisational roles and responsibilities change, resulting in ambiguity and confusion [Luck & Newcombe, 1996]. By basing the enactment of the process upon the primary responsibility required, the scope for confusion is potentially reduced, and the potential for effective communication and co-ordination increased. The Process Protocol groups the participants in any project into Activity Zones. These zones are not functional but rather they are multi-functional and they represent structured sets of tasks and processes which guide and support work towards a common objective (for example to create an appropriate design solution). A single person or firm can carry out an activity zone in small-projects but in large and complex projects, an activity zone may consist of a complex network of people and between relevant functions and/or organisations. Since they are multi-functional, membership of the zones is determined by the specific project task and/or process. The activity zones for the Process Protocol are the following: Development management Project management Resources management Design management Production management Facilities management Health and safety, statutory and legal management Process management Change management

The majority of the activity zones are self-explanatory but for the process and change management. These activity zones are essentially the interface between the Development Management (predominately the client body) and the other project participants. Process Management has a role independent of all other activity zones. A distinction must be made between this conventional view of a project manager and the Process Management role. Process Management, as the title suggests, is concerned with the enactment of the process, rather than the project. Key to the success of each Phase in the process is the production of project deliverables (reports and documentation associated with each phase). In this respect the Process Management is responsible for facilitating and co-ordinating the participants required to produce the necessary deliverables. Acting as the Development Managements agent, it will ensure the enactment of each process phase as planned, culminating with the presentation of the deliverables at each end of Phase Review. The Change Management function is further distinct from the Process Management zone, as this role solely concerns (as its name also suggests) the management of change(s) which occur during the process. As the project becomes increasingly defined as each phase is enacted, changes (or rather updates) to the information required for the development of the project will be produced. These updates will be contained within the work required to develop the deliverable documentation associated with each phase. With respect to this, the Change Management (CM) activity zone facilitates the holding, review and dissemination of all this information, as the project progresses.

Learning organisation A learning organisation learns from its experiences, which can either be successful or unsuccessful and applies those lessons to future projects. Furthermore, it can apply those lessons to train future and current employees. To do so an organisation will need to store and maintain the relevant data in an efficient and structured manner. The Process Protocol aims to provide this by the creation, use and maintenance of a Legacy Archive. The structure and undertaking of the process offers itself to such a mechanism due to its consistency through the phase review reports for each phase of the project development. These phase review reports and other relevant documentation can be stored either on a paper driven system or ideally based on IT where the data can be interrogated and presented in different views. Furthermore such a system could provide a communication spine for the whole project team through the creation of Intranet sites and other IT based solutions. Taking under consideration that construction projects will typically last a considerable time the availability and easy access of project information could prove very important when making future decisions.

IT: an enabler to the process The legacy archive presented above is only one of the tools that can be created by utilising IT. There are a number of IT solutions that could be applied throughout the lifecycle of a project to undertake diverse activities from modelling of a projects solution to the production of manufacturing information and operation of the finished facility in a virtual world. The aim is to provide an integrated IT system where IT can be utilised. Attention is drawn in implementing IT from a process focus rather than was the case traditionally where IT solution were and in some cases still are, developed as stand alone tools without a clear place in the design and construction process. Figure 2 illustrates how IT could be integrated in the Process protocol and enable communications between project participants, as well as speeding up the development of a project solution. As part of the research for the production of the IT map a survey was undertaken of both academia and industry to help establish views on what areas of IT will be of crucial importance to the construction industry in the next 10 years [Aouad et al. 1998]. The results of the survey assisted in the incorporation of the needs and requirements of the participants. Aouad et al [1998] suggests that when IT usage is similar to that shown on the IT map it should be possible for the client to walk through and interrogate various aspects of the designed building, such as cost and specification using VR, and also the information stored in the integrated database. It could be possible for the QS to select the most appropriate procurement path using neural networks techniques. The designer could be able to select the most suitable design using case-based reasoning techniques from information stored within the legacy archive of the integrated intelligent database. With the use of the intelligent integrated database and improved communication applications information flow between applications and project participants would be transparent and the data would remain unduplicated and uncorrupted. Although all of the above mentioned points may be correct, it could be argued that the costs, in terms of purchasing / developing the software, cost and time of training personnel to use the software, management and maintenance of the applications and associated data, communications links, etc, could far outweigh any cost benefits of implementing such a wide ranging system on a project basis. However, within a partnership arrangement there could be long term benefits. Also industry wide reluctance may prevent the adoption of this overall system because of threats to various professional practices, such as professional property developers who would normally undertake economic appraisal at the early stages of a project, and quantity surveyors may have a reduced involvement during the whole project, etc. The ownership of the information produced could be a bone of contention that may hinder the implementation of such an overall system. For example the contractor may want all of the information produced to be incorporated into their archive, the client would possibly expect all of the project information to be theirs and copyrighted, as they paid for the building, etc.

