Projectwide Access: Key to Effective Implementation ...

Projectwide Access: Key to Effective Implementation of Construction Project Management Software Systems

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Colorado at Boulder on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Paul Arnold 1 and Amy Javernick-Will, A.M.ASCE 2 Abstract: Construction engineering and management experts asserted in the 1980s that computer-based information and communication technologies (ICTs) would grow quickly to increase the efficiency of communications in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. Since that time, many studies have measured the rate of adoption and effectiveness of these tools. Recently, studies have noted that these tools are not being used ubiquitously and have yet to reach their full potential in increasing the efficiency of intercompany communications. The present research employed the Delphi method with a panel of AEC industry professionals to address barriers and facilitators of using project-based project management software systems (PMSS), including issues of access to PMSS and how project-based access would affect the efficiency with which information can be communicated. The results of this research indicate that data reentry is a common source of inefficiency in the use of PMSS and that future construction ICT developments should focus on implementing a more collaborative, project-based PMSS that allows direct and active access to the PMSS by all project team members. However, governance issues may be preventing more widespread use of a collaborative PMSS implementation model. Specifically, the respondents felt that general contractors should maintain their roles as managers and controllers of the PMSS. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000596. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers. CE Database subject headings: Information technology (IT); Communication; Information management; Project management; Computer software. Author keywords: Information technology (IT); Information and communication technology (ICT); Information management; Project management software.

Introduction Information technology (IT) is technology involving the development, maintenance, and use of computer systems, software, and networks for the processing and distribution of data (“Information technology” 2012). In construction, many IT systems are used specifically to communicate information. For this reason, a more specific term, information and communication technology (ICT), is used. In this paper, IT is used as a general term intended to encompass all computer-based technologies, and ICT refers to a program that is computer-based and uses modern communication technologies such as e-mail to distribute the information generated. The paper focuses specifically on project management software systems (PMSS), which are a common form of construction ICT used to manage and communicate project-specific information. Project management software systems can exist in various forms, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) programs (Chung et al. 2008), project management application service providers (PM-ASPs), or Web-based project management systems (WPMS) (Nitithamyong and Skibniewski 2004, 2006; Dossick and 1

Graduate Student, Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0428 (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected] 2 Assistant Professor, Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0428. E-mail: amy [email protected] Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 30, 2011; approved on July 30, 2012; published online on August 2, 2012. Discussion period open until October 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 139, No. 5, May 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2013/5-510-518/$25.00.

Sakagami 2008). Most of these tools are administered over the extranet, “which is a private network that used Internet protocols to transmit information” (Nitithamyong and Skibniewski 2004, p. 492). They are used as tools to manage and communicate project information. The existing literature often refers to the terms IT, ICT, and PMSS interchangeably. The National Institute of Standards and Technology performed a study in 2004 that placed the cost for lack of data integration to the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry at $15.8 billion. This study highlights the significance of the AEC industry’s ineffective usage of ICT. Specifically, it cites the lack of integration and interoperability between project-collaboration software (PMSS) and other systems as a significant source of these costs (NIST 2004). Collaboration is fundamental in the highly fragmented AEC industry (Howard et al. 1989). The project-based nature of the industry requires collaboration across specialized companies in which each firm creates significant amounts of data and information that need to be communicated across the project team (Dossick and Neff 2010). Unfortunately, the fragmentation in the industry contributes to a highly complex communication structure on projects, which complicates the possibility of effective collaboration. Specifically, organizational divisions and company obligations are barriers that may stifle individuals’ ability to work collaboratively (Dossick and Neff 2010). This can hinder the effectiveness of a web-based ICT because project team members are unable to share data electronically (Stewart and Mohamed 2004). In addition, the fragmented industry may contribute to the absence of an industrywide adoption of PMSS that allows collaboration across companies through standardized interfaces. Systemic innovations that require multiple firms to change their processes are laggard in the fragmented, project-based construction industry

