Trust, Briefing, Facilities Management and Procurement Contexts

Transcription

1 Trust, Briefing, Facilities Management and Procurement Contexts J. Hudson, E. Kyng, P. McDermott and W. Swan Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford Salford, Greater Manchester, M5 4WT, United Kingdom Abstract: The role of facilities management in effective briefing for construction projects has been long debated. Although the importance of people/communication issues in briefing has been emphasised in the literature briefing has seldom been explicitly conceptualized in terms of trust. This contrasts with the later stages of the construction process where trust has been more thoroughly investigated. In this paper some of the findings of this work on trust in construction are reviewed and their implications for the role of facilities management in briefing examined. An ability to effectively integrate facilities management knowledge into briefing is potentially an important test of the work on trust. Recent developments in the procurement of constructed facilities mean that the context for briefing is much more complex that conventionally portrayed in work on briefing. A framework for understanding trust and its potential role for integrating facilities management knowledge into briefing is explored. Keywords: Briefing, Facilities Management, Procurement, Trust. 1. Introduction This paper explores the potential for recent work carried out on trust in construction projects to be applied in the context of the briefing process. In particular the prospect of using this approach to better incorporate knowledge derived from facilities management into the briefing process will be investigated. An inability to make effective use of facilities management knowledge is a long standing problem and a demonstrable improvement in this area would be an important test of the trust approach. The paper draws upon the analytic framework for trust developed in the Trust in Construction Project which was supported through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), a funding agency of the UK Government. 2. The role of facilities management in briefing Traditionally briefing for buildings projects has been characterized as an early stage in the design and construction process during which client requirements are made explicit; the main participants in this process are the client and architect (or other designer). This characterization has been revised over the years in response to several developments in the property and construction development process including the increased complexity and sophistication of many client organizations, a perceived need for greater building user involvement, new forms of construction procurement and a greater involvement of 242

2 professions other than architecture in managing the design process (Gray and Hughes 2001). As a result of such developments facilities managers are increasingly seen as having an important function in the briefing process (e.g. Duffy, 1993, Becker 1990, Barrett and Baldry 2003, Hyams 2001). In particular the knowledge that facilities managers have of the ways in which buildings and infrastructure can support organizational function is seen as highly relevant to briefing even if it is seldom captured in practice (Blyth and Worthington 2001, Smith and Jackson 2000). The importance of feedback from building use into the design process has long been recognized; for example the RIBA Plan of Work recognized the importance of feedback from building use in the design process even if the methods for achieving this were not well developed (Lawson 1997). There are, however, problems in achieving effective feedback between many projects and it has been explicitly removed as a distinct work stage in the most recent version of the plan of work (Royal Institute of British Architects 2000). The Generic Design and Construction Protocol emphasises facilities management as an activity zone, implying that it needs to be managed from project inception and thus through the briefing process (Kagioglou et al. 1998). The practice of facilities management has itself been changing in ways that suggest it should have a greater role in the briefing process. It is increasingly seen as a strategic factor in organizational performance rather than as an overhead (Langston and Lauge-Kristensen 2002). For example, Vischer (1996) has suggested that leading corporations tend to use an investment rather than a cost model of accommodation planning; in other words that they see workspace as a positive contribution to corporate performance rather than as a cost to be minimized. Barrett and Baldry (2003) distinguish between operational and strategic facilities management; its strategic role is to scan for future change bother in the core business and the facilities management arena to develop a policy framework that balances current operations with future needs. Smith and Jackson (2000) have suggested that facilities managers have a key role to play in strategic needs analysis during briefing. The intelligent client model of facilities management in which organizations have a small team of expert staff to manage outsourced services and develop strategic facilities policy (Bernard Willams Associates 1994, Roberts 2001) seems particularly relevant; such a team would have unique knowledge of the facilities requirements of an organization that would be particularly appropriate to managing the briefing process. Where the facilities manager has the intelligent client role in an organization he or she may be well placed to take on what Blyth and Worthington (2001) call the project champion role in briefing. Despite the strengthening rationale for the involvement of facilities management in briefing, the empirical evidence for this taking place in practice is limited. Published research and case-studies of briefing, with some exceptions, are rarely clear on the composition of client briefing teams and whether the facilities management function is represented within them. Work by Bowen et al. (1999) in South Africa, for example, indicates that life-cycle costs are rarely given a high priority in briefing; this suggests that faciliites management input is not always strong in practice. 3. The briefing context Briefing has a long history as a research problem within the construction procurement process (e.g. see Barrett et al, 1999, Kelly et al., 1992, Smith et al., 1998, Ryd 2004). A wide range of weaknesses in briefing practice have been identified and proposals put forward to remedy them. Much of this work has centred on the linked issues of understanding the client, 243

