MERIT 2014 Finalists

Professor McCaffer undertakes assignments in the UK and Internationally as: Lecturer; Trainer, Researcher; Author; and Consultant.

This site provides a profile of Professor McCaffer and offers links to resources that engineering managers and construction-related professionals will find useful.

  The seventh edition of Modern Construction Management by Frank Harris and Ronald McCaffer will be published by Wileys in February 2013. MCM is established as a core undergraduate and post graduate textbook for students of construction management, project management, building and civil engineering degrees. The new edition reflects current best practice, topical industry issues and the latest developments in degree programmes and fundamental subjects for students. The soon to be published companion web site, when available shortly at www.wiley.com/go/MCM7, will offer invaluable resources for both students and particularly lecturers in providing the slides for lecture preparation and solutions to tutorial examples.   The web site will contain: Solutions to the self-learning exercises in section four of book Questions directory: maps the questions to the chapter which will help you PowerPoint slides with discussion topics Journal and web references span Useful links Structured to reflect site, business and corporate responsibilities of managers in construction, the book continues to provide strong coverage of the salient elements required for developing and equipping the modern construction manager with the competencies and skills for both technical and business related areas.   Modern Construction Management 7 presents construction as a socially responsible, innovative, carbon-reducing, manager-involved, people-orientated, crisis-free industry that is efficient and cost effective. The overall themes for the Seventh Edition are:   Drivers for efficiency: lean construction underpinning production management and off-site production methods. Sustainability: reflecting the transition to a low carbon economy. Corporate Social Responsibility: embracing health & safety, modernistic contracts, effective procurement, and employment issues. Building Information Management: directed towards the improvement of construction management systems.   While the construction process still requires traditional skills, changes over recent decades today demand improved understanding of modern business, production and contractual practices. The book has undergone a thorough re-write, eliminating some of the older material and adding new processes now considered essential to achieving lean construction. Particular emphasis is given, for example, to supply chains and networks, value and risk management, BIM, ICT, project arrangements, corporate social responsibility, training, health and welfare and environmental sustainability.   The comprehensive selection of worked examples, based on real and practical situations in construction management and methods will help to consolidate learning.  
  The Royal Academy of Engineering is the UK’s national academy for engineering and brings together the country’s most eminent engineers from all disciplines to promote excellence in the science, art and practice of engineering. Click for details. Professor Chimay Anumba, Head of Department of Architectural Engineering at Penn State University was elected a Fellow. Click for Chimay's background. Michel Virlogeux, the World's leading Bridge Engineer, was elected an International Fellow. Click for details of Michel's bridges. My role was that I was one of the nominators for both candidates. On November 5th 2012 both candidates were admitted to the Academy. Below is some photographs of the event.       The event on November 5th 2012 started with an afternoon's briefing meeting. The above four photographs are from the afternoon. Top left is Chimay, Michel and myself. Top right is Michel and me. Bottom left is Chimay and me and bottom right is Michel presenting his work to the newly elected Fellows. A great speaker this was a tour de force of Bridge Engineering.        Both Michel and Chimay signing in marks the moment that they were admitted to the Academy.       On the left Lord Browne immediate Past President presents Michel Virlogeux with his certificate and Sir John Parker the current President looks on. On the right Chimay with Lord Browne and Sir John Parker.   Finally two Professor Anumbas, Chimay's brother on the right. A Professor of Obstetrics.
Some pictures from the second site that I worked on, as a student, in 1963.The project was to lay a twin 24 inch (pre-metric) diameter spun iron pipe line to take the Monkland Canal and clear space for the Townhead Interchange in the North side of Glasgow. This involved pipe laying in open trenches and in timber headings under roads and railways. I did much of the setting out.       Above is the site manager or site agent as he was titled. This was Charles Arthur Robinson. Better known as Big Charlie standing at almost 6'6'' Charlie at that time seemed to be everything I could never be: big and athletic. He was Britain's Basketball Team Captain. The attributes that made him a leader in sport also shone through at work. His personality was as big as he was and he had a commanding presence. He was well able to direct the workforce and manage the plant and machinery. He was a manager that achieved and each day he had the site strive to do more than it had the day before. He also had the ability to engage with the Resident Engineer, the design staff that we interfaced with and the representatives of the client. No one intimidated him and he dealt with them as equals. He was at his best directing the labour force, not usually known for their intellectual capacities, but Charlie could always motivate them to work well, willingly and effectively and he also dealt with indiscretions of the workers in a skilful way. I learned a lot about management of people from Charlie. He also taught me the fundamentals of construction management. What mattered was that the work was done for less than the cost estimate. Working methods that drove productivity and delivered a quality output first time were at the top of the agenda. Working methods, productivity, quality, planning, estimating and cost control were the principles of construction management then and now. To underpin these a motivated workforce is essential. I first learned of these from Charlie. I look at construction management now and I see the same principles being applied. Sometimes the applications are dressed in some modern language but the principles remain the same: working methods, productivity, quality, planning, estimating, cost control and workforce motivation. Once I set out a timber heading under a railway line 8.5” (ie inches) high. Halfway through driving the heading I discovered this. I confessed to Charlie. The next half hour has been eradicated from my mind! Then we sat down and worked out the solution. We were driving the heading on an upward incline so that water would flow away from the face.The solution was from the halfway point we would drive horizontally. The pipes would go in higher than designed at the entrance to the heading but exit the heading at the design level.In effect we changed the gradient of the pipeline through the heading. Being a pressurised system this would not interfere with the functioning of the pipeline. I was then left with the duty of walking across the site, down the shaft, up the heading and informing the miners that we were changing the levels that they were using to drive the heading. In a confined space 6’0” wide, 5’0” high with three large miners explaining my error was a ‘learning experience’. But that was the end of it. Other than Charlie, the miners and myself no one else was informed. I was not subjected to ridicule. Charlie had taught me about taking responsibility.         The three gentlemen above are, left to right, Big Ned the site foreman, Paddy who made us tea and looked after the house keeping and Pat Duffin who tried to teach me to drive that truck.   My memory of Big Ned was when he said to me 'If you want to be a leader of men'-this was not insensitivity to gender differences but simply all his workforce were male-'If you want to be a leader of men, you've got to know what you want to do and impose yourself!' My response at the time was 'well Ned when you are as big as you are you'll have no difficulty in imposing yourself, some of us are less advantaged'.   Years later in academia Ned's words came back to my memory too frequently. There are two elements to his advice 1) know what you want to do and 2) impose yourself. It seemed that academic managers were keener on element 2) and less assured on element 1). This allowed me on numerous occasions to politely pose the question 'what is it you are trying to achieve'. Too often the reply was less than convincing.   My experiences on site as a young student engineer and later on Hinckley Point B Nuclear Power Station and the Invergordon Aluminium Smelter, working with some inspirational people, fired my lifelong enthusiasm for construction. Upstream of the Big Neds and the Big Charlies there is only paperwork, drawings, specs, contracts but downstream there is real physical entities created by the act of construction. Nothing could be more exciting than creating something that wasn't there before you and your colleagues constructed it. Moving to academia (where I never intended to stay) I invented my own version of grounded theory which was to visit construction sites as often as possible. Not to collect data or conduct a specific study but to observe, to absorb , to fraternise with the site staff and the workforce. To understand the industry and its challenges was a necessary backdrop to more specific teaching and research. Some academics seem to shy away from contact with industry claiming they don't want to be overly influenced in their research. This is completely beyond my understanding. It has lead to some interesting times at conferences when the latest solution to a perceived industry problem is presented and opened the opportunity to ask' when were you last on a construction site'. Too frequently the reply has been embarrassing. I worry about the content of such staff's teaching and what is passed onto the next generation. I know that it is essential that all construction academics visit construction sites frequently just to become familiar with and undestand the industry they are dedicated to improving by providing good quality graduates and through their research. In my early years as an academic visiting students on their industrial placement provided the ideal opportunity, later having built a network of senior construction staff  I found it easy to pick a project and ask for a visit.These experiences shaped my teaching and research.   It seems to me that it is unarguable that the objective in construction and construction management research is to influence industry and change practice. That is why the UK has, at last, in their 2013 research assessment exercise created a section to present the impact of research. The weight of this element will be bigger in the next research exercise. This has been late in being included and should be welcomed.  Construction research without impact on the industry isn't research. mgid advertisingkiikochan.blog136.fc2.com