510 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:510-518.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Colorado at Boulder on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Taylor and Levitt 2005). Thus, these systemic issues affect the use and implementation of construction ICT. However, if the industry can overcome these issues, use of ICT should help manage the complexity of information communication between firms (Rojas and Songer 1999). Currently, a common implementation approach for a construction PMSS features the general contractor (GC) as manager and central user of the PMSS on the project. For this reason, many of the PMSS programs available to general contractors are designed for single-company, enterprise-based implementations in which the system is proprietary to and strictly used by a single company. In these programs, information is typically transmitted to the GC from other project team members on paper or a form of electronic media [e.g., portable document format (PDF), spreadsheet, or e-mail]. The GC then has to reenter the information communicated into the GC’s PMSS for documentation and tracking. Although every member of the project team contributes significant amounts of valuable information that is stored and tracked in the PMSS, this survey in this study revealed that most do not have direct and active access to the PMSS on projects (nine of 11 qualified respondents did not use PMSS that allowed projectwide access). Because of the promise of ICT solutions, the AEC Industry is experiencing an evolution in data communication from paper-based to electronic communications (Hjelt and Björk 2006). Specifically, the construction industry has witnessed three distinct eras in ICT (Froese 2005). The first era featured stand-alone IT tools such as computer-aided drafting (CAD), structural analysis tools, and scheduling tools. With the advent of the World Wide Web, the second era focused on communications using computer-based tools such as e-mail and web-based document-management systems (Froese 2005). Currently, construction ICTs are in the third evolutionary era, with research and development efforts focused on increasing the level of interoperability and integration between first- and second-era tools to form a unified source of building information (Froese 2010). The transition toward greater ICT usage has been ongoing for at least 20 years in the construction industry, yet there are not signs of ubiquitous adoption and acceptance. Unfortunately, despite speculation that the use of computing technologies would lead to a significant increase in the efficiency of AEC industry data communication (Abudayyeh and Rasdorf 1991; Howard et al. 1989; Rowings 1991), these efficiencies have yet to be realized. In fact, one could reasonably question whether the use of the PC has helped or exacerbated the aforementioned information communication inefficiencies. Specifically, the lack of interoperability of ICT systems places an additional burden on organizations that are caught between paper and electronic documentation. Interoperability problems caused by the use of disparate ICT systems by different company types add to this burden. It is not uncommon for employees to enter data at least twice to ensure satisfactory documentation. For example, the research team observed a subcontractor who generated a request for information (RFI) using PDF within the subcontractor’s PMSS and sent the RFI to the GC, who then reentered the information request into the GC’s PMSS and sent it to the designer, who reentered the RFI for a third time into the design company’s PMSS. The response to the RFI followed the same route as submission, with numerous reentries resulting in wasted time and data communication inefficiency in the AEC industry. Unfortunately, many industry representatives reported the same phenomena. Thus, for greater efficiency to be realized by construction PMSS, the systems must begin to feature interoperable formats (Stewart and Mohamed 2004) or project teams must agree to use one project-based system. A case study reported in Baldwin et al. (1999) highlighted benefits of using a centralized,

automatic information-exchange platform on a project that used partnering. The study found that this reduced rekeying and data handling, improved the quality and communications among the project teams, and reduced the risk of project delay (Baldwin et al. 1999). Unfortunately, integration is not commonplace, and a 2007 study reported that only 16% of companies surveyed were satisfied with the level of integration their enterprise-based systems offered (Tatari et al. 2007). To address the lack of interoperability between PMSS programs in a fragmented industry, the present research studies the theoretical efficiencies gained through a more collaborative PMSS implementation model.

Points of Departure The AEC industry’s use and adoption of ICT has been researched and documented extensively. To date, the available literature identifies reasons for a noted lack of adoption and proposes methods to improve adoption rates. Unfortunately, the construction industry lags behind other industries in adopting innovations and changes (Howard et al. 1989). As a result, research efforts have focused on resistance to construction ICT use and adoption and have proposed best practices that aim to improve adoption rates and decrease resistance to use of construction ICT. This literature review covers the broader topic of construction ICT adoption rates while narrowing in on PMSS. In particular, relevant topics such as data-format interoperability issues and implementation models will be reviewed. Using innovation diffusion modeling, research has studied the reasons for IT adoption (or, conversely, lack of adoption) by studying the forces driving decisions at the individual, organization, and industry levels (Mitropoulos and Tatum 2000). This line of research inquiry considers intraorganizational forces, such as imitative behavior, and external forces, such as government regulations and contractual requirements. Most of these studies find that cumulative adoption of innovation will increase over time as the drivers to innovate increase. This adoption rate is generally described by an S-curve (Mitropoulos and Tatum 2000). However, Kale and Arditi (2010) emphasize that the diffusion of innovation may not follow an expected curve of adoption in the AEC industry. Instead, they assert that unpredictable variables, including the project-based nature of the industry and its complex interorganizational relationships, influence technological adoption and thus, the time for adoption. One factor affecting industrywide low adoption rates is individual end-use. Davis and Songer (2009) studied personal characteristics of end-users, such as profession, age, gender, personality type, and education level, to analyze their correlation with resistance to any IT usage. Using the resistance-to-change index (RTCI), they found that construction tradespeople, women, those with low computer experience, and those with no experience with IT changes are likely to resist IT implementations. To overcome this resistance in the workforce, Hartmann and Fischer (2009) found that involving these resistant users in the implementation process of an organization’s construction IT benefitted adoption rates. Specifically, resistant users can help upper management better understand their reasons for resisting the IT implementation. At the same time, the resistant users better understand the benefits of adoption themselves, thus decreasing their resistance to the implementation. To better understand successful adoption of construction ICTs, Nitithamyong and Skibniewski (2004, 2006) did a series of studies on project management application service providers (PM-ASPs) and Web-based project management software (WPMS). In an