3 client/industry interaction, communications and team building. For example Barrett and Stanley (1999) structure their work around five key solution areas ; Empowering the client Managing the project dynamics Appropriate user involvement Appropriate team building Appropriate visualisation techniques Blyth and Worthington (2001) define six key areas for briefing success: Defining the process Timely decision making Understanding underlying agendas Planning for future change Clear and comprehensive communication Feedback of experience A prerequisite for many of these solutions to be implemented is an underlying climate of trust in the briefing team; without trust effective communication and timely decision making, for example, are unlikely to take place. Hanway (2001) mentions developing trust between client and designer as an important element in exhibition design. Stuebing (2001) discusses the role of trust in allowing briefing for adaptability. Salisbury (1998), although not specifically using the concept of trust identifies the importance of creating a healthy working relationship and goes on to discuss the uncertainties and suspicions that can arise between client and architect during the early stages of briefing. However, research into briefing seems to have largely ignored the field of trust in construction in which the concept of trust has been developed as an analytic construct. 4. Trust in construction The aim of the Trust in Construction Project was to carry out an exploratory study of trust in construction projects using a case study (Yin 1994) approach. One pilot and four full case studies were carried out. Trust has been defined in many ways (Blois 1999). However, a working definition for the purposes of the project was developed: We define trust as the willingness to rely upon the actions of others, to be dependent upon them, and thus be vulnerable to their actions. Trust always involves an element of risk that a partner will abuse the trust placed in them (Wood and McDermott 1999). The key findings of the project were the elements of trust at work in projects and their interaction with each other. A distinction was drawn between interpersonal trust and organizational trust. Interpersonal trust is that which occurs between two individuals. Organizational trust is the trust that organizations place in their own staff; it is a cultural issue. Organizational trust is in turn affected by the norms and context of industry as a whole. A construction project will bring together a number of organizations, each with its own culture of trust. Organizational trust was found to have an important impact on the effective functioning of construction projects. Organizations that trust their own staff (Tschannen-Moran 2001) and 244

4 support a no-blame culture (Woodward and Woodward 2001) tend to give project staff the authority to respond flexibly within a project team. Projects bring together different organizational cultures and where these cultures are complementary projects tend to work well. Where there is cultural conflict then problems can arise. Interpersonal trust was explored through the development of a Trust Inventory which identified six ethical dimensions of trust as reported in Wood et al. (2002). These dimensions are: 1. Honesty/openness in communications integrity in sharing information; no covert agendas 2. Promise keeping never misleading by making false promises 3. Fairness/reasonableness fair sharing of benefits; avoiding a blame culture 4. Mutuality/reciprocity willingness to work beyond contractual obligation for mutual benefit 5. Values/ethics the need for participants to demonstrate high ethical standards 6. Reputation key to being trusted and in willingness to trust; has to be earned 5. Implications of construction trust work for briefing different stages of the process and different procurement contexts The Trust in Construction Project focused mainly on the construction phases of projects. Successful strategies to intervene in this stage were identified. Can the strategies and principles that emerged be applied at earlier stages in the process including briefing? This can at least be taken as a working proposition. The case studies used for the construction phase had been specifically selected against pre-set selection criteria (after Yin, 2003). These included the client type, procurement approach and project size. Given both private and public sector client drives towards the procurement of constructed facilities as service, rather than products, can the construction based case studies yield generalisations that are applicable in such very different procurement contexts? The public sector alone has been required to move towards newer procurement methods based on integration concepts in recent years, following strategy documents such as Achieving Excellence (HM Treasury, 1999), and direction from both the Office of Government Commerce (OGC Report, 2003) and the National Audit Office (NAO Report, 2001). In the wake of the Egan Report, Rethinking Construction (Egan, 1998), which highlighted integration and partnering as key strategies to improve the construction industry, the UK Government Construction Client s Panel responded with Achieving Excellence (HM Treasury, 1999), which laid down targets for the number of projects which should be procured through integrated supply chains and partnering. This has been followed by the National Audit Office identifying new procurement routes based on partnering approaches as a key tool in delivering better public projects (NAO Report, 2001). It later followed this report up with a data that suggested that innovative procurement approaches, which tend to encourage partnering and supply chain integration, had a demonstrable benefit within the public sector (NAO Report, 2005). Considering these shifts in procurement contexts, it can be proposed that the conditions to facilitate the development of trust are significantly different: When the client is procuring the work through an Integrated Procurement Form, perhaps a Private Finance arrangement, or through framework arrangements 245