In November 2011 OPERC, the Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre (click OPERC for details) held their Annual Conference at Birmingham City University At this conference I was presented with an OPERC Gold Medal for services to OPERC, I'm not quite sure what these services were but it was very nice of them. Below is a photograph of the presentation by Professor Dave Edwards    Dave Edwards presenting me with an OPERC Gold Medal and the medal
I was invited to join the Smeatonian Society of Civil Engineers, this Society formed in 1771 by John Smeaton it predated the Institution of Civil Engineers (1818). The Society still exists and has only 50 members, I had to research its background, its description is below-
During my visit to UTM  I took part in a Workshop on publishing articles in refereed journals. Below is a photograph of the delegates who were mainly research students in Civil Engineering at UTM. Below the picture are links to the slides that I used.   The workshop was based on my experience as Editor of Engineering Construction and Archtectural Management and as referee for other journals. I shared these experiences with the delegates through a slide show and through discussing draft articles that they had prepared. The audience was lively, energetic, enthusiastic and the discussion sessions were robust. Sadly that will not be obvious from the slides. I did promised the delegates that I would make the slides available. These are in two parts. Part 1 contains general advice from Emerald on the 'rules' about publishing and an introduction to ECAM.     Published articles in refereed journals-Part 1   Part 2 are my own comments which generated discussion.   Published articles in refereed journals-Part 2
ECAM 21.4   Contents   Employee Job Satisfaction in Engineering Firms Vivian W. Y. Tam and S. X. Zeng   Determining the relationship between conflict factors and performance of international construction projects Eyad Zouher Al-Sibaie1, Ali Mohammed Alashwal1*, Hamzah Abdul-Rahman2, and Umi Kalsum Zolkafli1 Identifying Macro-Environmental Critical Success Factors and Key Areas for Improvement to Promote Public–Private Partnerships in Infrastructure: Indonesia’s Perspective Andreas Wibowo and Hans Wilhelm Alfen   Construction workplace discrimination: experiences of ethnic minority operatives in Hong Kong construction sites Johnny Kwok Wai WONG and Autumn H.Q. LIN   Critical Failure Factors of Public-Private Partnership Low-Cost Housing Program in Thailand Surangkana Trangkanont and Chotchai Charoenngam Transaction Costs Incurred by Construction Owners Huimin Li, David Arditi and Zhuofu Wang     Editorial   ECAM 21.4 has fifteen authors with one from Australia, three from China, two from Germany, two from Hong Kong, four from Malaysia, two from Thailand and one from the USA representing a widespread international mix. Four papers have two authors with the other two papers having three and four authors. One paper has two nationalities and the same paper is represented by two different academic institutions and industry. I yearn for more joint industry/academic papers as a clear indication of relevance of the research being published. The topics in this issue have a wide range and include: employee job satisfaction; conflict in international projects; critical success factors in Public-Private Partnerships; workplace discrimination with respect to ethnic minorities; and transaction costs for construction owners. Given two papers relating to Public-Private Partnerships this could almost be the theme of this issue. These two papers are quite different one relating to the macro-economics of PPP and the other focussed on PPP efficiency in delivering low cost housing. I’m looking for a paper that will detail whether PPP is a growing or declining method of procurement. I’ve seen evidence that in the countries where PPP was established early and therefore experience has been gained that PPP no longer has the popularity that it started with The paper that I enjoyed most was on transaction costs, this is mainly because I’ve always had a heightened interest on the flow of money round projects, it’s the life-blood of projects. The conclusions in this paper are quite firm but the authors need to consider what they will do to use this data to promote change in practice. With regard to the research methodologies employed in the papers in this issue there seems an over reliance on questionnaires, I prefer questionnaire data to be supported by data from other sources such as interviews or focus groups. Questionnaires leave the researchers too remote from their data sources to ensure that the data is sound and well understood. Questionnaires are the most cost effective means of data collection but they have their limitations. The research community hasn’t yet fully embraced that the means of measuring the quality of research has moved beyond simple publication to measuring impact on the wider community. For our research impact on the wider community largely means changing industry practice, change in Governments’ policies or social impact. This means that there is a responsibility on the researchers to take their work further in its implementation. This aspect is challenging but also exciting and that is why researchers will respond to the challenge. The future CVs of academic researhers will include the changes brought to the industry rather than simply a long list of publications.   The papers in this issue are:   Tam and Zeng attempt to examine cultural values and employee satisfaction in engineering firms in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The dimension of cultural values is Power Distance. A questionnaire was used that was developed by Hofstede in 1980.The results show that the Power Distance Index varied at country level and at the level of the firm. The consultitative management approach is preferred. Comments are made on work, co-workers, operating procedures, age, pay, promotion and benefits. The authors explore recommendations for improving existing job satisfaction. However this last aspect is too weak. These studies to be of great value need to have strong implementable recommendations that move the industry forward.   Al-Sibaie, Alashwal, Abdul-Rahman and Zolkafli examine conflict in international projects. Their data source was 161 completed questionnaires from professionals in Malaysian companies undertaking international projects. So the study of conflict in this case is confined to Malaysian companies. The data was sorted into the following categories: External; Internal; Control-Related; Knowledge-Related; Mismanagement; and Social Conflicts. The analysis showed that the conflicts that affected project performance were ‘internal’ and ‘social’ contributing some 27% to variation in project performance. Frustratingly the authors don’t offer a way forward as to how these conflicts can be avoided or better managed. Having equipped themselves with this insight they should use the information to develop better project management.   Wibowo and Alfen using Indonesia as a case study identified the macro-economic critical success factors for Public-Private Partnerships in infrastructure development. The authors’ methodology identified 40 possible success factors with 16 identified as critical in the context of Indonesia. The factors requiring immediate improvements are all associated with commitments: to policy continuity, financial transparency and corruption eradication. The authors believe that their approach is adaptable to other countries. This is a contribution to the body of knowledge relating to Public-Private Partnerships with particular value for policy makers, ie governments, involved in this activity. This is an interesting analysis on PPP. The emerging data suggests that in the countries where PPP was first established the enthusiasm for it is waning as the costs resulting seem much greater than those envisaged at the outset.     Wong and Lin have explored construction workplace discrimination in the ethnically diverse construction workplace of Hong Kong. The data sources were a survey and focus group discussions. The survey gathered data from ethnic minorities and the focus groups explored discriminatory practice and discrimination coping strategies. The ethnic minorities reported inequality of treatment and difficulties caused by language barriers. The authors recommend language support and translations of safety procedures notices and policies should be established to bring staff together and promote a more inclusive and harmonious workplace. Perhaps the University could organise awareness training and development courses to change the existing culture.   Trangkanont and Charoenngam examine the factors that cause failure in Public-Private Partnerships for low cost housing in Thailand. The authors claim that PPP procurement has failed to deliver low-cost housing to low-income groups. This research is intended to identify the critical failure factors. Data was gathered and analysed and ten critical failure factors identified. Some failures were caused by ineffective policy and strategy, some were beyond the control of the project management team. There was considerable interplay between the identified factors. The authors hope that the lessons learned can help both the public and the private decision makers reduce the probability of failure I would have hoped that the researchers would take a stronger line and provide the means for the lessons to be learned.     Li , Arditi and Wang argue that transaction costs arising from economic exchange are not well defined or even accepted as a concept by all stakeholders in a project. Using questionnaire data from construction owners the authors conducted an analysis to determine the owner`s and contractor`s positions, project management efficiency, and the transaction environment relative to transaction costs incurred in pre- and post-contract phases. The conclusions are quite precise indicate that (1) post-contract transaction costs are much higher than pre-contract transaction costs expressed as percent of project value; (2) public projects` transaction costs are higher than private projects` transaction costs at the pre-contract phase; (3) awarding a contract by negotiation generates less transaction costs compared to competitive bidding; (4) the project delivery system appears to have no impact on transaction costs; and that (5) unit price contracts generate higher transaction costs than lump sum or cost-plus contracts. The authors stop short of explaining how they will deploy this information to influence the industry’s practices and reduce these transaction costs which do not benefit our industry only the financiers. I think they should give thought to building on this platform of knowledge that they have created.   Ronald McCaffer