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 511

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:510-518.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Colorado at Boulder on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

initial study, they were able to identify general factors that organizations must consider to successfully adopt ICTs, including, for example, technology, process, and people. They found that the most important success factors for adoption of construction ICT were enhancing coordination among team members, facilitating document transfer and handling, and reducing communication bottlenecks. To increase perceived usefulness, the benefits of using new ICT systems must be made explicit. As a result, it is important to address the business functions being serviced, and the return on investment (Jung and Gibson 1999; Salem and Mohanty 2008). Many research projects have been motivated by the argument that companies resist the adoption of construction IT/ICT because there is a lack of proven benefits (O’Connor and Yang 2004). To address this issue, a series of studies have measured the impact of IT use on project outcomes using Construction Industry Institute (CII) project-benchmarking statistics (Kang et al. 2008; O’Connor and Yang 2004; Thomas et al. 2004; Zhai et al. 2009). These benchmarking statistics correlate the use of IT with overall project performance (Thomas et al. 2004), schedule and cost performance (Kang et al. 2008), labor productivity (Zhai et al. 2009), and impact of IT depending on project type (O’Connor and Yang 2004). The majority of these studies are nonspecific regarding the types of technologies considered. The studies qualify IT use as the use of, for instance, e-mail, electronic data exchange (EDI), threedimensional models, and scheduling programs. However, all of these studies report positive correlation between the performance of the project and the use of general IT. In particular, schedule duration is shown by all of these studies to be positively affected by a project’s use of IT. These studies are significant in that they provide empirical evidence that AEC industry companies can benefit from increased use of IT. Despite an understanding of the benefits involved with IT, the fragmented nature of the AEC industry makes it difficult for software vendors to gauge a common set of features that will benefit all users (Molenaar and Songer 2001). In addition, as previously discussed, the complexity of contractual relationships in the industry creates a multifaceted communication structure (Dossick and Neff 2010). Unfortunately, the effectiveness of using Web-based ICT is linked to the ability to share data among the project team. For this reason, scholars have called for additional focus on the standardization of interfaces between systems (Stewart and Mohamed 2004). As a result, the AEC industry has recognized the need for an industrywide, concerted effort to increase the efficiency of ICT. Industry consortiums have established research councils and committees with the goal of advancing flexible, interoperable data formatting (e.g., National Institute of Building Sciences, CII, Fiatech). A unified format would increase the ability of disparate programs to integrate with one another, thus eliminating the need for data reentry. Industry foundation classes (IFCs) have also been developed by industry consortiums in an attempt to establish a standard, interoperable data format (Hu and Zhou 2009). The value of a company’s IT decision is based upon the likelihood that a program’s data format will be interoperable with the format of the programs being used by other members of the project team. If the formats are interoperable, the data can be integrated, project team members can communicate freely with one another, and data reentry should be reduced. The manner in which construction ICT is implemented has been shown to affect its successful adoption. Several studies have identified factors to consider during ICT implementation, including demonstrating job relevance and results to enhance the perceived usefulness of the systems (Ahuja et al. 2009; Chung et al. 2008, 2009). Best practices have also been identified at the project

management level to achieve project success, including top management support, information systems area participation, and consulting capability and support (Ferratt et al. 2006). Dossick and Sakagami (2008) also recommend strategies for implementing ICT systems such as WPMS, including establishing a champion or project ICT leader, using contractual obligations to mandate use of WPMS, and providing sufficient end-user training. This is similar to Froese’s (2006) recommendation to establish a project information manager (PIM), who would be the clearinghouse for all information entered into the system. The existing literature documents reasons for the industrywide lack of adoption of construction ICT and PMSS and provides theoretical recommendations on how to improve adoption rates. However, an area that has not been addressed by the existing literature is the potential effects of modifying the way that PMSS are implemented. Specifically, research must be conducted to determine whether data reentry is common in construction PMSS and whether it could be resolved by implementing a more collaborative, projectwide PMSS in which many different company types have direct and active access to the system. To address this gap and expand on the existing body of knowledge regarding PMSS in the AEC industry, the present research explores the possibility of reducing barriers to adoption by implementing this project-based approach. To do this, the research addresses three questions: 1. Is data reentry commonly encountered when using PMSS, causing inefficiency? 2. Would a collaborative, project-based PMSS that involves direct and active access (for both input and receipt of information) for multiple company types be an effective construction ICT implementation model for reducing data reentry and increasing efficiency? 3. What company types should have direct and active access (for both input and receipt of information) to a construction project-based PMSS? The responses to these questions will add valuable knowledge to the current literature on the importance of data reentry and enhanced projectwide access to increase the adoption and successful implementation of PMSS.

Research Method To understand collaboration and data reentry, this study gathered information regarding PMSS user experience and opinion. To gather this information, several research methods were considered, including case studies, surveys, focus groups, and the Delphi method. Each of these methods have benefits and constraints: Case studies provide depth but limit the generalizability to the projects studied; surveys allow additional responses but do not allow the ability to gather feedback on comments through multiple rounds; and focus groups can be subject to dominant personalities controlling the majority of the topics, creating bias in the results (Sillars and Hallowell 2009). Ultimately, the Delphi method was chosen as an effective method for synthesizing subjective opinions of industry experts and establishing objective data points in a relatively short period of time. The RAND Corporation developed the Delphi method in the mid-1950s to study the impact of technology on warfare (RAND 2011). Since that time, the method has been widely adopted as a research technique in multiple fields. It has recently been used in construction engineering and management research in the analysis of the selection of construction project procurement systems (Chan et al. 2001), safety risk factors (Hallowell and Gambatese 2009), and construction process qualities (Arditi and Gunaydin 1999).

