Designing the framework principles

The fourth objective of this research project was to develop a learning framework for the implementation of sustainability standards within the construction SME. This objective was delivered through two work packages (WP), and has utilised the findings from the previous three WP in its development.

The research contained within WP 4 was used to develop a conference paper (paper 5; see appendix J) which was presented at the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Conference in September 2015. This paper discusses the principles for developing a learning framework and should be referred to for a more detailed analysis and discussion of the main findings.

4.5.1

T

The decision to develop a learning framework as the output of this EngD evidences action research (see figure 3.1 and chapter 3.3.1), as the findings of the first three objectives enabled the diagnosis of specific problems, which then enables the proposing of solutions based on this diagnosis (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The problems that were diagnosed as a result of the findings of the first three objectives are therefore discussed below.

WP 1 determined that cost is a major barrier to engaging with RS, particularly for the SME. Additionally, the nature of ETO supply chains that are typical of construction make it even more difficult to enact principles of RS. It also established that there is a limited understanding of RS within construction organisations (see paper 1; appendix F). However, despite these supposed pitfalls of implementing RS, construction companies were increasingly striving to do so, and the results of a survey (see appendix B) suggested reputational drivers may have increased significance in future years. It was concluded (see paper 2; appendix G) that RS provides a means for an organisation to increase its legitimacy in the first instance, with reputational benefits apparent if certification to RS shows the organisation as doing more than its competitors. This opportunity to increase legitimacy was linked to the drive to implement standards, and thus how organisations perform against these standards should be investigated further (objective 2).

WP 2 determined, by again using RS as the lens for the research, that performance against these standards is reactive, and there is a lack of consistency in approach. However, drawing back on the findings of objective 1, it is recognised that due to the requirement of BES 6001 (BRE,

2009; 2014a) for RS to determine traceability through the supply chain, this inconsistent approach may also be due to the nature of construction supply chains. Therefore, it was decided that the next step should be to understand why this is the case; why are companies approaching these standards in such a reactive and inconsistent way and why does the nature of the supply chain exacerbate this? SMEs find implementation of standards difficult due to resource issues (see outputs of objective 1), and there are limited performance data for SMEs against the standard (see paper 3; appendix H). Therefore, understanding the nature of approach to the standards for the SME holds great significance.

WP 3 determined that this reactive and inconsistent approach can be linked to the absorptive capacity (ACAP) of the organisation, which can be extended through undertaking learning activities. This can be linked back to one of the main findings of objective 1 – that there is a limited understanding of RS within construction and that one such way of addressing this might be through extending of existing tools to include RS principles. Using these conclusions, it can thus be inferred that the solution to these ‘real problems’ (see Bryman and Bell, 2011) is to develop some means by which organisations can implement standards in a coherent and consistent manner which seeks to ensure organisations hold an understanding of the principles of the standards they are working towards by increasing the ACAP within that organisation. Therefore, the key requirements of such a learning framework should be:

 Using the framework should deliver benefits to the user through reduced cost, and should look to merge requirements of multiple standards (objective 1);

 The framework provides a structured and consistent approach to addressing sustainability issues (objective 2); and

 It is structured to increase the organisation’s capabilities around each of the four constructs of ACAP (objective 3).

4.5.2

T

4.5.2.1

Identification of aspects

The first part of the framework was designed with a focus on prioritising sustainability issues or aspects based on the risk they pose to the organisation.

Therefore some means of identifying those sustainability issues, or ‘aspects’ that can be deemed ‘significant’, in terms of the risk they pose is required such that SMEs can focus on improving their management of those aspects that cause the greatest impacts. Risk assessment is linked

to reputation management (Bebbington et al., 2008) where those issues that have a greater potential to cause reputational damage can be deemed issues of higher risk. Fundamentally, poor management of individual aspects that are deemed significant might cause greater risks to the organisation’s reputation (see paper 5, section 4.1; appendix J).

The first principle for the framework was thus set; it must identify those aspects that are most significant in terms of risk, such that performance against ‘high risk’ aspects is prioritised.

4.5.2.2

Module structure

Once the first part of the framework (discussed in chapter 4.5.2.1) has assessed which of these are significant, the next step is to determine what the organisation already has in place with regard to individual aspects. Readers are referred to section 4.2 of paper 5 (appendix J) at this point.

Once the ‘position’ of an organisation has been defined, operational controls can be set to strive for performance improvements. The planning and development of these is termed the ‘Design’ phase. Following this ‘Design’ stage, the organisation should aim to integrate all policies and management processes in such a way that they are fully embedded in the organisation. This next phase should be termed the ‘Implementation’ phase and might typically include the use of auditing and other performance monitoring processes. Finally, there needs to be a ‘Review’ element to the framework, in order to review data and audit results, and propose any corrective actions where necessary. The use of a ‘review’ phase implies a cyclical ‘Design-Implement- Review’ (DIR) process and also contributes towards a continual improvement culture, as advocated by many ISO management systems (Upstill-Goddard et al., 2015b). This also emphasises the need for learning and innovation as well as the development of institutional knowledge (Asif et al., 2013). The second principle is thus set; the framework should address each sustainability ‘aspect’ in a modular way and follow a systematic DIR process for each of these.

4.5.2.3

Learning processes

The focus on learning is to ensure that the framework enables an organisation to implement sustainability while ensuring that it avoids a ‘box-ticking’ approach to compliance. Learning actions should focus on the design, implementation or review of a particular module/aspect and should prescribe learning actions for each of these. In order to prescribe learning actions, each module should establish gaps in the organisation’s knowledge. This will ensure that organisations can implement standards in a way that adds value to their operations. Therefore

the third principle for the development of the tool is determined; it should relate the knowledge gaps to the sustainability requirements and prescribe learning actions where the gaps exist (Upstill-Goddard et al., 2015b).

4.5.3

D

:A

The principles of the framework discussed in this research can then be used to guide the development of a sustainability assessment tool which can be used to help comply with the requirements of a specific sustainability standard or to address broader CSR requirements. Figure 4.6 shows how the rules established in section 4.5.2 fit within the conceptual framework.

Figure 4.6 Conceptual framework

Within each individual module, question sets to understand the knowledge held about each aspect will be developed according to the modular principles developed.

4.5.4

S

This research established that the learning framework should rest upon three principles:  It should assess which sustainability issues are ‘significant’ to an organisation, and thus

filter out those sustainability issues that are not important in the context of that organisation;

 It should compartmentalise sustainability issues into standalone ‘modules’, with each individual aspect representing one ‘module’, which will enable an organisation to address each issue in a systematic way; and

 It should establish knowledge gaps and link these to the requirements of sustainability standards, thereby prescribing learning actions that will aid in the organisation complying with standards.

These three principles govern the three components that make up the conceptual framework and under which the detailed modules are developed. The process for the development of the detailed framework is described in chapter 4.6.