ECAM 21.3 Contents Improving construction productivity: a subcontractor’s perspective Martin Loosemore, David Higgon and Laurie Foy Addressing effective construction logistics through the lens of vehicle movements Fei Ying and John Tookey The Effect of Construction Demand on Contract Auctions: An Experiment Alexander Soo and Bee Lan Oo Critical Success Factors for Implementation of Risk Assessment and Management Practices within the Tanzanian construction industry Nicholas Chileshe and Geraldine John Kikwasi Construction Efficiency: A Tale of Two Developed Countries Craig Langston Highway maintenance: impact of framework agreements on contractor performance LAM, Terence Y M and Gale, Keith   ECAM 21.3 This edition is virtually our Australasian edition with 8 authors from Australia and 3 from New Zealand with two co-authors one from Tanzania and one from the UK making up the 13 authors that contributed. Two of the papers are co-authored with industry or a research body. The topics in this edition include: productivity and sub-contractors; construction logistics; the effect of demand on mark-ups; critical success factors in risk management and management practices; comparing construction performance in different countries; and traditional contracts v framework agreements, What was pleasing in this set of papers was the robust and varied research methodologies ranging from focus groups; site observations and interviews; laboratory base simulations; survey; and a case study based on data analysis. This was good evidence of the research method being chosen to suit the investigations. I was particularly enthused by the laboratory based simulation. Totally unpredictable and relying on responses, many researchers would be too cautious to try this. The papers that particularly interested me were the investigation into sub-contractors and productivity; the investigation into construction logistics; and the inter-country comparisons but this is simply reflecting my own interests in productivity and economic data. The other papers were well worthwhile too. Papers in this edition are: Martin Loosemore correctly argues that the sub-contractors perspective is almost entirely absent from the construction productivity literature. They decided to address this imbalance by forming eight focus groups from seventy-one tier one sub-contractors. With these groups they explored their insights to productivity. The findings include: the relationship with the main contractor; opportunity for early involvement in design; transparent tender practices; growing administration and document control; design management; project management and supervisory skills, particularly in planning, scheduling and coordination; risk management; and industrial relations. Stated like this the findings could appear general and obvious but this was a piece of work worth doing and provide a platform to build on. Fei Ying, John Tookey and Johannes Roberti examine construction logistics by considering vehicle movements. These researchers set out to find about what hampers efficiency in transporting construction materials and plant to a construction site with the intention of improving construction logistics. A case study approach was used based on site observations and interviews with suppliers and sub-contractors. They argue that cost related both monetary and non-monetary are not measured and are ignored as are environmental factors and social impact of truck movements. The number of truck movements is generally only used for traffic management. The lack of understanding of construction supply chain management is due to a lack of commitment from management level and the skills at operational level. This is a very critical report and therefore potentially well worthwhile. However I wondered whether this was a local issue or much more widespread, this would be worth knowing. Also I would have hoped for stronger advice on how to correct the situation, possibly by training. Alexander Soo and Bee Lan Oo experiment to test the effect of construction demand on the mark-up price level in construction contract auctions. They conducted their experiment in a controlled laboratory environment where sealed bid auctions were simulated with a varying number of projects. They varied the market conditions from a boom to a recession. The findings show that inexperienced bidders varied bid price and general mark up with respect to levels of demand. It is refreshing to see such an imaginative research methodology being used in a construction subject. The limitation of the findings is that the bidders were inexperienced students. Having designed the experiment perhaps it could now be repeated with different and more experienced participants. The researches could start to examine the responses of say a QS group, an engineering group, an accountants group and as it would be in practice a group with a range of mixed and relevant skills. Nicholas Chileshe and Geraldine John Kikwasi explore critical success factors for implementation of risk assessment and management practices within the Tanzanian construction industry. The authors argue that there is little research on CSFs for the deployment of risk assessment and management processes in developing countries, particularly, Africa. The purpose of the research was to examine the perceptions of construction professionals with respect to CSFs in Tanzania. The authors surveyed 67 professionals and analysed their responses. The authors listed 10 critical success factors and the three highly ranked were:”awareness of risk management processes”; “team work and communications”; and “management style”. The least important were: “co-operative culture”; “customer requirement”; and “positive human dynamics”. This left me a little confused as these findings did not align with my own prejudices. I would have thought that a cooperative culture and customer requirement would have been right up there at the top. There is an aspect here that I don’t fully understand. However the authors have collected and analysed data which is of value they now need to tell us what can be done with this data. How will it improve the industry’s management of risk and the development of CSFs? Craig Langston compares the construction efficiency of two developed countries. The author tackles the vexed question of benchmarking construction performance of different countries arguing that it is not well done and no agreed method exists. The author proposes a new method for comparing international construction efficiency, tested on a dataset of 337 modern high-rise buildings in both Australia and the United States, and in so doing demonstrates that the ratio of cost over time is capable of ranking the performance of projects, building contractors, cities and even entire industries. Using this method the author examined efficiency in both countries using data from the five largest cities. The conclusion was that USA is outperforming Australia by 1.1%. This is an interesting paper, perhaps because I like this sort of data, but it gives a framework to ask some probing questions relating to the set up of construction in different countries and the role of Government, trade unions and clients. Perhaps the author will now compare many countries and start a worldwide discussion in the research community. Terence Lam and Keith Gale are interested in highway maintenance, in particular framework agreements and contractor performance. The starting point is the UK history of client dissatisfaction. This work attempts to assess the difference between performance on framework agreements and traditional engagement of contractors in highway maintenance. Using a case study approach for one major county council in the UK data was gathered from 164 civil engineering highway projects separated into framework agreements and traditional contracts. The analysis of the data showed significant improvements in overall performance and in time (finish on time), cost (payment accuracy) and quality (defects and health and safety) resulted from the framework agreements. This is a tidy piece of research reporting success of framework agreements. Ronald McCaffer