512 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:510-518.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Colorado at Boulder on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Advantages of the method include maintaining the anonymity of the respondents throughout the process, the ability to provide controlled feedback for individual participants, and analysis of statistical data from subjective criteria (Hallowell and Gambatese 2010). Fig. 1 shows the recommended Delphi process (adapted from Hallowell and Gambatese 2010). After establishing questions through a literature review, the Delphi panel must be assembled. The Delphi method typically requires a panel of experts to complete iterative surveys aimed at reaching consensus among the panelists. Researchers recommend between eight and 12 panelists for an effective Delphi panel (Hallowell and Gambatese 2010). Owing to the nature of this research topic, it was deemed necessary to deviate from the typical requirements of establishing experts and instead to select panelists who had the most relevant qualifications, including experience with PMSS and experience in the construction industry. To qualify the experience of the panelists, the following criteria were used: (1) at least 5 years of experience in the construction industry and (2) at least 3 years of experience using PMSS. Panelists were selected from three different sectors of the industry: general contractors, designers, and developers or owners of construction projects. Fifteen respondents agreed to participate and were sent an information request form to verify that they met the established criteria. Of the 15 willing participants, 11 were qualified. The panel assembled included six representatives from general contracting firms, three representatives from design firms, and two owners/real-estate developers. Panelist experience in the construction industry and with PMSS is summarized in Table 1. To establish the survey questions, a literature review was conducted, and pilot interviews were held with a GC and software vendor. This helped establish the topics of communication, access, data entry, integration, training, and ease of use for the questionnaire. Questions validated from past surveys informed several of the survey questions. In addition, the 7-point Likert scale format was adopted for the questionnaire from Arditi and Gunaydin’s (1999) Delphi study on perceptions of process quality to gauge panelist’s degree of agreement with numerous statements. The scale ranged from 1 to 7, with qualitative statements as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = moderately agree, and 7 = strongly agree. The Likert scale is commonly used in Delphi method studies because it is easily understood by participants (Linstone and Turoff 2002).

Once the format and questions were established, a pilot questionnaire was conducted to test the effectiveness of the questions and the ease of taking the survey. Modifications were then made to the questions and format to improve the survey’s effectiveness. The questionnaire was then administered to the panelists through online survey-administration software, Zoomerang (SurveyMonkey 1999). The online format was used to facilitate a well-qualified, geographically dispersed panel, which is required when using the Delphi method (Sillars and Hallowell 2009). The survey was divided into two parts: Part 1 included 15 statements on the aforementioned topics, and part 2 asked questions addressing whether the panelists perceived that 15 common company types were sophisticated enough to participate in the use of a PMSS and whether their involvement would decrease the amount of data entry required. Participants were informed that they would participate in three rounds of surveys. Past research has established that optimal results are achieved through three rounds of survey, with the goal of achieving consensus in responses to the questions (Hallowell and Gambatese 2010). Using this method, each survey round builds upon the median response and commentary from the previous round. Questions reaching strong consensus were eliminated from Table 1. Panelist Qualifications Panelists

Years of experience

Years of experience with PMSS

PMSS programs used

12 19 7 6 9 7

6 14 4 6 7 7

3 4 4 1 2 2

11 11

9 8

7 2

15 34 13 144

6 20 8 95

7 3 5 20

Contractors GC 1 GC 2 GC 3 GC 4 GC 5 GC 6 Owners O7 O8 Designers D9 D 10 D 11 Totals

Fig. 1. Suggested Delphi process (adapted from Hallowell and Gambatese 2010) JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 513

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:510-518.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Colorado at Boulder on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

later survey rounds. The three rounds of the questionnaire were administered as follows: 1. The survey was distributed to the panel of industry professionals. Responses were gathered and analyzed to establish the median response to each statement and company type. 2. The same questions were distributed to the panel with a report on the median responses from round 1. Participants were asked to reconsider their round-1 response with regard to the group median. If they chose not to conform to the consensus response, they were given an opportunity to explain their reasoning. In part 1 of the survey, one statement from round 1 (statement 3) was split into two individual statements (statements 4 and 5) for clarity. One question (“Should these companies participate in the use of the PMSS?”) was added to part 2 because it was deemed to be a relevant question for which data was needed. 3. Participants were again asked to reconsider their responses that did not conform to the consensus. In this round, they were able to consider the explanations from the group (given in round 2). Many of the questions from round 2 had already reached a strong consensus and thus were made optional for response in round 3. Once the three survey rounds were completed, the data was compiled, and a separate validation panel was assembled that met the same criteria. The validation panel consisted of three general contractors, one designer, and one developer. This panel provided responses to the same statements from part 1, but used a 3-point scale, which is shown in Fig. 2. Part 2 statements regarding company types were validated owing to the strong consensus achieved in the survey. For this reason, the validation panel was also asked open-ended, qualitative questions regarding the company types that should have direct and active access and be involved in a project-based construction ICT implementation. Fig. 3 lists the questions, category, median response, absolute deviation, and round in which consensus was achieved for each statement. In addition, it contains the validation results. As shown in Fig. 3, several of the statements in part 1 were not considered during the validation process. Statement 3 was omitted because it was split into statements 4 and 5 in round 2. Statements 12 and 13 were omitted because they did not reach individual consensus. This lack of agreement among the panelists can be attributed to each individual’s possessing a different aptitude for learning and using computer programs. One panelist accurately described this concept as follows: “The basic functions are generally user friendly for an individual that is somewhat computer savvy and familiar with the jobsite process.” Owing to the fact that all individuals possess different abilities with computers, it is unreasonable to expect any panel to reach consensus on how easy a PMSS is to use or learn. For this reason, these two statements were omitted. To minimize the effects of bias, several controls were employed during the survey panels. “Contrast effect occurs when the perception of a given subject is enhanced or diminished by the value of the immediately preceding subject” (Hallowell and Gambatese