Fig. 2 IT and the Process Protocol

Cultural issues Some of the problem factors, for the pre-project phase of existing design and construction processes are issues relating to the culture of the construction industry, and the interpretations of this culture by the client body. This is a culture which is neither homogenous across the entire depth of the industry or, within all sectors of the industry. There is also a culture which, post-Latham, a lot of the industrys lead bodies were working very hard to try and change. Indeed, there appeared to be a desire for change towards a more cooperative, less confrontational culture within the construction industry, which the industry itself was working for. This was seen as being a major potential advantage for production of a unifying process protocol potentially capable of unifying the design and construction process. It was also clearly identified by the industrial participants in the projects that there is an important need for changes in contractual arrangements, possible to include retention-based approaches or consultative-feebased arrangements for pre-project consultation from a variety of professionals. This could improve the requirements capture phase for the clients, and allow them to make their early stage decisions on construction or alternative project solutions from a base of informed knowledge rather than inexperienced ignorance. Clearly, in order to protect the industry professionals and industry organisations against the loss of ideas, and work, some retentive or consultative arrangements need to be established. The issue of copyright over ideas and transfer of copyright of ideas between products and processes from individual projects generally or from project to project also needs to be considered before this system can practicably be operated. These sorts of changes in contractual and consultative arrangement are most likely to be facilitated through implicit, or, particularly, explicit strategic, (term) partnering arrangements between clients and contractors and also between contractors and sub-contractors within the industry.

Implementation issues A product-oriented emphasis (rather than a process-oriented emphasis) focuses on the differences between products and processes operating in other sectors. One of a kind products do tend to limit the feedback potential [Koskela, 1992] and focus reviews on product feedback and not process feedback. By focusing on the uniqueness of the product, rather than the commonality of the process for the management of their production, the construction industry continues to put its efforts into solving and resolving individual product -focused problems without creating the managerial systems which could help avoid, overcome, and/or learn from product and process solutions. To promote such a process emphasis it is essential that the parties involved in project teams are operating to a consistent process, which requires broadly similar process capabilities of the various team members. This will mean that industry-wide process improvement is required for the design and construction process to achieve repeatability and hence manageability [Hinks et al. 1997]. This means linking the professional capabilities in the pre-construction phases as well as the production phase parties, and linking capability and process involvement across the phases. The alternative could be a greater level of stratification and fragmentation within the industry, which would be self defeating, since solving the problems of process depend on all parties for their coordinated resolution. There is also a requirement for a range of support tools that are needed by the various organisations, which will be operating the process protocol. Training is needed in order to allow the industry to establish their process capability and prioritise changes in process capability, and to allow them to identify and integrate an existing IT support change in the process. Implementing the process protocol would be a matter of business re-engineering as well as process re-engineering. It will require to be operated across the depth of the industry as well as its breadth, in co-ordination with clients and those parties involved in the use and management of buildings beyond their completion.

The future It is most probable that the process protocol will itself be a catalyst for change and it will require to change flexibly as the industry adopts it partially as part of its change process. The evidence from the prospective cases is that change management and process management are seen as some of the key process changes

which need to be put into place first; and that co-ordination of information technology or information systems is another essential requirement. These activities will allow the process to be controlled in a consistent and predictable manner, which will allow the maximum enhancement of capability to accommodate product and process innovation. It will be essential to benchmark the processes as a whole, across the industry as well as the individual organisational processes. This may be a national bench marking initiative which can prove to be a useful mechanism for promoting the process protocol and the changes in individual organisational processes required in order to move to something more harmonised than the existing fragmented system. It was considered to be an essential element of the process protocol that the efforts of the process team were loaded towards the planning effort at the pre-project and pre-construction phases of the process. This assumption might allow the minimisation of ambiguity and late stage design changes, thereby allowing a greater pre-production planning efficiency and a smoother and more controllable production phase to be achieved. This would also allow the greater predictability associated for production and would also allow the more rapid and cost effective introduction of standardisation prefabrication, the current problems of which tend to occur at the interfaces between trades and elements for which pre-planning effort is required to make improvement. It is absolutely essential that risk and risk allocation is considered as an explicit functional role within the early stages of stakeholder involvement and assembly of the virtual design and construction team. Towards the end of the project it was considered that rather than it being a generic process protocol it may be more representative to consider it as being a prototypical process model; that is a process model which in itself provides a prototype of how the local customised solutions may be designed in a more typical set of rules than exists currently, and also that this should be done at a strategic rather than operational level. The concept of genericity embodied within the process protocol extends little further than the management and process principles which would be applied by process managers and the phase review board in defining the phases activities associated with the various stages of the process. It is foreseeable that in specific projects, the application of process protocol would involve a lot of customisation. In this context the model should be seen as being more prototypical than generic. Interpreted thus the strategic application of the process protocol should be possible without constraining the flexibility of the product innovation or the process. It would also be possible to instigate the process protocol from within the existing professional and industry divisions and practices, thereby allowing it to be an agent of change rather than a goal or unobtainable process requiring quantum change. The effective implementation of the Process Protocol will greatly depend on its ability to effectively translate the strategic to the operational level. To this end further work is needed (and is currently under way at the University of Salford) in examining the sub-processes (Activity Zone) and produce generic maps for those sub-processes. In such a way the underlying principles and philosophies of the Process Protocol will form the framework for company/project based wide adoption and effective implementation. This is confirmed by the adoption of the Process Protocol by the CRISP Process Group with the comment that sub-level process definition needs to be defined. In addition such developments will address all the issues identified in the Construction Round Table (CRT) Agenda for Change