ECAM 21.2 Content list Structural Relationships between Cultural Values and Coping Behaviours of Professionals in the Stressful Construction Industry Chan, Isabelle Y. S. and Leung, Mei-Yung A Discriminant Model for Measuring Competition Intensity of Construction Markets YE, Kunhui, Shen, Liyin, and Weisheng, Lu   Cash Flow Modelling For Construction Projects   Zayed, Tarek and Liu, Yaqiong   Rework and Schedule Performance: A Profile of Incidence, Impact, Causes and Solutions   Hwang, Bon-Gang and YANG, Shimin   Using Public-Private Partnerships for the Building and Management of School Assets and Services   Liu, Tingting and Wikinson, S   Understanding Project Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Public Participation in China’s Infrastructure and Construction Projects: Social Effects, Benefits, Forms, and Barriers Lin-lin Xie, Yu Yang, Yi HU and Albert P. C. Chan ECAM 21.2 Editorial ECAM 21.2 took 16 authors to produce the six papers included in this issue. One paper has 4 authors, two papers have 3 authors and three papers have 2 authors. There is much evidence of multi- institutional collaboration. One paper has 3 authors from 3 Institutions in Hong Kong and one paper has authors from 2 Institutions in mainland China and 1 Institution in Hong Kong. The paper from Singapore has one author from a University and one from industry. I had hoped and still hope that we will see more joint papers from Universities and industry. It is clear and widely accepted that in construction there is a need to demonstrate the relevance and impact of research. One way of ensuring relevance is to undertake the research jointly with industry colleagues. Having industry involved in research helps focus research on real issues that are seeking solutions. Working with industry increases the opportunities to implement the research output. Such joint work is too be encouraged. The distribution of our international authors in this issue is six from Hong Kong, four from China, two from Singapore, two from Canada and two from New Zealand. The topics in this issue are coping behaviours for stressed construction professionals annexing their cultural values, modelling competition intensity, project cash flow forecasting the impact of rework on schedule performance, Pubic-Private Partnerships and public participation in infrastructure disputes in China. The research methodologies were questionnaires and interviews. I am always comforted when questionnaire results are supported by interviews and other data sources. I’ve never been convinced that a questionnaire alone gives the research the necessary insight required. Direct contact with industry professionals allows the researchers to test their understanding of the issues they are researching. Our industry colleagues frequently challenge researchers’ perceptions and that ensures that the researchers examine these perceptions more carefully. Even more frequently our industry colleagues improve their understanding of the problems they face simply by dialogue with researchers. There is great benefit to both. The paper that was closest to my own experience was the one on the impact of rework on the programme schedule. As a young site engineer I can well remember the rage of the site manager when we had to plan for some rework because of our own errors! Nostalgia! The papers in this issue are:   Chan, Leung and Yuan invite us to consider the coping behaviours of stressed construction professionals and the effects of different cultures. The authors establish statistical evidence that desired cultural values of construction professionals can influence their adoption of coping behaviours. Data collection was by questionnaire and 139 were completed by construction professionals in Hong Kong. The main findings were: (1) interpersonal integration triggers problem solving; (2) a disciplined work ethos triggers positive reappraisal and alleviates emotional discharge; and (3) interpersonal integration triggers a disciplined work ethos. A series of recommendations are presented to encourage construction professionals to adopt adaptive coping behaviours through cultivating their cultural values. So far so good but I would like to see how these findings can be implemented. I don’t know how so I would look to the researchers to develop an implementation strategy. Could it be training courses or development sessions to encourage the advocated approach? I think th researches should take a lead on this. Kunhui, Shen and Weisheng are interested in competition intensity in construction markets. The authors argue that competition intensity is important to companies setting their competition strategy and are critical of existing methods of measuring competition intensity. The authors propose a model based on discriminant analysis. The proposed model is composed of predictor variables concerned with market operation as well as criterion variables that classify markets into a few predefined groups based on the values of competition intensity. Empirical data of China’s local construction markets were collected to verify the proposed model. It is recommended using the proposed model to predict the competition trend of construction market especially when data for the traditional approaches are poor or not readily available. The research needs to be taken further to demonstrate that the predictions of the model are of value to companies setting competition strategy. How will these companies use this model? Will they find it of value? The researchers will need to educate the industry on the value of this model.   Zayed and Liu return us to the topic that recurrently attracts researchers namely cash flow modeling and forecasting. The authors argue the importance of cash flow, its variability and its difficulties in forecasting cash flow. All these reasons are why many researchers have been attracted to model cash flow in projects. The chosen modeling technique is that favored by many researchers the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Data collection to establish the AHP was by questionnaire in China and North America. Results show that the most significant factors are: change of progress payment, payment duration, and financial position of the contractor, project delays, and poor planning. The developed model is expected to help contractors realistically forecast project cash flow under uncertainty. However I’m not convinced that by simply expecting the model to be helpful is enough. The researchers having developed a model should find ways of demonstrating its value, otherwise like a host of all the other cash flow models it will simply not get used by anyone.   Hwang and Yang have examined rework and schedule performance. The authors argue that studies in rework have concentrated on cost over-runs and have largely ignored the impact on the schedule performance. They begin with a discussion on the causes of re-work. The data sources are from a questionnaire and six face to face interviews with industry experts to understand the implications from the survey results. The researchers have identified rework as a major contribution to schedule disruption. The root causes identified were namely design-related changes, poor design coordination and poor site management. The hope is that once companies recognize the causes they can develop strategies to manage and prevent rework. I would have expected that the researchers would work with the companies to develop the strategies. Having undertaken the research and established the causes the researchers need to provide the solutions. Describing the problem isn’t enough to help our industry advance.   Liu and Wilkinson have studied the use of Public-Private Partnerships for providing school assets and services. The main data was semi-structured interviews with the key stakeholders from two comparative case studies in Australia and New Zealand. The researchers established five critical elements. (1) Sound business case development; (2) Size-adjusted and streamlined tendering process; (3) Localised private sector partner and streamlined finance; (4) Extensive stakeholder engagement; and (5) Effective governance and organisational structure and enhanced partnership. The authors believe that these provide the practical implications for policy makers. The big issue with PPP is that governments and public authorities see it as a means of providing assets without providing the capital. However the costs of the service on the future recurrent budgets are usually too burdensome and the pain is not felt till the recurrent budgets are stresssed. The data I have seen suggests that PPP is now less popular as the costs of such schemes are being seen as outweighing the benefits of finding the initial capital.   Xie, Yang, Hu and Chan examines the public participation in China’s infrastructure projects. There is a growing frequency in China in using public participation to resolve disputes in public infrastructure and construction projects. The researchers surveyed major stakeholders in involved in relevant projects. The survey results were used to perform a strength-weakness-opportunity-threat analysis for evaluating the status quo of public participation in PIC projects. The results were that the use of public participation in China was slow so the authors have developed a four-step strategic plan to overcome the main barriers for the implementation of public participation and promote its development in China. The authors are attempting to promote public participation through the development of their strategic plan. What would help is a description as to how their strategic plan will be implemented. Ronald McCaffer
ECAM 21.1 Contents: Managing the health risks of extreme weather events by managing hospital infrastructureMartin Loosemore and Vivien Chow   Impact of Values on the Learning Approaches of Chinese Construction Students in Hong Kong Mei-yung Leung, Chen Dongyu and Anita Liu,   Improving construction management practice with the Last Planner System: a case study Abdullah AlSehaimi, Patricia Tzortzopoulos and Lauri Koskela   The health and safety impact of construction project features Patrick Manu, Nii Ankrah, David Proverbs and Subashini Suresh   Framework for Enhanced progress tracking and control of Linear Projects Tarek Hegazy, Mohamed Abdel-Monem, and Dina Atef Saad   Causal ascription of rework in building and civil engineering projects: A multivariate exploration Ekambaram Palaneeswaran, Peter Love, Mohan Kumaraswamy and Thomas Ng   ECAM 21.1 required the extraordinarily high number of 19 authors to produce 6 papers. Multi-authorship and multi-country papers are the feature. One paper had 2 authors, three papers had 3 authors and two papers had 4 authors. Two papers spanned two countries namely Hong Kong and China and the UK and Saudi Arabia. Two papers involved collaboration with three institutions which is slightly higher than usual as collaboration between two institutions is more common. The ECAM 21.1 group of authors were four from Australia, three from Canada, one from China, four from Hong Kong, six from UK and one from Saudi Arabia.   Planning would be the theme of ECAM 21.1 featuring in two papers and issues relevant to productivity in one other.   Topics in this issue include hospital infrastructure and disaster management, learning of Chinese construction students, a planning case study. Health and safety and project features, improving repetitive planning and managing re-work. The research methods for data collection are mainly interviews, questionnaires and case studies. I prefer any approach involving direct contact rather than remote questionnaires. I have more confidence in the information produced and in that both the researcher and the practitioner would have a greater understanding of each other. I was pleased to see the development of an improvement to planning of repetitive work. Backed by a case study this was an effort to improve and change practice not simply an observation of what is occurring. I like research that tries to drive change.     