The Language of Project Management

By Stephen M. Campbell

Change: we recognize it as a force within our society, but rarely appreciate it's dramatic effect. Change moves in baby steps, slowly carrying us from our neighborhood and depositing us in a strange part of town. The familiar landmarks of home are no longer visible. The street names are different. Adding to our quandary, the people in this part of town speak differently. They use obscure words and odd phrasing. Without a common reference it's difficult to understand their directions. How will we ever get back home?

The construction industry has been touched by change. During the past ten years a shift has occurred that redefines our roles as participants in the building process, our contractual relationships and ultimately the way in which we communicate. A reorganization of the way in which we design and construct buildings is underway.

Owner+Contractor+Designer =Successful Building Project

As the American Institute of Architects (AIA) observes, the role of the architect has changed. Ten years ago the architect was typically the leader in orchestrating the design and construction of a building. He held a close relationship with the Owner, conveying the Owner's wishes to other design consultants and the contractor. The architect often employed these design consultants and held more than a titular position in approving payments to the contractor. In this enviable role the architect in fact served as an agent of the Owner, controlling the flow of both cash and communication from the Owner to the other participants in the construction project.

Today the working relationship between the Owner and architect has changed radically. Despite the AIA's attempt to turn back the clock (through the language of the AIA B141-1997 contract) the architect no longer enjoys an exclusive role in the building process. Duties once claimed by the architect (e.g. cost estimation, project administration) have been abdicated to more proficient, focused professionals. Specialization in the design field has given rise to new professions (e.g. laboratory planner, acoustician). The Owner, seeing the benefit in utilizing the core competencies of each discipline, has encouraged team-based collaboration to effect the swift and efficient delivery of his building.

Given the multiplicity of design disciplines it's not surprising that design consultants are geographically dispersed. In assembling a project team the Owner seeks the best-of-class' professionals to participate in a given project. The location of the Owner's proposed building no longer dictates the use of regional consultants and contractors. Professional licensing, local codes and trade relationships serve as obstacles, not barriers, to the entry of national and international firms.

As the Owner's core business expands to serve the global marketplace, the parochial practice of building delivery by local firms loses its relevance

Under market pressure to provide rapid business solutions, the Owner is redefining how a building is delivered. The previous linear model of Design-Bid-Build is now used less frequently. In its place are Construction Management and Design-Build models which share the need for early, equal participation by the Contractor in the design of a building. Under the auspices of pre-construction services the Contractor provides a much-needed reality check of design decisions in the areas of constructability review, cost modeling and project scheduling.

As a result of these forces the traditional structure of a project team led by the architect has been replaced. In its wake is a many-to-many matrix of contracts and communication among a project team composed of the Owner, the Contractor and the Designer (i.e. engineers, specialty consultants and the architect). The physical separation of the team members places a premium upon effective, digital communication.

Creating a Common Language (Part One):

Who's Writing the Style Manual?

Buildings are created to support a business function such as making microchips, conducting biomedical research or educating students. The pervasive trend of business process reorganization affects the manufacturer and university alike. The construction industry, long a bastion of a guild mentality, has begun to adapt through collaborative models of building delivery. The success of this effort is heavily dependent upon a common language and tools for effective communication. But with the plethora of digital aids to communication available, which protocols and applications are critical to support collaboration?

During the past ten years we've experienced a well-documented evolution of information systems. The stand-alone personal computer vs. mainframe debate of the 80's is now quaint in retrospect. With the widespread acceptance of this, the key issue is how best to link a dizzying array of computing platforms and applications to accomplish our specific purpose.

The Good News: The many-to-many structure of the Internet mirrors the organization of today's building project team.

The Bad News: The lack of standardization in the use of computer applications across firms inhibits efficient use of the Internet to foster collaboration.

To be precise, the standardization issue of today is not the same topic of compatibility between computer software and hardware that was debated during the 80's. The dominance of Microsoft and continued consolidation within the software industry means that for the most part we're all running compatible applications on a Windows 9X operating system linked by common Internet protocols. The rub is that we each place a different priority on the type of application we find most useful.

Even the same application is used differently by different firms.

For example, the ability to utilize automatic paragraph numbering, styles, macros and relational text within a word processing document has simplified the task of producing consistent specifications. While these features are common to the leading word processing software applications, their use in the production of construction specifications is not. The leading master specification systems implement these features to varying degrees. This creates the necessity for two design consultants on a building project team who both use Microsoft Word to agree on the protocol, or way in which they use the same word processing software, to ensure that their combined specification is accurate and coordinated.