Fig. 2. Validation scale

2010, p. 104). To account for this, the questions were randomized in the surveys so that patterns could not develop during response. Dominance, or collective unconscious effect, is a commonly encountered problem when asking people to consider a group response. To account for this effect, the identities of panel members were kept anonymous throughout the survey process. Median responses were used to measure consensus in lieu of mean responses to lessen the biases of any outlying opinions of individual panelists. The selection of a diverse panel with members from several sectors of the AEC industry provides this research with a robust, industrywide experience base of knowledge. Consensus was considered to have been reached when the absolute deviation from the median for all responses was within 1 scale point (14%) of the median. At the end of three rounds, the overall absolute deviation from the median of all responses was measured to be 0.65. This signifies an overall consensus of 91%.

Results and Analysis All 11 panelists responded to rounds 1 and 2 of the survey, and nine responded to round 3. This represents an overall participation level of 94% throughout the process. By the end of three survey rounds, 1,735 ratings were gathered from the 11 panelists. In round 1, all 11 panelists responded to 15 part 1 statements and two questions in part 2 rating 15 different company types. In round 2, full panelist participation provided ratings for 17 statements in part 1 and 3 questions regarding 15 company types in part 2. In round 3, the nine panelists provided ratings for all part 1 and part 2 questions. The lack of responses from two nonparticipants in round 3 was attributed to scheduling conflicts. Their responses for rounds 1 and 2 were considered to be sufficient and thus were still used in the overall data set. Consensus was measured using absolute deviation from the median. Absolute deviation was used instead of standard deviation to base the results about the median and not the mean. This eliminates the effects of outliers, or biased results (Hallowell and Gambatese 2010). Absolute deviation from the median was calculated according to Eq. (1) Absolute deviation ¼

ΣjX − medianj N

ð1Þ

where X = panelist’s rating; and N = number of ratings. The overall absolute deviation from the median is shown in Table 2. Although the target absolute deviation from the median of 1 scale point was reached for the overall data set in round 1, it was decided that the survey needed to continue to obtain additional information. The results of this research indicate that there is strong support across all AEC-industry company types for a more collaborative, project-based implementation for construction ICT and PMSS in particular. The results of this research indicate that providing direct and active PMSS access to more members of the project team would increase efficiency by enhancing the user’s ability to coordinate with other project team members, reduce communication barriers, and thereby reduce data reentry and transaction costs. This would, in turn, create better integration of project information and allow enhanced collaboration between project team companies (see Fig. 3). Perhaps the most significant indicator of these results is found in part 2 of the survey. In part 2, the panelists were given three statements regarding each of the 15 company types listed in Table 3. These three statements were as follows: (1) this project team

514 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:510-518.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Colorado at Boulder on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Part 1 statements

Table 2. Overall Absolute Deviation from Median by Round Round 1 2 3

Overall absolute deviation 0.94 0.71 0.65

member should have access to a project-based PMSS, (2) this project team member is sophisticated enough to participate in the use of a project-based PMSS, and (3) I would have to do less data entry (or reentry) if the PMSS on my project were available to this project team member.

These results show an overwhelming opinion in the industry that almost all company types typically involved on a project team are sophisticated enough and should be involved in the use of the PMSS on a project. This is contradictory to the currently predominant model of PMSS implementation and signifies the need for change in the AEC industry. The panelists strongly agreed that greater direct and active project team access would increase communication and enhance their ability to coordinate with other team members. As shown in Fig. 3, statement 1 had a median response of 6 and an absolute deviation of 0.4. It was noted that this aspect of implementing a collaborative construction PMSS would “eliminate the time

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 515

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:510-518.

Table 3. Part 2: Company Types, Medians, and Absolute Deviations Should be involved?

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Colorado at Boulder on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Company type Owners Architects Mechanical, electrical, plumbing engineer Structural engineer Civil engineer Consultants Mechanical sub Civil sub Structural sub Concrete sub Drywall sub Electrical sub Information systems sub Interior subs Exterior subs

Sophisticated enough to be involved?

