8/7/2019 10.1.1.18.9448

1/5

147

THE ROLE OF WIDE-BAND GDSS IN

INCREASING VALUE FOR MULTI-

ORGANISATIONAL GROUPS: THE CASE OF THEUK CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

L. Alberto FrancoKingston Business School, Surrey, UK

a.franco@kingston.ac.uk

Jonathan Rosenhead

London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

j.rosenhead@lse.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

This paper provides some insights about the development and implementation of

a wide-band group decision support system a series of case studies within the UK

construction industry. The authors reflect upon the applicability of wide-band GDSS

for project review and learning generation within multi-organisational groups, and

describes the design, implementation and evaluation of a Cross Organisational

Approach (COLA) to support the multiple stakeholders within construction activities,recognising the distinctive inter-organisational nature of the project team.

1. INTRODUCTIONMulti-organisational groups are the usual form of arrangement in the construction

sector, where project-based teams typically include one or more membersboth of the

client organisation and of the main contractor, and will also include architect(s),

designer(s), project manager(s), quantity surveyor(s) and other specialist sub-

contractors. Due to its transient nature, a construction project-based team has come to

beknown as a Temporary Multiple Organisation (TMO) [Cherns and Bryant 1984].

The TMO membership will often change during the life of a large constructionproject.

Given the inter-organisational nature of the TMO, group decision-making can be

very difficult and thus the need to accommodate the multiple perspectives of the

group members is paramount. In the UK, there are a number of Problem Structuring

Methods (PSMs) or wide-band GDSSs [Rosenhead 1989; Eden 1995] that have

been developed to help members of multi-organisational groups to work with each

other across organisational boundaries, and which seem appropriate for the TMO

case. These facilitator-driven systems focus on developing effective group problem

handlingrather than on increasing the productivity of group meetings through the use

of computers [Eden 1992; Ackermann and Eden 1994]. Examples of well-established

wide-band GDSSs are Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), Strategic OptionsDevelopment and Analysis (SODA) and the Strategic Choice Approach(SCA).

This paper was presented to the 2001 Group Decision and Negotiation Conference,

in La Rochelle, France on 4-7 June 2001. We are grateful to them for their permission toto reproduce this paper on our site.

8/7/2019 10.1.1.18.9448

2/5

148

This paper discusses the applicability of wide-band GDSSs for project review and

learning generation within TMOs in the UK construction industry, and describes the

design, implementation and evaluation of a system to support the multiple

stakeholders involved in construction activities. The paper starts by describing the

context in which such a system was developed (i.e. the UK construction industry),

and then goes on to present some of the research findings from its application in three

case studies. The lessons learned should be relevant to TMOs in non-construction

contexts.

2. THE UK CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRYThe UK construction sector has been characterised by high construction costs,

relative to other EU countries, despite having almost the lowest hourly labour costs

[Commission of the European Communities 1994]. It has also been criticised for its

low profitability and low investment in both capital and research and development

[Egan 1998]. A related issue, which is widely acknowledged, is the difficulty thatclients have in expressing their needs in ways that construction companies can meet

efficiently and effectively, particularly during the briefing stage of a project [Green

and Simister 1999]. As a result, clients find themselves devoting substantial effort

into micro managing projects throughout their life, which make the construction

investment less valuable. At a broader level, industry groups have recognised the lack

of learning across contractual boundaries, between individual construction projects,

within construction project teams and across the sector as a whole [Latham 1994].

2.1 The B-HIVE project

Against the above background, a move from adversarial contractual agreementswith the TMO, based on competitive tendering, to partnership arrangements based on

continuing relationships between clients and selected contractors so as to increase

mutual value was proposed [Latham 1994; Bennet and Jayes 1998]. In addition, a

number of research initiatives aimed at finding ways for increasing value in

construction were launched. The B-HIVE project was one of these initiatives, and

involved two universities and 5 industrial partners in a jointly academic-industry

effort to develop models, practices and collaborative infrastructures to support

construction TMOs which are embedded within partnership arrangements.

B-HIVE focused on the study of TMO project reviews at pre- and post-completion

stages. Initial observation of TMO project review meetings indicated that although

participants formally recognised the concept of partnering as well as the goals itwas designed to serve, there was an explicit lack of trust among them. That is, there

was a mismatch between espoused theories and theories in use [Argyris and

Schon 1978]. In addition, participants were seen to hold different understanding of

interconnected issues and often to have multiple competing goals. Finally, it was

noted that some of the issues discussed in TMO project reviews appear to be the same

and recurrent. All of this suggested that any mutual value obtained from a partnership

arrangement between TMO participants was subject to the consideration of project

review as a process or negotiation and learning.

The research team considered the use of a PSM or wide-band GDSS as a basis

for a review process of construction projects. A Cross Organisational Learning

Approach (COLA), based on Strategic Choice [Friend and Hickling 1997] was thus

8/7/2019 10.1.1.18.9448

3/5

149

developed and applied in a number of real TMO project reviews. A full description of

COLA can be found elsewhere [see Cushman 1999]

3. COLA APPLICATIONCOLA is a process that adds value to TMOs by improving the quality of feedback

and increasing multi-organisational knowledge as well as resolving immediate

concerns. COLA achieves this by organising and managing learning-focussed, value-

enhance TMO project reviews. The full value of COLA is gained within a partnering

environment, for it is designed to help organisations both learn form each other and

work together more productively in the future.

The insights of three post-completion COLA reviews for major building and estate

renovation projects under a partnership arrangement within one of the research

industrial partners will be discussed here. Each COLA review involved 9 to 12 TMO

participants representing a variety of stakeholders including the clients property

division and operational management, the main contractor, project managementconsultants, quantity surveyors, architects/designers and specialist trade contractors.