5 Between stages of projects - where the temporary project coalitions consist of organisations ofsignificantly different character (say design houses and materials suppliers), Where the traditional role and function of facilities management has been absorbed into an integrated service, into an integrated organisation and can be fully considered at briefing stage, and Where the conditions of engagement/employment offer significantly different incentive mechanisms for the stakeholders involved. These contexts suggest a considerably more complex and richer picture of procurement than that depicted in conventional work on the briefing process and future research will need to take account of this. To begin to address these and other propositions, the authors firstly propose to look at organizational trust in relation to briefing both in terms of client and industry organizations. In a trusting organization (Tschannen-Moran 2001) individuals involved in the briefing process are given the support and authority to act flexibly and effectively. The importance of the role of client champion in briefing has been stressed (e.g. Blyth and Worthington 2001, Salisbury 1998, Hyams 2001) and this role is likely to be severely compromised if the client organization does not put full trust in its representative. Similarly on the industry side the organization needs to place a high degree of trust in its representatives. Where trust does not exist it is likely to be replaced by complex systems of control and audit; such systems can become dysfunctional where behaviour alters to meet the requirements of the audit system (Power 1999). The issue is not just about trust within organizations, although this is important, but also between organizations that may operate with very different cultures. Within the overall context of organizational trust briefing also needs the development of interpersonal trust amongst the individuals involved in the process. The new project will explore what this might mean using the six dimensions of the trust inventory. Honesty/openness in communications. Good communication, particularly of client needs has often been emphasised by many commentators on the briefing process (e.g. Barrett and Stanley 1999, Blyth and Worthington (2001), Salisbury 1998). The trust work adds to this by stressing the ethical dimension of communication, particularly in not using communication to mislead other participants in the briefing process or to pursue hidden agendas. Promise keeping. Briefing defines the intended output of a construction project and therefore presents a considerable opportunity, whether intentional or unintentional, for over optimistic claims (or demands) for outcomes. In this situation it is easy to make promises that cannot be fulfilled. Fairness/reasonableness. Briefing is a demanding task that requires substantial input from the individuals involved; this work needs to be equitably distributed amongst participants and fully resourced by their organizations. Where the client has little experience of the construction industry there is an inherent imbalance of power in the relationship; it is important that the client is adequately empowered in these situations (Barrett and Stanley 1999). Mutuality/reciprocity. There are considerable benefits to all parties in ensuring that satisfactory briefing takes place. Where a climate of trust exists individuals will be encouraged to commit knowledge and effort to the process with the understanding 246

6 that others will do the same. Without that climate there may be a tendency for individuals to manipulate information and contributions for their own political aims. Values/ethics. Where individuals demonstrate clear adherence to ethical principles in their behaviour in the briefing process a climate of trust might be expected to be enhanced. Reputation. Some clients have continual building programmes that allow trust to be developed over a number of projects, particularly in partnering arrangements. This allows individuals to build up reputation for ethical dealing over a long period. For occasional clients this is more difficult. Nevertheless individuals and organizations can build a general reputation that can go before them. Individuals have to gain trust by consistently demonstrating high ethical standards. For the facilities manager involved in briefing this work has a number of implications. Where an organization is undertaking a construction project a facilities manager might reasonably be expected to have a role in the briefing process, particularly where he or she is expected to take responsibility for that building after completion. However, this role will have reciprocal responsibilities. There is a need for open communication, particularly of relevant information that might be held by the FM department. The facilities manager may also be in a position to facilitate user involvement in the briefing process e.g. by means of post occupancy evaluation; the views of users should be fairly represented and communicated. Full participation of the facilities manager in the briefing process might be expected but at the same time the facilities manager can expect that his or her interests will be fully taken into account at the same time. 6. Conclusions Although trust in the construction delivery process has been subject to systematic analysis in recent years there has been less work on trust in the briefing process. Work on briefing has implicitly recognized the importance of trust but it has not been dealt with in a particularly structured way. The Trust Inventory of Wood et al (2002) offers a framework under which such an analysis might take place. However, there is a need to develop a programme of research to undertake such work. The role of trust seems particularly important in fully exploiting the knowledge base of the facilities manager into the briefing process. Although the potential benefits of involving facilities management in briefing its actual involvement often appears to be either a token gesture or to come at a stage when all the major strategic decisions have been taken. In a culture of trust that engenders openness, reciprocity and fairness it might be expected that the contribution of all potential contributors to the success of the briefing process would be valued. References Barrett, P. and Baldry, D Facilities Management: Towards Best Practice (2 nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Science. Barrett, P., Hudson, J. and Stanley, C. (1999) Good Practice in Briefing: the limits of rationality. Automation in Construction 8, pp Barrett, P. and Stanley, C. (1999) Better Construction Briefing. Oxford: Blackwell Science. 247