Involvement would decrease data reentry

Median response

Absolute deviation

Median response

Absolute deviation

Median response

Absolute deviation

6 7 6

0.7 0.5 0.5

5 6 6

1.0 0.5 0.5

6 7 6

0.6 0.1 0.5

7 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 5

0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.8

6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5

0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.1

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7

consuming process of having to reconcile varying logs” and “avoid having to respond to frequent information requests.” In their responses to the background-information request form, nine of the 11 panelists answered “no” to the following question: “Is your PMSS available and typically used for input and review by all parties involved in the project (e.g., Developer, Architect, Engineer, GC, Subs, Suppliers, etc.)?” During the validation interviews, four of the five panelists answered “yes” to the following question: “In your experience, does the General Contractor typically manage the ‘master’ project information management system [PMSS] (i.e., the system used to create RFI logs, Submittal Logs, track meeting minutes, etc.)?” In responses to statement 4 (see Fig. 3), the panelists agreed that the GC should maintain the role as manager of a project-based PMSS with a median response of 6 and an absolute deviation of 0.7. However, to increase the efficiency of information communication, they responded to statement 6 (as shown in Fig. 3) by indicating that all companies on a project should have access to the PMSS for both input and receipt of information (median response of 6 and absolute deviation of 0.5). In their explanations, two of the panelists stated, “PMSS is a tool to distribute information. All affected parties should have access to pertinent information” and “It would be a benefit if the whole Project Team could use the system.” These statistics and quotes signify a strong degree of agreement in the industry that there would be advantages to granting direct and active access to the entire project team. It was also found that data reentry is a common inefficiency encountered during the use of PMSS. With median responses to of 6 and 5 to statements 8 and 9, respectively, the panel agreed that project team members must manually reenter into their PMSS data that were sent to them by other team members using various forms of media. This is a wasteful use of a construction manager’s time that could be eliminated through the implementation of a projectbased, collaborative PMSS. In part 2 of the survey, the panel had a median response of 6 or higher across all 15 company types listed, stating that if these companies were granted direct and active access to the PMSS, they would have to enter less data. The average absolute deviation from the median was 0.5, signifying a 93% level of agreement [ð7 − 0.5Þ=7]. One of the comments given in round 2 of the survey stated that if everyone had “proper training and access, this would be the ideal use of the PMSS.” When using a more collaborative PMSS as proposed in this paper, two items were identified that require careful consideration and

future research. One of these items is the owner’s access to the project-based PMSS. Panelists indicated a concern over an owner’s ability to process sophisticated building-science information and a concern for the security of proprietary financial information that could be stored in a PMSS. “Most owners are unaware of this software and how to effectively use it,” said one panelist, who went on to say, “care needs to be taken to not give an owner full financial and issue access as this causes more trouble than needed.” Other concerns regarding owner access were noted as “either they don’t know anything about building science” or they have “ulterior motives.” During the validation interviews, respondents noted that the owners contracted the design and construction team for their expertise and ability to provide skill, knowledge, and customer service for building projects. As a result, they felt that the construction project team should synthesize information for the owners in presentations during owner/architect/contractor (OAC) meetings or when otherwise appropriate. For these reasons, care would need to be taken while implementing a PMSS with true projectwide direct and active access. The second item identified as requiring further consideration and research is the selective management of access to the PMSS. For instance, one respondent noted that level of experience matters, indicating that “the junior design engineers and subs may not need full access—there may be data you don’t want everyone to see except senior staff.” Others commented on the need for the GC to manage and filter the information flow. As one panelist responded, open access would “potentially increase difficulties in communication since the ‘filter’ (GC) is no longer filtering.” Thus, the panel agreed that the GC would need to maintain its position as filter for a collaborative PMSS to work. Indeed, too much information could have the opposite of the intended effect and increase inefficiencies if not managed properly. As another panelist indicated, “Again, the system needs to have the capability and flexibility to limit user access to the appropriate data locations that a particular user needs or is responsible for maintaining.”

Contributions This research has focused on access, communication, and company involvement as they affect data reentry and inefficiencies for construction PMSS. The results indicate that increasing the adoption and use of PMSS necessitates a focus on implementing a collaborative system in which almost all firms have direct and active access