The papers in ECAM 21.1 are: Loosemore and Chow invite us to consider the increasing health demands on hospitals due to climate change-extreme weather events when the infrastructure of the hospitals did not have such demands anticipated when designed. Their information sources were focus groups and case studies in Australia and New Zealand.   Their findings are that hospital managers see the infrastructure as an important component of disaster response, apparently this challenges previous research. However the infrastructure is the least flexible. The need therefore emerges for adaptable organisational and management sub-systems. It is interesting to link disaster response with managing the infrastructure. My previous readings in this topic simply accepted the facilities available and sort of worked round them. This paper at least offers a more positive approach.   Leung, Dongyu and Liu surveyed 431 ethnically-Chinese construction students in four Universities in Hong Kong. The survey identified six influential values. The authors recommend developing appropriate value systems in freshmen courses. The authors should present with more authority and detail how to include these ‘values’ in courses and present a case study where the values have been deployed and the resulting benefits. Perhaps we can look forward to a future paper.   AlSehaimi, Tzortzopoulos and Koskela offer us a case study in the use of the planning system ‘Last Planner’ in Saudi Arabia. The data and information sources were observations and a survey. We get few papers that offer observations on practice such as this and it is to be welcomed. These authors are trying to ensure that the use of a planning system improves and develops. The main issues of planning are present, for example sub-contractors, commitment and attitude.   Manu, Ankrah, Proverbs and Suresh using semi-structured interviews and questionnaires explore the degree to which Construction Project Features influence accident occurrence. They were trying to determine whether the causal influence of accidents and if these are common or prevalent within construction project features. The findings are that the CPFs have a moderate to high influence. I think therefore that means these can be changed to reduce accidents. Therefore the authors need to find ways and means of adjusting the construction project features. They have left the conclusions as providing an insight but this has got to be driven towards effective actions that will change practice.   Hegazy, Abdel-Monem, and Saad are interested in progress tracking and control in repetitive projects. They have built a framework that automates the documentation of as-built information and links it directly to the project schedule. The technology is e-mail based and they claim a more accurate computation of the critical path and linear scheduling. They demonstrate the worth of the new approach by a case study. This paper presents a nice bit of enhancement in planning and scheduling. The authors need to find ways of promoting the approach to gain wider use and therefore impact on practice.   Palaneeswaran, Love, Kumaraswamy and Ng use supervised questionnaires and case study interviews with data from 112 construction projects to obtain knowledge of the underlying nature of re-work. The analysis revealed difference between civil engineering projects and building and the authors claim that the associations will help build prevention strategies. There seems more to do to reach this stage.   Finally as ECAM 21.1 is the first edition of 2014 it gives me great pleasure to wish you all a happy and productive New Year. Notwithstanding that as I write this the sun is out, the sky is blue and there’s not a cloud to spoil the view and it feels more like a late sunny summer day than an early Northern hemisphere autumn. For us in these latitudes New Year is associated with the depths of an icy winter. Nevertheless 2014 could be a very special year.   Ronald McCaffer
  ECAM 20.6   Contents list   Procurement Innovation for Public Construction Projects: A Study of Agent-Construction System and Public-Private Partnership in China       Weisheng Lu, Liu Anita, Hongdi Wang, Zhongbing Wu       Relationship between Building Floor and Construction Labor Productivity: A Case of Structural Work       Long D. Nguyen and Hung T. Nguyen       Using control systems to improve construction project outcomes   Florence Yean Yng LING and Wan Theng ANG       Why do work sampling studies in construction? The case of plumbing work in Scandinavia       Per-Erik Josephson and Lasse Björkman       The Mediation Role of Trust in Knowledge Sharing: A Cognitive Perspective in Chinese Architectural Design Teams       Zhikun Ding, Fungfai Ng and Fungfai Ng       Workplace stress among construction professionals in South Africa: the role of harassment and discrimination       Paul Bowen, Peter Edwards and Helen Lingard       ECAM 20.6 has six papers produced by 16 authors. One paper has four authors, two have three authors and the other three have two authors each. The international spread of the authors is 5 from Hong Kong, 3 from China and Australia, 1 from the USA and 2 each from Singapore and Sweden. Three papers are from two countries and one paper is written jointly between academia and industry. I keep hoping that we would see more papers written on research jointly undertaken by academia and industry. We are in an era when the impact of research on the wider community is being examined more and more by research funders, the UK’s Research Excellence Framework is just one example. I believe that one effective way of demonstrating the value of research to, arguably, the most important section of our wider community, industry, is to undertake research jointly and to publish jointly.       The topics in ECAM 20.6 are procurement systems, productivity improvements in the construction of high rise buildings and productivity increasing due to learning, construction control systems, the value of work sampling studies, trust as a mediator in knowledge sharing and workplace stress. Productivity features in twopapers. Giving my own background (see http://www.mccaffer.com/default/announcements/61-a-bit-of-nostalgia as an example) these papers on productivity are the ones that attract my attention but I suspect that the paper on trust and knowledge sharing could possibly have a greater benefit in the long term. Studies in this area should be encouraged.       The research methods deployed included semi-structured interviews, case studies and questionnaires. Any student of past editorials will know that I’m not an admirer of postal questionnaires. These questionnaires generally don’t produce a dialogue between the academic researcher and the respondents, usually from industry. The example in this issue is the use of e-mail. I’m left wondering if e-mail could produce a more meaningful interaction. I think we need some description of how to use e-mails to exchange data and information in a way that is less rigid than a postal questionnaire providing more iterations and dialogue. I think I could be convinced that this approach is getting closer to interviewing.       The papers in this issue are:       Weisheng, Liu, Hongdi and Zhongbing are interested in procurement systems and have set out to discover the Political, Economic, Social Technological, Environmental and Legal (PESTEL) consequences of two ‘state-of-the-art’ procurement systems in China. These are an agent-construction system and a Public-Private-Partnership. The data collection was largely semi-structured interviews using a PESTEL framework. Some useful insights but the conclusions and observations could have been more focussed. To achieve procurement innovation requires congruence between the procurement system and the PESTEL conditions, but we need to know how to achieve that.                           Nguyen and Nguyen used a case study approach to study labour productivity. Records from the structural work of a 20-storey apartment building were analyzed to calculate floor-based labour productivities. Some interesting observations, eg labour productivity doubled over the first five floors and re-bar activity increased over fifteen floors. Deeper insights into the learning principles underlying these productivity improvements would be welcomed. Can the learning be sufficiently quantified to be included in planning. A lifetime ago when the planning technique line-of-balance was being used for repetitive construction work the planning targets were almost always exceeded because of the learning effect in the repetitive work. These two authors seem to be reviving this area of research.       Ling and Ang start with the assumption that poor project outcomes are a result of the lack of control systems. So these authors researched the control systems adopted by the construction with a view to developing a project performance predictive model based on the control system adopted.   The data from Singaporean contractors was collected by e-mail, a modern version of the postal questionnaire.   The researchers claim that the research establishes the importance of control systems and that the three predictive models developed are robust. However the authors go on to discuss the limitations of the research.   A case study describing the application of the predictive models and the benefits to the contractor would a useful next step.           Josephson and Björkman examine whether work sampling studies in processes performed by temporary organizations can be used to measure productivity and compare performance over time.   The researchers conducted work sampling studies of plumbing work on eight construction sites and the data was compared to a similar study 20 years earlier. Interviews were used to compare work methods over the two studies.   The authors argue that the main benefit of work sampling studies is to stimulate discussion between workers and management on possible improvement opportunities. The authors query the benefit of such studies in measuring productivity as conditions vary from site to site. What the authors are describing are the difficulties faced by estimators and estimating systems based on data files of working methods. Productivity data collected from work in practice cannot be used in estimating without considerable judgements being applied.                                       