The main part of the COLA review was a Strategic Choice-based workshop co-

facilitated by an industry member of the research team and a research academic. The

workshops were held at or close to the site of the project under review.

Another important part of the COLA reviews included the completion of a pre-

workshop questionnaire by TMO participants, covering the ranking of different

aspects of the project under review including the management of time, team relations

and profitability. The questionnaire also included space for free comments and asked

for details of innovations, critical incidents and lessons learned. Analysis of

questionnaire responses made it possible to builda profile of the project under review

(and hence to formulate preliminary decision areas in advance), and this

information was then circulated to TMO participants before the workshop

The nature of the issues and incidents explored in the three COLA review

workshops did not generally exhibit the high degree of interconnectivity that Strategic

Choice was designed to handle. However, Strategic Choices focus on moving

through problems, and its techniques for reaching consensus on prioritisation,

exploration and action provided a valuable basis for the approach developed.

Also, and in spite of the limited number of actions (with their responsible actors

and tentative deadlines) that were produced in the workshops, change on issues long

considered to be major obstacles to the efficiency of the TMO partnership was

achieved. One successful COLA review led to changes implemented within a very

short period of time. A gained commitment to a review that had been long resisted

was observed in another COLA review. Finally, oneCOLA review led directly to thereview of the whole partnering process within the TMOs client organisation.At the

end of the B-HIVE project, COLA was fully adopted by one of the industrial research

partners.

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThe research identified and addressed the lack of any processes for the routine

inter-organisational review of construction projects for learning and value, as well as

the absence of any expectation that such an activity will happen. It showed that

discussion of tacit understandings and knowledge that underlies peoples expertise is

possible and can be positively received by construction professionals. It also provided

8/7/2019 10.1.1.18.9448

4/5

150

a process by which a programme of commitment to change become shared by TMO

members through making explicit the links between incidents at the site level and

organisational procedures that support or inhibit value enhancing initiatives.

The development of COLA enabled the tailoring of a PSM/wide-band GDSS (i.e.

Strategic Choice) to a novel situation, using it explicitly for reflective project

evaluation to develop knowledge and increase managerial competence and capacity. It

was interesting to note that TMO participants discarded quantitative project data as

criteria for project evaluation in spite of having requested it before the workshops.

Participants expressed their belief that the provision of detailed quantitative data

would have been unhelpful because: (a) they had other opportunities for reviewing

this kind of data within their companies; and, (b) they did not want to divert attention

from debating the managerial and businesses processes in the workshop

Attention to rational and just procedures as well as the cyclic nature of group

problem solving has been cited as one of the determinants of the political feasibility

(i.e. implementability) of the outputs of PSMs/wide-band GDSSs interventions

[Eden 1992]. This requires the need for pre-designed flexibility in GDSSs processes.

The case study findings support this view, as the flexibility with which proposals forchange and learning opportunities were generated and formulated during the

workshops appeared to have had a significant influence on their rhetorical power and

thus political feasibility. In one of the workshops, for example, new issues had arisen

since the questionnaires had been completed and these later emerged half way

through the workshop. Strategic Choices mode switching between shaping,

designing, evaluating and choosing of issues ensured that the new issues were

included and tackled during the workshop.

The client in the three case studies showed full support to both the partnership and

the development of COLA This suggests that the role that construction clients play

within a partnership environment is crucial to the successful development of change

and value initiatives, particularly knowledgeable clients responsible for a continuingprogramme of work. This extends previous work on the role of the client with

construction TMOs under traditional contractual arrangements [Cherns and Bryant

1984].

REFERENCES

ACKERMANN, F. AND EDEN, C. (1994), Issues in computer and non-computer

supported GDSS, Decision Support Systems, 12, 381-390.

ARGYRIS, C. AND SCHON, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: a Theory of Action

Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

BENNET, J. AND JAYES, S. (1998), The Seven Pillars of Partnering: A Guide toSecond Generation Partnering, Thomas Telford Partnering, London.

CHERNS, A. AND BRYANT, D. (1984), Studying the clients role in construction

management, Construction Management and Economics, 2, 177-184.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1994), Strategies for the European

Construction Sector: A Programme for Change, Construction Europe, Office for

Official Publications of the European Communities, Wadhurst, Luxemburg.

CUSHMAN, M.. (1999), Gaining Value Through Review and Learning: A Construction

Industry Users Guide to the Cross Organisational Learning Approach, London

School of Economics, unpublished internal report.

EDEN, C. (1992), A Framework for Thinking about Group Decision Support Systems

(GDSS), Group Decision and Negotiation, 1, 199-218.

8/7/2019 10.1.1.18.9448

5/5

151

EDEN, C. (1995), On Evaluating the Performance of wide-band GDSSs, European

Journal of Operational Research, 81, 302-311.

EGAN, J. (1998), Re-thinking Construction: Report of the Construction Industry Task

Force, DETR, London.

FRIEND, J. AND HICKLING, A. (1997), Planning under Pressure (2nd

Ed.),

Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford.

GREEN, S. AND SIMISTER, S. (1999), Modelling Client Business Process as an aid to

Strategic Briefing, Construction Management and Economics, 17, 63-76.

LATHAM, S. (1994), Constructing the Team: Final Report of the Government/Industry

Review of Procurement and Contractual Arrangements in the UK Construction

Industry. HSMO, London.

ROSENHEAD, J. (1989), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem

Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, Wiley, Chichester.