Cross-Industry Learning: The development of a Generic ... - CiteSeerX

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 Michail Kagioglou1, Rachel Cooper1, Ghassan Aouad2, Martin Sexton2, John Hinks3, Darryl Sheath4

1

Research Centre for Design, Manufacture & Marketing, University of Salford, UK Department of Surveying, University of Salford, UK 3 Department of Building Engineering and Surveying, Heriot-Watt University, UK 4 Agile Construction Initiative, University of Bath, UK 2

ABSTRACT The Manufacturing industry has been striving, for a number of years, for improvements in the way new products are developed. The industry has adopted a ‘process view’ in order to organise and manage their new product development (NPD) activities effectively and efficiently. Other industries have, of late, tried to adopt such a ‘process’ and ‘whole project’ view. The construction industry in particular, is one of those industries that could potentially achieve this knowledge and philosophy transfer from the manufacturing industry. This paper briefly presents the potential applicability of stage-gate processes in the construction industry.

1. INTRODUCTION The Manufacturing industry is continuously striving for improvements in the way new products are developed. The traditional ‘over the wall’ approach has been largely improved to accommodate teamwork and effective communications. The industry has also adopted a ‘process view’ in order to organise and manage their operations effectively. Attention has been given in the way certain activities are performed, considering a ‘whole project’ view, namely new product development or lifecycle management. Other industries have, of late, tried to adopt such a ‘process’ and ‘whole project’ view. Many parallels can be drawn between the construction industry and medium to large manufacturing organisations. Characterised by fragmented, multi disciplinary parties construction works are often poorly co-ordinated resulting in cost and time over runs as well as dissatisfied clients. The University of Salford funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under the Innovative Manufacturing Initiative (IMI) has undertaken a project aiming to develop a Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol (GDCPP).

Transferring proven new product development practices from the manufacturing industry the team has adopted a stage-gate or phase review methodology. This paper presents the potential applicability of stage-gate processes in the construction industry based on an industrial perspective provided by the seven industrial partners to the project which include: BT, Alfred McAlpine Construction (Special Projects), Engineering Technology, BAA plc, EDM Architects, Waterman partnership and Boulton & Paul Ltd.

2. METHODOLOGY The research team used a number of research approaches and research techniques in fulfilling the objectives of the research programme. • Research Approaches • Case Study: A traditional case study approach was used, with researchers entering industrial partners’ organisations openly in the role of investigators, for the express purpose of learning more about their activities with respect to the design and construction processes being practised. There were three main case studies both from the manufacturing and construction sector. • Action Research: In as much as to not only generate new knowledge or understanding but also provide structured frameworks for carrying out organisational change within the boundaries of the industrial partner research team members. • Research Techniques • Questionnaires: Collecting predominantly qualitative data, aiming in generating factual and attitudinal information and understanding • Interviews: Semi-structured in nature to allow the interview to have an overall purpose, but be sufficiently flexible to explore issues as they arose during the discussion. • Workshops: In effect, the workshop configuration created a boundary-spanning team which could tackle complex process issues by bringing together, and harnessing a diverse range of expertise in a structured way. • Literature reviews: Using primary, secondary and tertiary sources for both the manufacturing and construction industries.

3. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIES A number of lessons can be learned from the manufacturing sector with regards to the implementation and practical use of a ‘process view’ within the construction industry. The area within the manufacturing sector that relates closely to construction and building works is new product development. It concentrates in the development of an idea, need or client requirement to the final commercialisation of the product e.g. a building or a car. A number of similarities can be found between the two industries with regards to the activities used for developing new products. For example they include: • The start of a project can be initiated internally or by direct and/or indirect contact with the customers • The development of the product requires the participation of a number of specialists and functions such as: designers, surveyors, marketing, stress analysts etc.

•

The successful construction or manufacturing of a building or product can only be achieved if all external (suppliers and consultants) and internal resources are utilised and co-ordinated effectively • The building or product is handed over to the customer/client and provisions are made for future support. However there are a number of distinct differences, the most important of which is that in the manufacturing industry all NPD activities are co-ordinated, managed and controlled based on a common framework which is the NPD process. The construction industry mainly, uses ad-hoc methods for achieving the latter and therefore reducing repeatability of process execution, resulting in the same mistakes occurring time after time. This shift into the establishment of a consistent process for the construction industry requires a new way of thinking entailing a change of culture and working practices. Furthermore, it requires: • a good understanding of current practices and future trends • effective communication mechanisms of such processes, such as modelling • agreement of participating parties 4. STAGE/GATE PROCESSES It is widely accepted that in order to move a new product idea through to production and final launch into the market, a number of activities need to be performed (1). Initiated by the identification of the need or the adoption of an idea, a number of technical, financial and business preliminary evaluations are curried out. Further detailed technical development follow, and finally the finished product, after a series of company and market tests, is launched into the market (2). Depending on the number and nature of activities of an NPD process adopted by individual firms, they can be arranged in various ways to represent the sequence of implementation and the interactions between them. The way in which they are presented forms the NPD model for the company, and all efforts concentrate on performing activities in a certain manner and sequence. NASA’s PPP (phased project planning) process, which is often referred to as phase-review process (3), had a number of disadvantages. Milton & Rosenau (4) suggested that when the phase-review process is executed by Cross-Functional Teams (CFTs), offers a number of benefits such as reducing risk, easing the task of setting goals toward completing each phase, and improves focus on a particular phase. One such process gaining wide acceptance (5) is known generically as Stage-Gate, and it is illustrated in figure 1 (6).

