Communication in the Design Process

Stephen A. Brown

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2002
• ISBN:
  9781135802219
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Arquitectura
• Subtopic: Diseño arquitectónico

The Design and Construction industry is in a state of attempted change. Improvement is a key word for employer, consultant and contractor. Real steps forward are slow, and most damning is the continuous repetition of the same mistakes. Communication in the Design Process considers the gap that can exist between client expectation and realisation in building projects. It focuses on the communication interface between the employer and the consultant design team, and specifically on the areas of function, finance, timescale and aesthetics. This book includes an extensive review of current thinking and guidance on this and other related subjects. New data is obtained from a survey using questionnaires and personal semi-structured interviews. Data is presented graphically, analysed and compared with practice as defined in current literature.

1 Introduction

The context

The development of the global village has heightened the people's awareness of communication, particularly across different cultures and languages. Significant efforts in terms of time and technology have been expended in resolving potential misunderstandings, and indeed the world of governmental diplomacy has been founded upon this task. At a daily level the effects of standard protocols are familiar to all in terms of ISO (International Standards Organisation) standards, computer file formats, standard methods of measurement and countless rules and regulations.

It is therefore with some incredulity that one perceives persistent failures to communicate appropriately within cultures and even within a single industry. Communication has been cited by 25 per cent of all construction employers as a basic reason for failure. The same source (Franks 1998, p. 62) refers to these communication problems as being due, in the words of the now aged 1962 Emmerson report, to the ‘divorce of design from production’. Current research simply reinforces this finding.

The construction industry, even in its current form, is certainly mature and yet both the popular and the professional view sees major problems in the simplest of tasks. The time that has been expended on the production of systems of control, quality assurance, building contracts and documentation still fails to ease the superficially simple task of communicating. There remain a range of barriers to this most basic of actions. Simple failures to understand the other party at a verbal level stand alongside the baggage of agendas that virtually demands misunderstanding as a commercial negotiating tool.

It is optimistically believed that the current and genuine development of partnership and ‘team spirit’ is reducing what were extensive departments of ‘claims surveyors’. Although there may be fewer people involved in actively seeking out the ‘grey’ areas for commercial advantage, there still remains plenty of opportunity for completely innocent misinterpretation.

This book is aimed at all those involved with construction, but takes the Client perspective as its primary focus. The academic basis of the author's original research work allowed questions to be asked of Employers that would rarely be broached by a Consultant or Contractor. The combination of practice-based data with academic research and review provides a thought provoking and comprehensive overview of the complex and critical subject.

Best practice within the construction industry demands that Employers, Consultants and Contractors alike obtain feedback and assessment of performance. The reality, however, is that in a small number of cases when feedback actually occurs, it is restricted and often misses the point. Certainly in projects where there are clear problems, most contributors are more than happy to see the conclusion of the project; few wish to embark on opening up issues for which they themselves may be at fault. Long-term relationships, or ‘partnering’ as it is now popularly called, requires honesty to understand the real feelings and objectives of all parties involved with the project. Interviews with Consultants and Employers regarding case studies have demonstrated little real transparent honesty, although both parties happily confided what, in their opinion, contributes to a problem. Both parties, however, still approached it from different sides, and neither party had openly discussed the particular key issues that were raised with the author. It is the intention of this book to provide an objective overview of ‘expectation and realisation’. Each party may find themselves being criticised at some point, but both Employer and Consultant should expect to work together for a common goal if a performance gap is to be closed. Balance is provided by input from a wide range of Consultants, Employers and Contractors, ensuring that all parties within the design process find a perspective appropriate to them.

Most readers will recognise design team scenarios where the Employer is represented by its staff, and Consultants by discipline, both of which frequently change over time. Who is the Client and who is the Consultant? How do you accommodate the personal crusade of the individual that can so easily develop during the life of a project? These issues must be resolved at the earliest stage.