Ding, Ng and Ng studied the role of trust as a mediator in knowledge sharing within Chinese architectural teams. A questionnaire survey was conducted with Bejing architects. The model was that trust was a mediator in knowledge sharing.   The findings show that the mediation role of trust between two personal construct based factors i.e. social interaction and attitude on work, and willingness to share knowledge is supported.   Trust is elusive and any work that can provide a better understanding of the frameworks within which trust can make a meaningful contribution is useful.                   Bowen, Edwards and Lingard explore work place stress due to harassment and discrimination in South Africa. The data was collected from 626 respondents using an online survey. Harassment and discrimination on ethnic grounds are experienced in all of the South African construction professions included in the survey. Respondents also indicated that they felt underpaid and that their job security was adversely affected by their ethnicity. Sexual harassment and gender-based harassment and discrimination were more frequently reported by architects than by other professionals. Harassment and discrimination were found to correlate with higher perceived levels of work stress.   The authors describe the responsibility of Government and Unions to develop strategies to improve workplace practice. However the Universities have a huge opportunity and responsibility to provide the educational platforms and training that will assist, they need strategies too.           As this is the final edition of 2013 it is appropriate to thank the unsung workers that make refereed publishing function and that is our set of referees without whose assistance we wouldn’t be able to function. It is too simple just to say thanks to our referees, they don’t know how much we appreciate their efforts.       Edition 20.6 sees the end of ECAM’s twentieth year. It feels like a landmark. Back in 1994 when we started we didn’t look this far ahead, it was fun starting a new journal. It still is fun but I think we now also add a little pride that we’ve reached this age.       Ronald McCaffer   www.mccaffer.com  
ECAM 20.5 Contents Contractors Perspective towards Factors Affecting Labour Productivity in Building Construction Ibrahim Mahamid Organisational culture of construction project managers in the GCC countries   Martin Jaeger and Desmond Adair Structural holes in hospital organisations: Facilities managers as intrapreneurial brokers in the tertiary health sector   Martin Loosemore and Hock Kang Sherman Heng   A case study analysis of fatal incidents involving excavators in the Australian construction industry   Helen Lingard, Tracy Cooke, Ehsan Gharaie   An analysis of safety advisor roles and site safety performance   Iain Cameron, Billy Hare and Roy Duff   Low carbon retrofit: Attitudes and readiness within the social housing sector   William Swan, Les Ruddock and Luke Smith ECAM 20.5 has six papers produced by 14 authors, there papers have three authors, two papers have two authors and one has a single author. The international spread of the authors is six from the UK, five from Australia and one each from Singapore, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia. The topics in this issue are labour productivity in West Palestine, organisational culture in the Gulf states, facilities management in hospitals, fatal accidents involving excavators, the role of safety advisors and the adoption of sustainable retrofit in social housing.         The predominant research methods used were surveys, case studies and data collection. My feeling, quite unscientific, is that case studies are emerging as the favoured research method. Case studies put the researchers and practioners face to face and they seem to yield more useful information than surveys.   The two papers in this issue that interested me most were facilities management in hospitals and the role of safety advisors. The facilities management in hospitals resonated with me and facilities management in Universities. Brokering an understanding of what was required was a huge task and this paper reflected that. The role of safety advisors is likely the paper to have the most immediate impact on practice. There is strong evidence here how contractors should approach safety management for the best results.   The papers in this issue are:   Ibrahim Mahamid reports on his study of labour productivity in building construction in West Palestine. The data sources are a survey of 59 contractors and literature. The five main factors identified were rework, lack of cooperation and communication between construction parties, financial status of the owner, lack of labour experience and lack of materials. The location of the survey may have its own special issues but the factors retarding productivity seem to have a universal presence.     Martin Jaeger and Desmond Adair study the organisational culture of construction in Gulf countries. They sought to determine whether there was a common culture although project managers worked for different organisations. Ninety nine organisations were visited as part of this study. The conclusions were that there were two dominant cultures a group culture and a hierarchical culture. This seemed to align with the national cultures in the Gulf. The consequences of this are discussed.                                 Martin Loosemore and Hock Kang Sherman Heng explore the activities of facility managers in hospital organisations. The research is based on a case study of a large hospital in Australia. The findings are that the facilities manager need great brokering skills to broker connections a between the different functions with distinctly different cultures in a highly disconnected communications and network system. I found this paper fascinating. I once had some involvement in the University’s facilities management and I recognise much of what was found in this research.   Helen Lingard, Tracy Cooke, Ehsan Gharaie conducted a case study on the nature and causes of fatal accidents involving excavators. Ten cases were analysed and the immediate causes identified. The originating influences could not be identified. This paper adds significantly to the data on causes of accidents and no doubt will be of interest to similar groups of researchers in the community and health and safety organisations.       Iain Cameron, Billy Hare and Roy Duff study the roles of safety advisors and their influence on safety performance, This study was funded by the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. The roles were identified from literature and the performance measured by Accident Incident Rate and the data was from 101 contractors. Contractors with external safety advisors only had poorer AIRs. Contractors where at least one safety advisor had authority to give orders had a lower mean AIR than those who did not. Other significant variables were: delivering safety training to employees; vetting sub-contractors; and the inclusion of an environmental management role. There is powerful information in this paper that will be used to guide how contractors approach the management of their safety provisions.   William Swan, Les Ruddock and Luke Smith assessed the attitudes, strategic readiness, drivers and barriers to the adoption of sustainable retrofit in UK houses. The data source was a survey of 130 providers of social housing. The results were that the providers were aware of the sustainable retrofit but the readiness varied greatly. The authors acknowledge that this is a snap shot and does not describe the trajectory of adoption.   Ronald McCaffer
Built Environment Project and Asset Management ISSN: 2044-124X Issue 4.1 Contents: Vol. 4 Issue 1 EditorialMohan Kumaraswamy Stakeholders’ expectations in utilising financial models for public private partnership projectsFredy Kurniawan , Stephen Ogunlana, Ibrahim Motawa Cross Sectoral Comparison of Concessions in Transport: Urban, Road and Port Pre-Fuzzy AssessmentThierry Vanelslander, Gilles Chomat, Athena Roumboutsos, Géraldine Bonnet A Game Theoretic Model for Roadway Performance Management: A Socio-Technical ApproachHesham Osman, Mazdak Nikbakht Value Methodology in Public Engagement for Construction Development ProjectsMei-yung Leung, Jingyu Yu Overview of the Development and Implementation of the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme (MBIS) in Hong KongDaniel W.M. Chan, Henry T.W. Hung, Albert P.C. Chan, Tony K.K. Lo Embracing sustainability practices in UK construction organizations: challenges facing intra-organizational leadershipAlex Opoku, Vian Ahmed Potential and implications of sustainability action plans: lessons from the Greater Middlehaven Regeneration ProjectCraig Thomson, Mohamed El-Haram   BEPAM Editorial 4.1 SPREADING WINGS AND SOARING HIGHER   Time flies, and it seems we can too, at least in some ways! Time-wise, we are already into Volume 4 of BEPAM, while trajectory-wise, with an encouraging succession of recent achievements, the above caption appears to be an apt sequel to my last editorial caption of ‘Joining Hands and Advancing Together’. Recent milestones passed in the BEPAM journey, include successful indexing in SCOPUS, being conferred ‘CIB encouraged’ status and thirdly, receiving the ‘B’ rating that we applied for in the widely respected Australian journals rating system managed by the Australian Business Deans Council. Many have conveyed that since BEPAM is a relatively young journal, we should be very happy with this outcome, given the strict criteria applied. Of course all these achievements energise us even further, in building on this momentum to aim higher. Increasing to 4 issues per year from Volume 4, helps BEPAM in ‘spreading wings’ further and is indeed a natural progression from the recent volumes, where we accommodated more papers than planned, in scheduled issues. Another ‘spread’ dimension is seen in our catchment and target areas – for example, BEPAM 3.2 being a Special Issue on ‘PPP in Transport: Theory and Practice’ brought on board a wider group of stakeholders with special interests in PPP in transport. While our Guest Editors were from Greece and Portugal, they attracted papers from many countries worldwide, as expected. We congratulate the Guest Editors and the authors for their significant contributions in advancing knowledge on this