Figure 1

A typical stage-gate process

Stage-gate processes have been found to reduce development time, produce marketable products, and optimise internal resources by eliminating projects which are not promising (7,8,9).

5. THE PRINCIPLES FOR A GENERIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS PROTOCOL The development of the Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol was based on a number of interrelated principles. 5.1 Whole project view Any contemporary attempt to define or create a ‘design and construction process’ will have to cover the whole ‘life’ of a project from recognition of a need to the operation of the finished facility. This approach ensures that all issues are considered from both a business and a technical point of view. It also focuses at the ‘front-end’ activities whereby attention is paid to the identification, definition and evaluation of client requirements in order to identify suitable solutions. Also, it forces a number of project issues to be considered earlier than is traditionally the case. 5.2 A consistent process The development of the generic Process Protocol provides the potential to establish its consistent application. Through consistency of use the scope for ambiguity should reduce. This, together with the adoption of a standard approach to performance measurement, evaluation and control, should facilitate a process of continual improvement in design and construction. 5.3 Progressive design fixity The ‘stage-gate’ approach applies a consistent planning and review procedure throughout the Process. Phase Reviews are conducted at the end of each Phase with the aim of reviewing the work executed in the Phase, approving progress to the next Phase, and planning the resourcing and execution of the next Phase. This philosophy is translated in the development of the Protocol’s phase gates. Phase gates are classed as either soft or hard, with the ‘soft gates’ allowing the potential for concurrency in the process, whilst ensuring that the key decision points in the process are respected. 5.4 Co-ordination Co-ordination is one area in which construction traditionally is perceived to perform poorly. This perception is supported by Banwell (10) and Latham (11), in addition to many other reviews of the industry. The need for improved co-ordination was also highlighted by the interviews with senior managers undertaken during the research project. It is therefore proposed that co-ordination of the Process Protocol is undertaken, principally, by the Process and Change Management activity zones (see 6.3). Appointed by the Client, Process Management will be delegated authority to plan and co-ordinate the participants and activities of each phase, throughout the Process. The actions of Process Management are supported by Change Management, through which all information related to the project is passed.

5.5 Stakeholder Involvement & Teamwork Project success relies upon the right people having the right information of the right time. Proactive resourcing of Phases through the adoption of a ‘stakeholder’ view should ensure that appropriate participants are consulted earlier in the Process than is traditionally the case. A stakeholder is a person, group and/or an organisation who is directly or indirectly affected by decisions made during the project. For example it can include the project participants (project team) and the, local council, environmental groups, etc. 5.6 Feedback The Phase Review Process facilitates a means by which project experiences can be recorded, throughout the Process, thereby informing later phases and future projects. Competitive advantage will come from how such experiences are acted upon. This Process Protocol therefore proposes the creation, maintenance and use of a Legacy Archive that acts as a central repository, or information-spine (12), for the information generated through each of the phases of the process.

6. THE MODEL The development of the model that incorporates the principles of the Process Protocol is based on existing descriptions of the design and construction process as well as established NPD models in the manufacturing industry. Furthermore the Process Protocol concentrates at the ‘front-end’ so that costly and time consuming mistakes at the later stages can be eliminated. Based on the latter, the design and construction process is divided into four main stages which cover the ‘whole project’ from conception of the idea or need to the final long term operation and maintenance of the facilities being constructed (see figure 2). 6.1 Process Protocol stages 6.1 1 Pre-project stage The Pre-Project Phases relate to the strategic business considerations of any potential project which aims to address a client’s need. Throughout the Pre-Project Phases the client’s need is progressively defined and assessed with the aim of: 1. Determining the need for a construction project solution, and 2. Securing outline financial authority to proceed to the Pre-Construction Phases. 6.1.2 Pre-Construction stage With outline financial approval obtained, the Process progresses through to the PreConstruction Phases where the defined client’s need is developed into an appropriate design solution. Like many conventional models of the design process, the Pre-Construction Phases develop the design through a logical sequence, with the aim of delivering approved production information. The Phase Review Process, however, adds the potential for the progressive fixing of the design, together with it’s concurrent development, within a formal, co-ordinated framework. 6.1.3 Construction stage The Construction Phase is solely concerned with the production of the project solution. It is here that the full benefits of the co-ordination and communication earlier in the Process may be fully realised. Potentially, any changes in the client’s requirements will be minimal, as the