The issues of the multi-headed Client are described in later chapters. The major differences that can occur within an Employer's organisation, and within that of the Consultant, serve only to compound difficulties of communication as multiple agendas and levels of expertise become evident. Common goals and shared motivation may promote good teamwork, but there is nothing to contribute to the mechanisms that will ensure appropriate translation of Employers' requirements into appropriate response. The adequacy of this translation process depends on the interfaces between those involved at project team level, and on the development of appropriate tools to allow this process to occur.

The conclusions of this book are based upon research work carried out by the author during 1998. A high level of questionnaire response, combined with extensive use of interviews and case studies, provides a unique insight into the views of the Employer and the Consultant.

The subject—breadth and depth

A building project, of whatever nature, creates a number of transient communication interfaces. Identification of these interfaces, and their relationship to the nature of the communication gap between expectation and realisation, is essential. Many otherwise commendable studies and guides fail adequately to address this most fundamental of issues. This book focuses on building projects with the associated Employer and Consultant team that is invariably formed.

During the 1980s several sources identified that a gap does indeed exist between expectation and realisation. Parasuraman (Parasuraman et al. 1985), researched the issues of customer satisfaction in the USA. Their work concluded that there were five gaps in the provision of service between customer and provider. These gaps were not identified in the context of the construction industry but, nevertheless, form the basis of the consideration of the Employer and Consultant/Contractor in the respective roles of ‘the customer and provider. These were later expanded upon by the RIBA (1993, p. 11 ) and Usmani and Winch (1993, p. 29), to be directly relevant to the construction industry, and have subsequently formed the foundations for much speculative research in the industry in the pursuit of ‘improvement’. The identification of these gaps acts as the base for the consideration of ‘formative factors’ and, as such, a precursor to the proposal of any strategies for improvement It is suggested that, without careful consideration and understanding of the impinging issues, and of these ‘formative factors’, strategies alone will become misguided or simply misunderstood.

Numerous parallel surveys (Walker 1989, p. 71; Barrett and Males 1991, p. 176 ; Becker 1991, p. 192) indicate significant dissatisfaction with building projects, on the part of both the Employer and the Occupant. The latter already begins to expand the subject. The difference between Employer and Occupant is enormous. Are either, neither or both Clients? Many Occupants may as yet be unknown or indeed unborn. It is clear, however, that current relationships between flesh-and-blood Employers and their Consultants/Contractors continue to lead to disputes.

This problem is exacerbated by the ever increasing level of litigation within the construction industry. Despite the attitude shift referred to previously in terms of demise of the claims department, extended legal wrangles are still commonplace. The Construction Act 1997 included provisions to reduce the quantity of high level litigation between contracting parties. However, the immediate result has been an explosion of minor formalised legal claims, as contracting parties seek to conclude disputes that would have otherwise resulted in protracted negotiation outside of the law. A recent academic report (Somogyi 1999, ‘Summary’) identified that 87 per cent of respondents had been involved with a dispute of some kind in the last 5 years. Fortunately the vast majority were resolved by negotiation, but a significant 3 per cent continued up to the High Court.

It is the commencement of the design process that normally brings together a variety of project team members. The fact that they are often complete strangers, both in terms of organisations and individuals, is not without significance. The design process itself is commonly a few centimetres on a bar chart that may be a metre long. Stretching the imagination a little, one can see the traditional design exercise in the life cycle of a facility as much like the existence of man in relation to the existence of life! The effect of this short intervention, however, is significant. Cradle-to-grave involvement would appear more responsible. Design often starts after the strategic decisions have been made, but it is expected to translate a language of demand, despite having little involvement with its development. It is, too often, a continuum starting with conceptual decisions and culminating during the build process with operational and technical design, but usually with little or no feedback.

Recent years have seen the design process merging into the procurement and build programmes, very much as a result of Design and Build. But still there remains a divide between the primary design process, controlled by consultants, and the myriad of secondary designers. The latter, in the form of Sub-contractors/ Suppliers, are however, now being clearly acknowledged. They are very much ‘designers’, and as a consequence are beginning to become exposed to the problems of ‘translation’.