increasingly critical theme. Indeed, such special issues enable us to ‘drill deeper’ or ‘soar higher’ depending on one’s perspective. With Emerald encouragement as well, we have commenced work on two more Special Issues: one on ‘Project Management and Asset Management in Emerging Economies’; and the other on ‘Leadership, Culture and Sustainable Built Environment’. While the theme of the former indicates a deliberate ‘spread’ to emerging economies, this is reinforced by the positioning and networks of the Guest Editors in East Asia (Singapore) and (South America (Brazil). The specific ‘spread’ of the other special issue to link the ‘leadership’ and ‘culture’ domains, with the ‘sustainability’ agenda that is also a cornerstone of BEPAM, signifies another relevant ‘reaching out’ exercise. This is under the able guidance of Guest Editors based in Cambridge and Salford, UK, with extensive worldwide networks themselves. Our next Special Issue, with Guest Editors from Australia and the UK and including one well positioned practitioner, will be on 'BIM for Built Asset Management' (BIM for BAM), bearing additional testimony to the topicality and value of the BEPAM mission, in linking the different phases in a built asset life cycle. Shifting our focus to the current issue, rather than paraphrase or second-guess the principal thrusts of the published papers which may be better identified from their abstracts, I only aim to briefly indicate some relevant connections and common threads, running across this 4.1 issue. Indeed some threads weave through into previous BEPAM issues as may be discerned from the ‘Table of Contents’ in http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=bepam. For example, those interested in specific areas like PPP (public private partnership) or PE (public engagement), would be able to skim through for at least an overview of how different dimensions of these domains were explored before. In this issue for example, the first and second papers are on PPP and they complement each other, with the first (by Kurniawan , Ogunlana and Motawa) exploring what stakeholders expect from PPP financial models in general, while the second (by Vanelslander, Chomat, Roumboutsos and Bonnet) probes concessions across three specific transport sub-sectors in Europe. The third paper (by Osman and Nikbakht), while also looking at transport, focuses on roadway performance management applying a game-theoretic approach to model stakeholder interactions with an example from Canada. The stakeholder management thread continues in the fourth paper (by Leung and Yu) with a goal of boosting public engagement processes and outcomes (during the upstream asset development phase) through value methodology. The fifth paper (by Chan, Hung, Chan and Lo), like the fourth, is based in Hong Kong, but is focused on a downstream (in terms of asset life) ‘mandatory building inspection scheme’. The sixth paper (by Opoku and Ahmed) focuses on built asset life in terms of sustainability practices in the UK, but interestingly injects ‘leadership’ into the equation, also differentiating it from the usual sustainability mantras. The sustainability thread continues through the seventh paper (by Thomson and El-Haram), specifically spotlighting ‘sustainability action plans’ and lessons from a regeneration project, also in the UK.   If you are reading this last paragraph, even if you bypassed some above, I expect you may have at least some interest in BEPAM”s onward and upward journey and I hope you may appreciate and if at all possible, contribute to our special mission in linking the planning, design and construction of built assets to their operation, maintenance and downstream management. I also hope that we can spread the benefits that are accruing from this special mission as soon and as widely as possible, in developing and boosting both the underlying principles and good practices. Mohan Kumaraswamy Editor-in-Chief派遣会社ランキング.jpnews88.net
Built Environment Project and Asset Management BEPAM Issue 3.2 (Vol. 3 Issue 2) CONTENTS: Financial anatomy of E4 Helsinki-Lahti shadow toll PPP-projectPekka Leviäkangas, Marcus Wigan, Harri Haapasalo   Fiscal effects and public risk in public-private partnershipsEmmanouil Sfakianakis, Mindel van de Laar   Real option theory for risk mitigation in transport PPPsRoberta Pellegrino, Nevena Vajdic, Nunzia Carbonara   Comparison of revenue guarantee programs in build-operation-transfer projectsKohei Asao, Takashi Miyamoto, Hironori Kato, Crispin Emmanuel D. Diaz   Use of key performance indicators for PPP transport projects to meet stakeholders’ performance objectivesGoran Mladenovic, Nevena Vajdic, Bjorn Wündsch, Alenka Temeljotov-Salaj   Can the pilot public-private partnerships project be applied in future urban rail development?: A case study of Beijing Metro Line 4 projectTingting Liu, Suzanne Wilkinson   A PPP renegotiation framework: a road concession in GreeceNikos Nikolaidis, Athena Roumboutsos       BEPAM Issue 3.2 (Vol. 3 Issue 2) EDITORIAL: EDITORIAL Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Theory and Practice[1]   Athena Roumboutsos[2] Department Shipping, Trade and Transport, University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece   Rosário M. R. Macário, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Arquitectura e Georrecursos, Instituto Superior Técnico     Abstract Purpose:          An introduction to the Special Issue on Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Theory and Practice, to justify its need, to highlight key issues and propose future research in response to current and future challenges. Design/Methodology/Approach:           Setting the context of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in Transport, the key issues of this infrastructure and service delivery model are highlighted through the authors’ critical description of the contributions in the Special Issue, which present a balanced presentation of Theory and Practice. Findings:         The Editorial summarises critically and constructively the findings of the contributions to the Special Issue and based on these put forward the need for research in new assessment methodologies and the need to develop appreciating projects. Research Implications: Issues identified in combination with current macro-economic and social developments lead to the proposal of research needs that need to be addressed in support of the next generation of PPPs in the transport sector and not only. Practical Implications: The contributions to this Special Issue were selected so as to offer examples from practice and describe them through theory so as to enhance the understanding of the factors influencing the implementation of the PPP model of project delivery in the transport sector. Social implications:     The Special Issue on PPPs in Transport: Theory and Practice highlights the need for the development of new structures and new concepts that will lead to value creation, value capture and value continuation in order to address sustainably societal challenges in mobility. Originality/value:          The Special Issue with respect to PPPs in transport is timely with respect to international developments and questions raised with respect to the applicability of the project delivery model. Research proposed for the next generation of PPPs presents the context of value creation, value capture and value continuation.   Keywords: Public Private Partnerships, Transport Sector, Private Finance         1.Introduction Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) have been established as a common alternative for governments to deliver major infrastructure projects. The project delivery scheme, in many cases, has been advanced by the need to respond to public sector needs for infrastructure, restrict public sector spending, leverage public funds and exploit private sector skills in management, operation and innovation based on an equitable sharing of project risks between the contracting parties. The transport sector has especially benefited from the PPP scheme furthered by the need to address negative externalities and endorse international trends in transport policy, including deregulation of the transport market. As such, PPPs have been the object of interest for both academia and practitioners and significant contributions have been made to the international literature in this respect. However, as presented by Tang et al (2010) in their review of PPP journal publications between 1998 and 2007, the majority of publications concerned empirical based research with a focus on case studies and survey findings. This constitutes evidence that Practice has been leading knowledge creation. It also explains the fragmented knowledge existing with respect to PPPs. Addressing this issue COST Action TU1001 on “Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Trends and Theory” was established to promote theoretical development and combine findings. On a similar course, the taskforce TG72 of the CIB set respective targets concerning the entire spectrum of PPP sectors. Furthermore, the global downturn of the economy and new regulations in the banking system has contributed to the identification of shortcomings in the implementation of PPP projects and a slowdown in the PPP market (cf. EPEC, 2013). In order to address issues, new models need to be deployed based on sound theoretical research, capable to provide predictions and forecasts of outcome in support of the decision-making process and PPP performance. In this context, the transport sector is of particular interest: it represents the sector, where PPPs have been mostly applied; it is the sector mostly affected by the economic downturn; and, finally, it is the sector with increasing public needs seen as an important factor for growth. Theoretical constructs can only be justified through close ‘‘partnership’’ with market developments and this special issue includes contributions to this effect. Papers have been selected so as to highlight the key aspects of PPPs in the transport sector combining either individually or in combination Theory and Practice. They also set the framework for future research needs in support of the successful and mutual beneficial contribution of the private sector in transport infrastructure and services delivery.   