The case project

To investigate stakeholder relationships through the application of the SNA, access to a building project was needed. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (table 2-8), previous SNA studies in the construction literature also employed case projects. Therefore, a ‘case study’ approach was undertaken where the case was a recently constructed building projects. Gummesson (2007) advocated for management research where case study and network theory are combined and used as supplementary methodologies. He asserted that both these share a common feature that is addressing complexity.

According to Yin (2014), case study is ‘an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context.’ Creswell (2003), also, defined case study as ‘a problem to be studied which will reveal an in-depth understanding of a case’. According to him, this case could be an event, activity, process etc. A case study research involves gathering information from multiple sources and various individuals. It would allow for a comprehensive and detailed analysis and could lead to more accurate and convincing understanding of a phenomenon with its particular nature and complexity (Yin, 2014; Robson, 2011). Although the approach could be used for different research purposes, Flyvbjerg (2007) stated that its primarily usage is for exploratory or descriptive analysis.

Case study approach could incorporate single or multiple cases. Considering the accessibility and time constraint exist in both network research and construction project research, a single case has been studied here. The case chosen was a four-storey building project located in a major UK university campus. The study was conducted at three months of occupancy. This was considered as an appropriate time as the information about building design quality and success factors could be also collected and examined. Due to practical limitations, it was not possible to collect data over time during the project progress as it would take more than two years. Instead, data were collected in a retrospective manner.

The building was designed and built to house open-plan workplaces, a double-height rear workshop, conference and meetings rooms as well as showcase areas. The building aimed to accommodate research staff from three academic groups and a ‘knowledge transfer’ team who would provide support for regional small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). These SMEs could benefit from occasional workshops and working areas in the building.

The building was designed through a joint venture between an architecture designer and a multidisciplinary engineering designer. With fixed budget and design-and-build (single stage) procurement route, the contractor was selected through tendering process conducted by the university Estate office. This main contractor was responsible for detailed design and construction on the site. The primary architecture designer was not novated after developed design stage and the contractor recruited another architecture firm to perform the detailed design. However, both the primary architect and the engineering designer stayed in the project as advisors to the client. Table 7-2 provides some general information about the case project.

Sector: Higher Education Area: 2300m2

Procurement route: Design and Build (Single-Stage) Budget: £5.4m (£8.4m including fit-out)

Programme: 56 weeks (construction stage)

Table 7-2: Profile of the case project in study four

Various groups and organisations were involved in the project. In the following, these groups are described:

Project Sponsor – the project was jointly funded by a governmental body and the university.

Client Team – Three main groups were involved from the client body in the project. University Estate office allocated an internal senior project manager to act as the university representative in the project and to be responsible for project team recruitment. Other

groups from Estate office like ‘procurement team’, ‘clerks of work’, and ‘fire/security’ teams also played a role in the project. Other key players from the client body were the ‘project manager’ (PM) and ‘facility management team’ (FM) of the related department for which the new building was provided. The ‘department PM’ was responsible to look after the department’s interests in the project, ensuring both user and sponsor requirements are met. The in-house FM team was also involved in the project to make sure that design would satisfy facility management requirements.

User Group – As mentioned earlier, the building would occupy four user groups; these belonged to three research groups and a knowledge transfer team. Their requirements were set to be coordinated through the ‘department PM’.

Design Team – An architecture firm with previous working experience with the university was responsible for both concept and developed design. As stated earlier, the firm did not undertake the detailed design. A project director and his supporting design team were involved in the project from this firm. The ‘engineering design’ firm was, also, led by a project manager and supporting mechanical, electrical, structural and environmental design teams.

Construction Team – Upon winning the tendering and recruitment in the project, the main contractor was in charge of construction and delivery of the building. This main contractor, itself, recruited a number of subcontractors including an architectural firm to do the detailed design and a mechanical and electrical (M&E) contractor to install the engineering systems. Other subcontractors were also recruited to provide steel work, structural installation, and materials & equipment etc.

Peripheral Groups – A number of peripheral groups also had stake in the project, including, the visiting SMEs, audio/visual (AV) provider, furniture provider and the University IT services.

Statutory Bodies – Two regulatory bodies including ‘Planning Authority’ and ‘Building Control’ were in contact with the architects and main contractor of the project.