516 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:510-518.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Colorado at Boulder on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and are involved in a projectwide PMSS. Respondents perceived that this would reduce data reentry, increase collaborative ties, and increase the adoption and implementation of PMSS. This is a significant change from current implementation models. The results of this research provide compelling motivation for organizations and project teams to carefully consider creating a project-centered information-management system. They must also consider the governance of these systems, including who manages the system, accesses the system, and filters the information flow. Although the results of this research conclude that all members should be granted direct and active access, there are likely contingent factors that will adjust specific project needs. These findings are significant for the AEC industry and the software vendors that provide programs and services for it. For the AEC industry to more effectively benefit from PMSS and construction ICT in general, it must take a different approach to how software programs are implemented and information is shared. Through the surveys and validation interviews, it was found that there is a recent trend toward a more collaborative model to implement PMSS on construction projects. The forces driving this trend are both internal to the project management organizations and external through owner-driven project-specification requirements. The data gathered in part 2 of this research substantiate that the industry is ready for this transition; owners, architects, and GCs alike report feeling that a more diverse group of project team members should have access to a shared, project-based PMSS and that this group is sophisticated enough to participate actively. Chung et al. (2008, p. 380) stated that “the main reason construction companies want to use ERP [PMSS] systems is to improve efficiency and eliminate waste.” The predicted effect of this research is that companies now have empirical evidence to support the merits of using a project-based PMSS with common access for most, if not all, members of the project team. Responses to question 1 in part 1 and question 3 in part 2 of this research show that a shared-access model would improve efficiency through additional collaboration and could help eliminate wasted time on data reentry among project team members. The construction project– based organizations that currently implement enterprise-based PMSS should also evaluate the possibility of sharing access on a project basis to streamline information sharing and thus save the project time and money. Likewise, organizations that purchase PMSS from software vendors need to demand more collaborative solutions from their vendors to push the industry toward more efficient PMSS.

projects. Once the time difference has been established, costs associated with data reentry could be calculated and reported. Similarly, collaboration could be quantified and compared for such projects using social network analysis to better understand the dynamics and mechanics of information exchange on projects that implemented a collaborative PMSS versus those that did not. An ethnographic study could also further investigate the types of companies willing and able to participate in a more collaborative approach to PMSS implementation and what types of efforts need to be made on an industry level to address the governance of the project ICT systems.

Conclusions This research addresses challenges of using PMSS in the AEC industry and offers suggestions for improvements. The research found that data reentry is a commonly experienced problem during use of PMSS in the AEC industry. In addition, strong evidence was found to suggest that a change in the currently predominant enterprise-based PMSS implementation model. Specifically, panelists and validation interviews indicated that a more collaborative and inclusive PMSS would increase the efficiency with which information can be communicated. In addition, sharing access to the PMSS on a project basis would eliminate time-consuming and costly data-reentry requirements for the use of PMSS. Industry professionals all agreed that subcontractors are sophisticated enough to participate in a project-based implementation model, with benefits anticipated through common access and collaborative use among project team members. The challenge to the AEC industry and software vendors will be to create a PMSS or implementation model that serves the needs of both the project and organizations involved in the project. Specifically, the results point to the conclusion that the governance of PMSS will play a strong role in the success of developing a more collaborative PMSS implementation model. Although the technology to support such a project-based implementation currently exists in several Web-based, project-based PMSS programs, there are systemic organizational factors that could be currently preventing its use. However, informants indicated that they are ready to reduce inefficiencies such as data reentry by allowing more widespread direct and active access to these systems. To achieve greater benefit from the use of PMSS, not only must the technology be addressed, but also how these technologies are governed and how the industry manages the complex interorganizational relationships for these systems.

Limitations and Recommendations The primary limitations of this study lie in the opinion-based nature of the research method and the quantification of consensus opinion. Because of the complex and subjective nature of the research, it was decided that the Delphi method would provide the most robust, bias-free results. A 1-scale point absolute deviation from the median shows a general agreement within a 28% range for industry opinion on the topics surveyed. To address these limitations, the writers recommend further research on this subject to quantify the effects, including time saved and network strength, of using a collaborative, project-based software system. Case studies could be conducted to track data entries and reentries to quantify the amount of time project management spends inputting nonoriginal information into a PMSS. This case study approach should be conducted to juxtapose the time spent using an enterprise-based implementation model and the time spent using a collaborative, project-based model on two different

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Professor Matthew Hallowell for his assistance with structuring the research method. We would also like to thank the Delphi panelists and the general-contractor and software-vendor interviewees.

References Abudayyeh, O. Y., and Rasdorf, W. J. (1991). “Design of construction industry information management systems.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 117(4), 698–715. Ahuja, V., Yang, J., and Shankar, R. (2009). “Study of ICT adoption for building project management in the Indian construction industry.” Autom. Constr., 18(4), 415–423. Arditi, D., and Gunaydin, H. M. (1999). “Perceptions of process quality in building projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 15(2), 43–53.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 517