Much work (Atkin et al. 1996; Nutt 1988; Preiser 1993; RIBA 1993) during the late 1980s and early 1990s was directed towards the briefing process and the subsequent techniques for managing ‘design’. Recent studies (Bicknell 1998) have shown that Architects, for example, still have little involvement with management issues or strategic decision making. Nevertheless they are expected to understand fully the requirements of our multi-headed Employer to provide facilities that complement the long-term business plan and future technological changes!

It is also clear that many projects exhibit minimal input into the critical strategic brief and, with undue haste, efforts are concentrated on the physical brief. It is not suggested, however, that Consultants are specifically excluded from this strategic brief, because simply it rarely exists. Tactical opportunities and opportunism for short-term financial planning are more commonplace than most dare to acknowledge. It will be shown that common practice jumps from problem to solution rapidly and, as a consequence, back to problem again, albeit a different one. More recently, the emphasis has been on construction and the operational or technical level of design. There has been a plethora of documents providing guidance and analysis for this aspect of the process. This runs the risk, however, of ensuring the running of a perfect train service to the wrong station!

1998 saw the publication of the Government Taskforce document Rethinking Construction, generally referred to as the ‘Egan Report’ (DETR 1998). This deals with the construction industry in the broadest sense, observing levels of dissatisfaction and demanding improvement. Many of the issues peripheral to the author's 1998 study, and noted within current literature and research, are acknowledged by Egan. The report proposes somewhat arbitrary targets for improvement, and loosely bases these upon the earlier studies referred to previously. The apparent arbitrary nature of these targets, however, alienated many who would otherwise support the general ideals. This book endeavours to avoid arbitrary goals and concentrates on issues taken directly from the mouths of everyday Employers and Consultants.

This book focuses upon particular criteria within a building project, and specifically ring-fences those items to maintain focus. Earlier studies by a number of sources (Barrett and Males 1991, p. 176; Garvin 1988, p. 171; Preiser 1993, p. 214 ; Walker 1989, p. 70) identify key Client issues of concern to be function, finance and timescale.

Initial interviews with a sample of Employers confirmed that these three key areas were also of major importance to them. The focus of this publication and the underlying research therefore is based upon this premise.

Employers also have concerns regarding aesthetics, or as it may be seen, consider that they should! As we are considering the built environment and design, it would seem to be inappropriate to ignore this aspect of the process. Therefore, despite a low profile in earlier studies, aesthetics is evaluated to determine its weighting and significance.

The author's 1998 study therefore focused on the issues of:

• Function: space, usability, operation, appropriateness, location;

• Finance: total cost, variation, reliability, reporting;

• Timescale: pre- and post-contract programme, accuracy, resourcing;

• Aesthetics: visual appearance, acceptability, appropriateness.

Building projects are defined as new build, refurbishment or extension. Specialist activities, such as active mechanical and electrical (M and E) systems or Information Technology (IT) systems, are specifically excluded from this study. It should be noted, however, that the subject of M and E installation and design arose regularly in interviews. As levels of sophistication increase, it is not uncommon for M and E systems to approach 50 per cent of any contract in terms of value, and frequently IT systems can exceed construction cost. Dissatisfaction with M and E design normally becomes an issue on completion and relates to non-performance. This is clear evidence of a performance gap between expectation and realisation; it inevitably involves a chain of designers and contractors, all of whom may have contributed to it. Exclusion of M and E systems from the study is simply to ensure focus for data collection, but in no way suggests that this element of a project is less than critical. Indeed a parallel study, based purely on M and E and IT systems, would have much merit but, it is suggested, would have a similar conclusion. The lessons learnt and the experiences recorded regarding the performance gap in more general construction projects are equally relevant to specialist spheres.

The subject of physical workmanship defects and general contracting problems is enormous, and for this reason the study focuses on the relationship between Employer and Consultant. It is acknowledged that works beyond the completion of design are of major significance to an Employer and significantly effect the balance of expectation ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 What problem?
• 3 The process of briefing
• 4 Hurdles and barriers
• 5 Sources of failure—results of the 1998 study
• 6 Perceptions of current practice
• 7 Alternatives or hot air?
• 8 Strategies for the future
• References
• Index