The  traditional  construction  management  approach  utilised  in  refurbishment  projects  and  its

The report developed by Sanvido and Riggs (1991), the guide produced by CIRIA (1994), the studies developed by Krizek et al. (1996), Rahmat (1997), McKim et al. (2000), Singh (2007), Henrich (2009), along with the research led by Egbu and his colleagues from 1994 to 1999 provide a panorama on construction management in refurbishment projects. This refers to information concerning production planning and control processes, and managerial practices and techniques usually used for managing construction in refurbishment projects.

Sanvido and Riggs (1991) conducted a research with the purpose to identify the effective management techniques used in refurbishments, as well as the critical factors to the success of a project. With regard to the former, the researchers found limited information, but preplanning (in strategic and operational terms) was highlighted as an important technique. Among the critical success factors, the need to have in place the right project team was deemed as the most important. According to those authors, this factor goes beyond than just having a team with appropriate experience and skills, this also involves a team with the right chemistry (i.e. ability to work together) and attitude, flexibility and responsiveness to cope with the typical changes inherent to refurbishment projects and also refers to a team that is put together at the beginning of the project and stays together until the end of it. Other critical success factors that are identified include contract incentives, partnering arrangements, scope management, plant knowledge, communication, special procurement and preplanning strategies, and high level management support.

The study developed by Egbu (1994) delved into aspects concerning the management of refurbishment works within the UK construction industry. Through semi-structured interviews with managers, and a postal questionnaire addressed to refurbishment

organisations, Egbu acquired an overview of particular issues and characteristics related to the management of this complex environment. For instance, variation/change orders to the works, keeping the site tidy, cost control, maintaining site safety & welfare standards, and programming and scheduling were identified as the most frequently occurring features in managing refurbishment work. In turn, cost control, dust control, the influence of tenants on the regular progress on site, pricing of the works, and variation/change orders to the works are identified as the most challenging refurbishment characteristics faced by

managers. Furthermore, Egbu (1995) investigated the degree of difficulty associated with managing refurbishment tasks. Forecast and planning, analysis of project risks and uncertainty, and competitive tendering, were perceived as the most difficult management tasks in refurbishment projects. Table 4 presents the top ten ranking.

35

Table 4 - Management tasks perceived as most difficult in managing refurbishment works (adapted from Egbu, 1995)

Rank Job dimension (tasks) 1 Forecast and planning

2 Analysis of project risk and uncertainty 3 Competitive tendering

4 Budgetary control 5 Managing time

6 Quality control and assurance 7 Health and safety

8 Site security

9 Use of computer technology 10 Managing conflict / crisis

Egbu et al. (1996) and Egbu et al. (1998) identified the planning and control techniques used by refurbishment organisations. Data was collected through a case study carried out in a hospital and hotel refurbishments (Table 5).

Table 5 - Planning and control techniques used in refurbishment projects (adapted from Egbu et al., 1996; Egbu et al., 1998)

Rank Hospital Refurbishment Hotel Refurbishment

1 Schedules Bar chart

2 Critical Path Method (CPM) Project cost-value reconciliation 3 Project cost-value

reconciliation Labour (actual and forecast) reconciliation

4 Bar chart Material (actual versus forecast)

reconciliation 5 Milestone date programming

technique Schedules

6 Labour (actual versus forecast) reconciliation

Plant (actual versus forecast) reconciliation

7 Plant (actual versus forecast) reconciliation

Critical Path Method (CPM)

8 Material (actual versus forecast) reconciliation

Man-hour (plan analysis and update)

9 Computer: expert system

techniques Milestone date programming technique

10 Programme evaluation and

review techniques (PERT) Programme evaluation and review techniques (PERT)

11 Graphical evaluation and

review techniques Computer: simulation techniques 12 Man-hour (plan analysis and

update)

Computer: expert system techniques

13 Computer simulation Graphical evaluation techniques

36

Yet, survey conducted by Rahmat (1997) among 103 construction firms provided additional evidence on the type of planning techniques most used in refurbishments (Figure 2).

