Introduction to the case study

The original case study was based on a project done by Verster Berry Partnership between 2005 – 2008 and research done by Verster, Berry and Van Zyl (2008: CD) at the Department of Quantity Surveying and Construction Management for a paper entitled “Lessons learned in avoiding differences and disputes: A quantity surveying perspective based on a case study in project communication”. The original case study is unique as it is the largest project of its kind in Bloemfontein and the problems experienced with the project were therefore unique. In relation to communication the project showed disruptions and possible solutions to communication break downs.

Interviews with some of the main functionaries were conducted during 2012 to determine the problems in respect of communication disruptions shown in the original case study.

Studies regarding communication problems experienced by clients and contractors in the construction industry are uncommon. There was a need to research effective project communication, particularly in respect of communication for and between clients and contractors, as the study may provide a valuable contribution to communication in the property construction industry (Verster et al., 2008: CD).

157

The case study identified problems related to project communication, which may cause differences and disputes in respect of large construction projects in the property development industry. The focus is on experiences gained during the development of a large shopping mall of about 180 000 m² in Bloemfontein, South Africa. Various communication instruments such as cost plans, payment advices, cost reports, final accounts, and contract terms were analysed and critically reviewed to establish the effectiveness of, and problems related to, each in terms of communication.

Results identified the following as factors that influenced effective communication between clients and contractors: time management; information management; cost management; email management and empowerment of agents. The case study further identified the following as elements of a good communication strategy: communication frameworks and a forum; value of communication instruments, a pre- established budget strategy; claims adjudication and certification without delay. Structured communication management and continuing interaction are basic elements used to avoid disruptions and disputes.

The case study concentrated less on verbal communication and more on the written communication instruments, nevertheless verbal communication disruptions were caused by ineffective written communication instruments and procedures. Communication principles and effective communication instruments were largely weakly applied by the parties involved, which led to a breakdown in natural flowing communication; this could have resulted in improved solutions to serious problems. During the project development phase the autocratic style of the project manager influenced the effectiveness of communication and the team members did not naturally participate in the communication process. This caused more serious management problems.

The original case study showed that communication and the skill to communicate effectively are important. Secondly, that the project manager‟s style may directly influence the success of a construction project.

158 9.3 Research of the case study

The aim of the case study is to provide evidence of the importance of communication during the execution of projects and the importance of communication skills of project managers.

The original contract concluded between the main contractor, an international company, and a client who operates throughout South Africa, was on provisional bills of quantities of which about 50% of the costs were for building and structural work and 50% for specialist installations, included in the contract sum as provisional sums. A project manager was appointed after the production process commenced and communication systems were largely changed by the project manager. Many sub- and direct contracts were concluded by specialists. The complexity of many contracts and changes in communication systems added to the difficulties.

The 10 quantity surveyors who were involved in the project in various capacities were interviewed by Verster et al. (2008: CD), and responded to a specific questionnaire. These aspects were: communication instruments (13 questions), the effectiveness of these instruments (8 questions), communication and claims (11 questions), and possible future solutions to improve communication and avoid claims (8 questions).

The responses to the questions identified by Verster et al. (2008: CD) showed the most serious problems and suggested solutions. The suggestions by the respondents assisted in proposing possible implementations of future solutions towards more effective communication procedures, processes, instruments and links.

Table 1 shows the results of the respondent‟s opinions in respect of the identified communication instruments used in this case study. Column 2 shows the written instruments, Column 2 the average results of the respondents‟ opinion and Column 3 the related percentages in decreasing order.

159

Table 1: Results in respect of identified instruments used in project

Opinions on communication instruments used Average result % Ranking

Cost reports 4.1 82 1

Package bills of quantities 3.2 64 2

The original Bills of Quantities (Provisional bills) 2.9 58 3

Minutes of meetings 2.7 54 4

Email communication by agents 2.7 54 4

Specialists cost / budget reports (example: Electrical engineer) 2.7 54 4

Drawings and details 2.6 52 5

Email communications by project manager 2.6 52 5

Design and specifications 2.5 50 6

Site/contract instruments 2.4 48 7

Claims communication (by M & R and SIP) 2.4 48 7

Packages (identification of work packages by project manager) 2.1 42 8

Employer‟s instructions 1.6 34 9

(Adapted from Verster et al., 2008: CD) (Ratings: 1= low, 3= intermediate, 5 = high)

The 10 respondents‟ opinions (100% response) on the communication instruments used on the project were also tested and resulted in an average opinion of 2.6 (52%) (scale of 1 = poor and 5 = excellent) in respect of all communication instruments used. However, the original provisional bills of quantities were allocated 2.9 (58%) average and the cost reports 4.1 (82%) in respect of effectiveness.

Table 2 shows the results in respect of general communication elements. It is clear that, apart from instruments and communication processes, general communication elements were seen as below average expectations of quality procedures. Column 1 shows the statements in respect of communication, Column 2 the average results of the respondents‟ opinion and Column 3 the related percentages in decreasing order.

Table 2: Results in respect of general communication elements

Statements in respect of communication Average result % Ranking

Email communication was effective 2.7 54 1

The professional team had an effective relationship 2.4 48 2 Drawing distribution was managed well and on time 2.3 46 3 Project manager‟s project communication was effective and well

managed

2.2 44 4

Budget was clear and met the owner‟s strategy 2.2 44 4

Professional agents were empowered to do their work well 2.0 40 5

Time and programming was managed well 1.7 34 6

Owner / professional team relationship contributed to efficient management

1.6 32 7

160

The respondents were clear on opinions related to the effectiveness or quality of general communication in respect of the specific project (Tables 1 and 2). The communication elements that were seen as least effective and most problematic were time management and project management communication (1.7) (34%). Owner/professional team relationship contributed to efficient management (1.6) (32%). Professional agents empowered to do their work well (2.0) (40%).

The following important elements of communication were investigated in respect of the respondents‟ opinions thereof. These are shown in Table 3. Column 1 shows the important elements of communication investigated and respondents‟ opinion thereon, Column 2 the average results of the respondents‟ opinion and Column 3 the related percentages in decreasing order.

Table 3: Important elements of communication investigated and respondent‟s opinions thereon Other communication problem contributors Average result % Ranking Claims for valuation of payment certificates were clear and on

time

3.0 60 1

Project managers were available 2.6 52 2

A good communication atmosphere was introduced via e-mail 2.4 48 3

Scope management to budget was to standard 2.3 46 4

The fact that the architects, structural engineer and project managers were from other cities was not problematic

2.3 46 4

(Adapted from Verster et al., 2008: CD) (Ratings: 1= low, 3= intermediate, 5 = high)

Problems that were clearly identified in the case study, according to Verster et al. (2008: CD), and the elements that stand out in respect of communication disruptions were:

Site and contract instructions. Employer‟s instructions.

Identification of work packages by project managers. Design and specifications.

Drawings and details. Drawing distribution.

Professional teams‟ relationships.

161

Owner/professional team relationships. Time and programme management. The budget.

Professional agents‟ empowerment. Communication atmosphere at meeting.

The fact that the project manager, architect and structural engineer were not local professionals.

The result for email communication used for this project received a negative response (54% effectiveness). The experience here was that some emails were loaded with emotions. This may be due to the fact that email responses are immediate or early, while the email that a person is responding to is emotionally instilled.