increased cost of change as the design progresses should be fully understood by the time onsite construction work begins. 6.1.4 Post-Construction stage Upon completion of the Construction Phase, the Process Protocol continues into the PostConstruction Phases which aim to continually monitor and manage the maintenance needs of the constructed facility. Again, the full involvement of facilities management specialists at the earlier stages of the process should make the enactment of such activities less problematic. The need for surveys of the completed property, for example, should be avoided as all records of the development of the facility should have been recorded by the project’s Legacy Archive. 6.2 Deliverables Deliverables represent documented project and process information. They can include the business case, design management reports, health and safety issues, procurement plan, project brief, project and process execution plans etc. These reports are compiled to form the phase review report. This report will include all the necessary information that is required to make a decision at the ‘gate’ which is in turn managed by the client with representatives from the project team as and when they are needed. The number and nature (i.e. updates, revisions, finalised) of the deliverables presented at each phase is directly related to the development stage of the project. For example the business case will become increasingly defined as more information becomes available to the project team. 6.3 Activity Zones 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 (see figure 2). It is recognised that traditionally, project to project, organisational roles and responsibilities change, resulting in ambiguity and confusion (13). 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 can carry out an activity zone in small projects but in large and complex projects, it may consist of a complex network of people and between relevant functions and/or organisations. The membership of the activity zones is determined by the project in-hand. A number of function may be members of an activity zone at any particular time during the development of the project. The majority of the activity zones are self-explanatory. However the role of the Process and Change management present a significant departure from the conventional view of the design and construction process. They are essentially the interface between the other project participants. Process Management, as the title suggests, is concerned with the enactment of the process rather than the project. Process Management is responsible for facilitating and coordinating the participants needed to produce the necessary deliverables, and has a role independent of all other activity zones. Furthermore Change Management has the role of managing the changes which occur during the duration of the project. It essentially facilitates the holding, review and dissemination of all information as the project progresses.

Figure 2

The Process Protocol Model

7. CONCLUSIONS The paper has briefly described the development of a Design and Construction Process Protocol based on stage/gate new product development processes found in the manufacturing industry. The resulting model introduces concepts which are new in a traditionally fragmented and litigation driven construction industry. In order for any new process to be adopted, experience indicates that the key principles and underlying structure must be understood and remembered. Any process of this nature will need to be accompanied by detailed implementation guides to further enhance its validity and applicability in any construction project. This illustrates the need for further work to be carried out in defining respective sub-processes to the model using a top-down methodology. Furthermore, the management of the Process Protocol should be given special attention, as it requires the collaboration of all parties in a project. This further necessitates a certain change in the industry culture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thank the industrial partners to the project for their time, effort and commitment in developing the Process Protocol.

REFERENCES 1. Utterback, J M. (1971). “The process of Technological Innovation Within the Firm”. Academy of Management Journal, March, pp.75-88. 2. Crawford, C M. (1994). “New Products Management”. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Fourth edition. 3. Rosenau, Jr., and Milton, D. (1990). “Faster New Product Development: Getting the Right Product to Market Quickly”. New York: Amacom. 4. Milton, D, and Rosenau, Jr. (1988). “Phased Approach Speeds Up New Product Development”. Research & Development, November, pp.52-55. 5. O’Connor, P. (1994). “FROM EXPERIENCE: Implementing a Stage-Gate Process: A MultiCompany Perspective”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.11, pp.183-200. 6. Cooper, R G. (1990). “Stage-Gate System: A New Tool for Managing New Products”. Business Horizons, May-June, pp.44-54. 7. LaPlante, A, and Alter, A E. (1994). “Corning, Inc: The Stage-Gate Innovation Process”. Computerworld, Oct. 31, Vol.28, No.44, p.81. 8. Anderson, R E. (1993). “Can Stage-Gate Systems Deliver the Goods”. Financial Executive, NovDec., Vol.9, No.6, pp.34-38. 9. Cooper, R G, and Kleinschmidt , E J. (1991). “New Product Processes at Leading Industrial Firms”. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.20, pp.137-147. 10. Banwell, H. (1964). Report of the “Committee on the Placing and Management of Contracts for Building and Civil Engineering work”. H.M.S.O. 11. Latham, M. (1994). “Constructing the Team”. H.M.S.O. 12. Sheath, D., Woolley, H., Hinks, J., Cooper, R. & Aouad, G. (1996). The Development of a Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol for the UK Construction Industry; Proceedings of InCIT’96, Sydney, Australia. 13. Luck, R. & 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. & Retik, A. (eds.); E. & F. N. Spon.