Figure 2 - The planning techniques commonly used by refurbishment contractors (Rahmat, 1997)

Table 5 and Figure 2 show clearly the predominance of traditional planning techniques such as bar charts and Critical Path Method (CPM). Yet, the use of such techniques for managing construction in refurbishment projects, is mentioned in the guide to the management of building refurbishment produced by CIRIA (1994), and also in the studies developed by Krizek et al. (1996) and McKim et al. (2000).

Singh (2007) conducted interviews with contractors and subcontractors involved in renovation projects and learned that the production planning process is carried out on an informal basis. No formal documentation or standardized process was identified for dealing with the constraints intrinsic to such projects (e.g. poor as-built drawings, unforeseen conditions, presence of hazardous materials, etc.), regardless of the influence that those project conditions might have on project performance (Krizek et al., 1996; McKim et al., 2000; Singh, 2007).

Some could contend that the aforementioned managerial practices are no longer in use, implying that the management of refurbishment works has evolved. However, the study carried out by Henrich (2009) shows that it has not. Findings demonstrate that managerial practices utilised for managing construction in refurbishment projects remain inappropriate.

Henrich (2009) conducted an analysis in two construction companies based in Greater Manchester to identify cases of low performance and waste incidence at construction sites.

Both companies investigated were carrying out refurbishment projects. The first case study was a transformation of a 4 storey old mill into a block of 180 residential apartments. The second one was a regeneration program funded by a government association comprising 600 houses. Findings from those case studies confirm that traditional planning approaches are still the basis for the production management. For instance, there is no involvement of stakeholders (subcontractors, suppliers, labourers) in the creation of plans and the Critical

37

Path Method (CPM) is used as the main tool for production planning and control. Planning is centralized and contains excessive details at early stages, as a result constant and laborious updates are needed since the plan became easily out of date. Furthermore, managers use pre-estimated plans to push activities to production regardless the system status and the communication between planning and production is done in a one-way fashion. Control follows the thermostat model, namely, action is taken only when a variance against the standard performance is identified. Also, there is no evidence of a continuous improvement programme implemented on site. As a result of the use of those inadequate managerial practices, Henrich (2009) identifies several types of waste within those refurbishment projects. They refer to waiting time, the use of wrong equipment, rework, unnecessary transport, double handling, space conflicts between materials, equipment and assembly crews, and disruptions during refurbishment works. It is argued that such wastes are likely to result in low productivity, project delays, cost overruns, and tenant’s annoyance.

Indeed, there is evidence in the literature showing that the performance of refurbishment projects is not satisfactory. Krizek et al. (1996) conducted an investigation in a multiphase reconstruction project in the United States and pointed out difficulties in communication between project members, as well as problems to manage production leading to schedule overruns. Rahmat (1997) examined 67 refurbishment projects and found out that 53.3%

exceeded the target cost and 52.5% exceeded the target time. McKim et al. (2000) carried out a survey in Canada and reported the poor performance of reconstruction projects in terms of cost, schedule, and quality, in comparison with new building projects. In all studies aforementioned, tools such as bar charts and CPM were reported as the main techniques adopted. Finnish renovation projects also presented poor project performance in terms of cost, time, and also failures concerning the fulfilment of customer requirements (Naaranoja

& Uden, 2007). In conclusion, as noted by Henrich (2009, p. 98), “the construction industry has been using outdated production methods or using them in a wrong context”.

The findings mentioned above imply that the use of conventional management methods leads to wastes and ultimately poor project performance. This insight poses the following question: why does the traditional construction management approach fail? A close look at the literature on construction management reveals that the root cause of such failure lies deeper than an inappropriate selection of managerial practices. Next, the reasons behind the failure of the traditional management approach in construction projects are addressed.