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:510-518.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Colorado at Boulder on 04/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Baldwin, A. N., Thorpe, A., and Carter, C. (1999). “The use of electronic information exchange on construction alliance projects.” Autom. Constr., 8(6), 651–662. Chan, A., Yung, E., Lam, P., Tam, C. M., and Cheung, S. O. (2001). “Application of Delphi method in selection of procurement systems for construction projects.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 19(7), 699–718. Chung, B., Skibniewski, M. J., and Kwak, Y. H. (2009). “Developing ERP systems success model for the construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(3), 207–216. Chung, B. Y., Ski, M., Lucas, H. C., Jr., and Kwak, Y. H. (2008). “Analyzing enterprise resource planning system implementation success factors in the engineering-construction industry.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 22(6), 373–382. Davis, K. A., and Songer, A. D. (2009). “Resistance to IT change in the AEC industry: Are the stereotypes true?” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(12), 1324–1333. Dossick, C. S., and Neff, G. (2010). “Organizational divisions in BIMenabled commercial construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(4), 459–467. Dossick, C. S., and Sakagami, M. (2008). “Implementing web-based project management systems in the United States and Japan.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 134(3), 189–196. Ferratt, T. W., Ahire, S., and De, P. (2006). “Achieving success in large projects: Implications from a study of ERP implementations.” Interfaces, 36(5), 458–469. Froese, T. (2005). “Impact of emerging information technology on information management.” Computing in Civil Engineering—Int. Conf. on Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Reston, VA, 10. Froese, T. (2006). “Emerging information and communication technologies and the discipline of project information management.” 13th EG-ICE Workshop, Intelligent Computing in Engineering and Architecture, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 230–240. Froese, T. M. (2010). “The impact of emerging information technology on project management for construction.” Autom. Constr., 19(5), 531–538. Hallowell, M. R., and Gambatese, J. A. (2009). “Construction safety risk mitigation.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(12), 1316–1323. Hallowell, M. R., and Gambatese, J. A. (2010). “Qualitative research: Application of the Delphi method to CEM research.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(1), 99–107. Hartmann, T., and Fischer, M. (2009). “A process view on end user resistance during construction IT implementations.” J. Inf. Technol., 14, 353–365. Hjelt, M., and Björk, B. C. (2006). “Experiences of EDM usage in construction projects.” J. Inf. Technol., 11, 113–125. Howard, H. C., Levitt, R. E., Paulson, B. C., Pohl, J. G., and Tatum, C. B. (1989). “Computer integration: Reducing fragmentation in AEC industry.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 3(1), 18–32. Hu, W., and Zhou, M. (2009). “An integrated and comprehensive information management model for construction project lifecycle.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Management and Service Science, IEEE, New York, 1–4. “Information technology.” (2012). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 〈http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information%20technology〉 (May 3, 2012). Jung, Y., and Gibson, G. E. (1999). “Planning for computer integrated construction.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 13(4), 217–225.

Kale, S., and Arditi, D. (2010). “Innovation diffusion modeling in the construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(3), 329–340. Kang, Y., O’Brien, W. J., Thomas, S., and Chapman, R. E. (2008). “Impact of information technologies on performance: Cross-study comparison.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 134(11), 852–863. Linstone, H. A., and Turoff, M., eds. (2002). “The Delphi method: Techniques and applications.” 〈http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/〉 (Jun. 21, 2011). Mitropoulos, P., and Tatum, C. B. (2000). “Forces driving adoption of new information technologies.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 126(5), 340–348. Molenaar, K. R., and Songer, A. D. (2001). “Web-based decision support systems: Case study in project delivery.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 15(4), 259–267. National Institute of Standard, and Technology (NIST). (2004). “Cost analysis of inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capital facilities industry.” NIST GCR 04-867, Gaithersburg, MD. Nitithamyong, P., and Skibniewski, M. J. (2004). “Web-based construction project management systems: How to make them successful?” Autom. Constr., 13(4), 491–506. Nitithamyong, P., and Skibniewski, M. J. (2006). “Success/failure factors and performance measures of web-based construction project management systems: Professionals’ viewpoint.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132(1), 80–87. O’Connor, J. T., and Yang, L. R. (2004). “Project performance versus use of technologies at project and phase levels.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 130(3), 322–329. RAND Corporation. (2011). “Delphi method.” 〈http://www.rand.org/ topics/delphi-method.html〉 (Apr. 28, 2011). Rojas, E. M., and Songer, A. D. (1999). “Web-centric systems: A new paradigm for collaboration engineering.” J. Manage. Eng., 15(1), 39–45. Rowings, J. E., Jr. (1991). “Project-controls systems opportunities.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 117(4), 691–697. Salem, O., and Mohanty, S. (2008). “Project management practices and information technology research.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 134(7), 501–508. Sillars, D. N., and Hallowell, M. R. (2009). “Opinion-based research: Lessons learned from four approaches.” Proc., Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1499–1508. Stewart, R. A., and Mohamed, S. (2004). “Evaluating web-based project information management in construction: Capturing the long-term value creation process.” Autom. Constr., 13(4), 469–479. Tatari, O., Castro-Lacouture, D., and Skibniewski, M. J. (2007). “Current state of construction enterprise information systems: Survey research.” Constr. Innovation Inf. Process Manage., 7(4), 310–319. Taylor, J. E., and Levitt, R. E. (2005). “Inter-organizational knowledge flow and innovation diffusion in project-based industries.” Proc., 38th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, IEEE, New York, 1–10. Thomas, S. R., Lee, S.-H., Spencer, J. D., Tucker, R. L., and Chapman, R. E. (2004). “Impacts of design/information technology on project outcomes.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 130(4), 586–597. Zhai, D., Goodrum, P. M., Haas, C. T., and Caldas, C. H. (2009). “Relationship between automation and integration of construction information systems and labor productivity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 135(8), 746–753. Zoomerang [Computer software]. SurveyMonkey, Palo Alto, CA.

518 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MAY 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:510-518.