7 Becker, F. (1990) The Total Workplace. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Bernard Williams Associates (1994). Facilities Economics. Bromley: Building Economics Bureau. Blois, K (1999) Trust in Business Relationships: An evaluation of its Status. Journal of Management Studies 36(2): pp Blyth, A. and Worthington, J. (2001). Managing the Brief for Better Design. London: Spon Press. Bowen, P., Pearl, R and Edwards, J. (1999) Client Briefing Processes and Procurement Method Selection: a South African Study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 6 (2), Duffy, F. (1993) Facilities Managers and New Developments: the Experience of Broadgate and Stockley Park, in Preiser, W. (ed.) Professional Practice in Facility Programming. NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp Egan, J. 1998: Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force on the Scope for improving the Quality and Efficiency of UK Construction. Department of the Environment, Transport and the regions, HMSO, London. Gray, C and Hughes, W. (2001) Building Design Management. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Hanway, C. (2001) Briefing the Narrative in Blyth, A. and Worthington, J. (2001). Managing the Brief for Better Design. London: Spon Press. pp HM Treasury. (1999) Achieving Excellence Constructing the Best Government Client, HM Treasury. Hyams, D. (2001) Construction Companion to Briefing. London: RIBA Publications. Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton., M. and Sheath, D. (1998) A Generic Guide to the Design and Construction Process Protocol. Salford: University of Salford. Kelly, J., MacPherson, S and Male, S. (1992) The Briefing Process; A Review and Critique, RICS Paper Number 12. London: RICS. Langston, C and Lauge-Kristensen (2002). Strategic Management of Built Facilities. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Lawson, B. (1997) How Designers Think (3 rd ed.) Oxford: Architectural Press. NAO Report. 2001: Modernising construction, The Stationary Office, London. NAO Report. 2005: Improving Public Services through better construction, National Audit Office: 87, London. OGC Report. 2003: Building on Success, Office of Government Commerce, London. Power, M. (1999) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification (2 nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, P. (2001) Corporate competence in FM: current problems and issues. Facilities, Vol. 19, Number 7/8. Royal Institute of British Architects (2000) The Architect s Plan of Work. London: RIBA Enterprises. Ryd, N. (2004) The Design Brief as Carrier of Client Information During the Construction Process. Design Studies, 25, pp Salisbury, F. (1998) Briefing Your Architect. Oxford: Architectural Press. Smith, J. and Jackson, N. (2000). Strategic needs analysis: its role in brief development, Facilities, Vol. 18, No. 13/14, pp Smith, J., Kenley, R. and Wyatt, R. (1998) Evaluating the client briefing problem: an exploratory study. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management Vol. 5, No. 4. pp Stuebing, S. (2001) Briefing for adaptable use. Pp in Blyth, A. and 248

8 Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration 39(4): Worthington, J. (2001). Managing the Brief for Better Design. London: Spon Press. Vischer, J. (1996) Workspace Strategies. New York: Chapman & Hall. Wood, G. and McDermott, P. (1999) Searching for trust in the UK construction industry: an interim view. CIB W92 International Procurement Conference, Thailand, AIT. Wood, G, McDermott, P and Swan, W. (2002) The ethical benefits of trust-based partnering: the example of the construction industry. Business Ethics: A European Review 11(1): Woodward, D. and Woodward, T. (2001) The efficacy of action at a distance as a control mechanism in the construction industry when a trust relationship breaks down: an illustrative case study. British Journal of Management 12: Yin, R. (1994) Case Study Research (2 nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage. 249