Conclusion The principles of the process protocol can therefore be summarised as a model which is capable of representing the diverse interests of all the parties involved in the design and construction process, which is sufficiently repeatable and definable to allow IT to be devised to support its management and information management. A mechanism by which the systematic and consistent interfacing of the existing practices, professional practice and IT practice support tools can be facilitated. Also, simplicity within the protocol, which allows its interpretation and flexible application at a variety of strategic levels across a variety of scales of project using combinations of virtual teams and IT systems should be accommodated. They should all be based in clarity of terms of what is required from whom, when and with whose co-operation, for whom the requirements are to be delivered for what purposes and how they will be evaluated (during phase reviews). Other principles underlying the process protocol where the standardisation of deliverables

and roles associated with achieving managing and reviewing the process and the product. The introduction of organisational wide and industry wide co-ordinating process improvement programmes which incorporated the facets of process capability and information technology/information system capability; all of which is grounded in a philosophy of early entry (at the front end) of the maximum proportion of stakeholders and functionaries, with a predominant emphasis of effort on the design and planning to minimise the error and reworking during the construction phase. The process protocol is divided into a series of sub-stages defined as pre-project, pre-construction, construction and post-completion, and within each of those major stages there are sub-phases which can be operated concurrently or concatenate to make the process more efficient in smaller scale projects. The process protocol introduces a number of novel principles in a number of areas, in particular the extension of the boundaries of design and construction process into the requirements capture phase of prebriefing client decision making. Also the extension of the boundary of the process beyond practicable completion to allow the management of use and the learning from performance in use to improve the product and process for future projects. In addition the creation of an explicit process management and change management role to co-ordinate the functionaries and phase deliverables associated with the process, the information that supports the functional roles and is delivered via the creation of products, and a stable platform to allow innovations in process and products and operations to be facilitated in a coordinated and repeatable manner.

Acknowledgement The research team wishes to thank IMI for providing the resources for the research project and the participating companies for their contributions to the project.

References Aouad, G, Cooper, R, Kagioglou, M, Hinks, J and Sexton, M (1998) A synchronised process/it model to support the co-maturation of processes and IT in the construction sector. Proceedings of CIB Working Commission W78 - Information Technology in Construction Conference, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, June 3rd - 5th , pp.85-95. Ball, M (1988) Rebuilding Construction. Routledge, London, UK. Cooper, R G (1994) Third-Generation New Product Processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.11, pp. 3-14. Cooper, R G (1993) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. AddisonWesley Publishing Company. Canada. Hinks, J, Aouad, G, Cooper, R, Sheath, D, Kagioglou, M and Sexton, M (1997) IT and The Design and Construction Process: A Conceptual Model of Co-Maturation. International Journal of Construction Information Technology, Vol.5, No.1, pp. 1-25. Hughes, W (1991) Modelling the construction process using plans of work. Proceedings of an International Conference - Construction Project Modelling and Productivity, CIB W65, Dubrovnik Kagioglou, M, Cooper, R, Aouad, G, Sexton, M, Hinks, J and Sheath, D (1998) Cross-industry learning: the development of a generic design and construction process based on stage/gate new product development processes found in the manufacturing industry. Proceedings of the Engineering Design Conference 98 - Design Reuse, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK, June 23-25, pp. 595-602. Koskela, L (1992) Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction. Technical Report 72. Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland. Latham, M (1994) Constructing the Team. H.M.S.O. Luck, R and Newcombe, R (1996) The case for the integration of the project participants activities within a construction project environment. The Organization and Management of Construction: Shaping theory and practice (Volume Two), Langford, D A and Retik, A (eds.), E. & F. N. Spon. R.I.B.A (1991) Architects Handbook of Practice Management, RIBA, 4th ed., UK. Rosenau, M (1996) The PDMA handbook of new product development. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., U.S.A.