Another problem is standardization between firms in the use of graphic tools such as computer-aided-design software. In the past it mattered little whether a parallel bar or a T-square was used as long as each produced a straight line. Today one firm may use AutoCAD and another MicroStation, agreeing to share files using a common DXF file format. While this sounds like a plausible working arrangement it is seldom that simple in practice. Design firms tend to rebel against the sterile "look" of computer-produced design documents by adopting firm-specific use of text fonts, line types, drawing symbols and layering standards. The conversion of these elements between software applications, while theoretically possible, is rarely problem-free. The result is that sharing graphic documents across the Internet is accompanied by a great deal of manual editing and error correction at each end. This loss of coordination can lead to errors and omissions within the combined construction documents

Creating a Common Language (Part Two):

The Medium is the Message

Each member of the project team has a different perspective on the most important aspect of the building project. Each uses a different category of software to track his particular concern. The Owner is typically concerned with numbers. This stems from his responsibility to provide the funding for the project. Development of cost models, tracking the budget against commitments and cash flow analysis are regarded as mission-critical tasks by the Owner. Spreadsheet software is routinely employed by the Owner to meet these needs and convey value-engineering goals for the building to the Contractor and the Designer.

The Contractor is most concerned with time. Coordination of the many subcontractors, suppliers and regulatory inspectors is critical to meet the building occupancy date. Sophisticated scheduling software that incorporates critical path is essential for any sizable building project. This software is used to communicate milestones and the sequence of activities to the Owner, subcontractors, and the Designer.

The Designer works within a graphical environment. Floor plans, elevations, renderings and details are the pictorial lingua franca used to convey a description of the proposed building. Computer-aided-design software is the backbone application software used by the Designer to communicate with the other design consultants, the Owner and the Contractor.

If each project team member used only the medium of his primary application to communicate the only structure that would get built is a Tower of Babel. The opportunity for misinterpretation is high if the Designer is given only a reduced budget number by the Owner as the basis for a revision to the building design. What's missing is a common medium of communication between the Owner, Contractor and Designer.

Creating a Common Language (Part Three):

Long Distance Operator, Give Me a Call

Communications software is the conduit linking the project team. The text of specifications, meeting minutes and requests-for-information can now pass between the Owner, Contractor and Designer via e-mail over the Internet throughout the course of a building project. File attachments carry the numbers, graphics and schedules important to each team member. As this conduit of communication becomes more prevalent a need for structuring the information emerges. This can take the form of generic group management software such as Lotus Notes. More complex projects may employ a web site with security features to enable online approval of shop drawings and applications for payment.

The web site resides on a dedicated server with the storage capacity to serve as a central repository for all information related to the project. Underlying this ability is a document management application to scan, store and catalogue paper-based material from those participants who have not yet entered the digital age. The forms-based structure of the site enforces a consistent format of the data. In many ways, this kind of full-service project web site within the construction industry is the analog of a check-processing clearinghouse within the banking industry. Both enable business transactions among industry participants and convert paper documents to commonly accepted digital records.

Who should provide, coordinate and manage this central resource?

The functionality of past efforts has been limited by the technical savvy of the team member undertaking the application. The application calls for the expertise of a network administrator, programmer, and librarian an uncommon mix within all but the largest contracting or design firm.

One model for implementation is the formation of an independent service bureau sponsored by a professional society or foundation within the construction industry. The advantage of a service bureau is that the development and maintenance cost of the application could be recovered over many projects. The dedicated business focus of the bureau would also speed industry acceptance. The Contractor and the Designer would utilize the service bureau on a fee-for-service basis. The Owner would support its existence as a reimbursable expense passed along by the Contractor and the Designer.<

Does a reduction in errors and omissions within construction documents, reduced turn-around time on shop drawings, requests-for-information and change requests justify such an investment? To the experienced Owner, there is no question that the potential benefits of a common language for project management would far outweigh the costs.

About the author: Stephen M. Campbell, a Member of the Board of Directors of CSRF, is Associate Vice President, Facilities Services, at Cornell University.

The CSRF newsletter is published for SPECTEXT® subscribers and others involved in design and construction. To obtain your copy of Creating a Common Language®, please contact the CSRF Support Center by telephone at 1-877- SPECTXT or 410-838-7561 or you may e-mail us at supportcenter@csrf.org

©  Copyright 2007, The Construction Sciences Research Foundation, Inc.  Updated January 12, 2007.