2. Key Issues of Transport PPPs In the quest for public sector Value for Money (VfM), many PPP models have been employed. All have a common denominator: the use of private capital for financing and/or funding (through user charges or taxes) an infrastructure and/or service. Identifying and comparing with the “anti-monde” is a principal problem, even in the ex-post situation as developed by Leviäkangas, Wigan, and Haapasalo (2013) with respect to the E4 Helsinki-Lahti road, which was built in 1995-1999 in Finland as the first real PPP project. In their cash flow based approach they compared the economics of PPP versus traditional procurement of road infrastructure projects to conclude that win-win situations are hard to find in shadow toll arrangements. This is largely due to the different discount rates used by investors and the public sector (Roumboutsos, 2010). So, if the societal benefits remain constant, the PPP model can hardly be justified. Furthermore, they emphasize the fact that in most cases, the public sector does not include all costs in its appraisal as opposed to the private investors, who, in principle and as a rule, price all of the relevant risks and uncertainties of which they are cognisant. Admittedly, in the public conscious, infrastructure, and more so transport - as it is linked to the right of mobility, has for long been a public asset. In this approach, it has been taken for granted and the investments in it have seldom, if ever, been risk-priced by the public sector. However, risk has a cost. Sfakianakis and van de Laar (2013) highlight the fact that PPPs can impose important future costs on the government, which in turn create obligations similar to public debt obligations for financing infrastructure investment. Government guarantees, typical in PPP contracts, constitute explicit contingent liabilities, which should be transparently valued to assess a country’s fiscal profile. A risk, often ignored in PPP literature, is government default or inability to correspond to obligations stemming from the PPP commitment. The authors use data from Chile for the period 1990-2007. In their approach, the public risk is priced by introducing a credit default swap (CDS). They conclude that from a government’s perspective, PPPs do not differ too much from typical public investment: explicit contingent obligations arising from PPPs are similar to sovereign debt commitments and project costs will burden taxpayers at some point in the future. Pricing of risk as allocated to parties is, therefore, an important element of the PPP setting and managing these risks is dynamic, corresponding to their evolution over time. Taking stock of managerial flexibility may increase the “value” of the project and this is modelled as a “real option”, which represents the price of acquiring the right to take an action in the future (Dixit and Pindyck, 1995; Trigeorgis, 1996) and allows the proactive management of risks (Cheah and Garvin, 2009). Here, a significant gap exists between theory and practice. Pellegrino, Vajdic and Carbonara (2013) effectively propose to bridge this gap by framing mitigation strategies for transport infrastructure projects as real options and proposing an option-based risk management framework. While, the pricing of a real option is a challenge, this approach highlights the fact that PPPs over their contract life-cycle also present opportunities for both the private and the public sector. Considering the real option approach, Asao, Miyamoto, Kato and Diaz (2013) compare the two basic types of revenue guarantee programs: a payment-based annual and a period-extension-based cumulative revenue guarantee program. Using Monte Carlo simulation applied to a toll road project in the Philippines, they find that the cumulative revenue guarantee program provides better pay-offs to the public but may significantly undermine the business initiatives of the private sector as risk is significantly capped.   Monitoring performance, then, seems to be the solution and introduces the need to include in the PPP agreement performance indicators in order to limit strategic behaviour and achieve value for money, which cannot be established on a purely financial basis. The literature review carried out by Mladenovic, Vajdic, Wündsch and Temeljotov Salaj (2013) identified a number of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which in general may be group as technical, operational/functional and financial. Surprisingly, there was no reference with respect to innovation or wider societal benefits that are usually considered as drivers for infrastructure delivery by the private sector. This finding is also in line with cases reported in the 2013 P3T3 Discussion Papers (Roumboutsos et al, 2013). This is despite the fact that PPP success has been suggested (cf. Grimsey and Lewis, 2004) to depend on the capabilities of the private sector partner. Liu and Wilkinson (2013) identified “capabilities” of both the public and private sector to be a key success factor for Beijing Metro Line 4 Project. Notably, the Beijing project was seen as a “golden line” because of its location, size of construction and anticipated traffic volume, which contributed to ensuring its revenue streams and financial viability. It also initiated a pipeline of urban rail projects increasing its attractiveness to potential private sector investors. Appropriate risk allocation, however, was again emphasized as the decisive factor to success. While, practitioners and academia have placed emphasis on properly allocating risks, evidence on transport PPPs (cf. Guasch, 2004 and Baeza and Vassallo, 2010) indicates that agents settled on plans that seemed complete at the agreement stage and proved incomplete at a later time due to incomplete or asymmetric information ex-ante, due to policy trade-offs (cf. Flyvbjerg et al, 2005), due to the specificities of transport infrastructure risks (Roumboutsos et al, 2012), due to the competitive nature of the transport market (Preston, 2012) or due to unexpected downturns in the local or global economy as currently experienced. Traffic/ revenue risk has been a source of major PPP contract renegotiations. These are accompanied by residual-rights, asymmetries in information and potential “hold-up” leading to unsatisfying renegotiated contracts and the increase in transaction costs. In these cases, Nikolaidis and Roumboutsos (2013) show that the outcome is less related to mutual benefits and more on how strategic power is distributed within the stakeholder network.   3. Research in support of the next generation of PPPs in Transport The contributions to this special issue suggest the need to re-asses the driving factors of the PPP model. Value for Money (VfM) seems to be a limiting factor as it concentrates, primarily, on value capture at the time of conception, or at the start of operation, while the issue is to identify solutions for keeping value in PPPs sustainable in the long run. Risk allocation, while recognised to be central in the development of the PPP arrangement, it is neither optimal nor accurately priced for both the public and private sector agents involved. Performance is rarely monitored with respect to value generating aspects such as innovation or the societal benefits of accessibility or addressing global challenges (eg. climate change, health, the ageing population, safety and security etc). This puts a strain on the arrangement, especially in the transport sector, which is vulnerable to global macro-economic and societal changes, as these reflect on transport demand and, consequently, on anticipated revenue streams. These considerations prevail as challenges in creating, capturing and continuing value. Transport PPP projects and the level of private sector contribution need to be carefully designed for value creation on a “1st best approach” in order to include value assessment for all stakeholders involved over time. Notably, transport infrastructure projects are part of a wider public planning process: they are part of the transport network; they reflect on land value; they follow developments in fast-track sectors such as the ICT and energy. Assessing this value exceeds the potential of the traditional CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis). Even MCA (Multi Criteria Analysis) tools may not be adequate. Developing new assessment methods by which to capture and continue value may be timely and important in minimizing strategic behaviour. This approach to value assessment, introduces an additional important aspect: how to construct an appreciating transport infrastructure and/or service. What levels of flexibility are needed and how are they priced. These are issues that currently, and more so in the future, concern practitioners and the academic community. This will require the development of analytical models and frameworks. These would need to be tested on a wider set of cases bringing to the foreground the deficit in the number of PPP projects for which there is available and accurate information over time. This deficit needs to be addressed. Hence, the need for PPPs Theory and Practice continues…   References Asao, K., Miyamoto, T., Kato, H., and Diaz, C. (2013) Comparison of Revenue Guarantee Programs in Build-Operation-Transfer Projects, this issue Baeza, M. A. and & José Manuel Vassallo, J. M. (2010), “Private concession contracts for toll roads in Spain: analysis and recommendations”, Public Money & Management, Vol. 30 (5), pp. 299-304 Cheah, Y.J. and Garvin, M.J. (2009), “Application of Real Options in PPP Infrastructure Projects: Opportunities and Challenges”, In: Policy, Finance & Management for Public-Private Partnerships, Akintoye, A. and Beck, M. (eds.). Blackwell Press. Dixit, A. and Pindyck, R. (1995), “The options approach to capital investment”, Harvard Business Review. EPEC, (2013) Market Update:Review of the European PPP Market in 2012, European Investment Bank Publications, www.eib.org/epec Flyvbjerg, B., M., Skamris, M., Holm and Buhl, S. L. (2005), "How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects? The Case of Transportation", Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 131-146. Grimsey, D. & Lewis, M. (2004) Public private partnerships: the worldwide revolution in infrastructure provision and project finance, Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Publishing. Guasch, J.L. (2004), “Granting and Renegotiating Infrastructure Concessions: Doing it right”, Washington, DC. The World Bank. Leviäkangas, P., Wigan, M., and Haapasalo, H. (2013) Financial anatomy of E4 Helsinki-Lahti shadow toll road, this issue Liu, T. and Wilkinson, S. (2013) Can the pilot Public-Private Partnerships project be applied in future urban rail development? A Case Study of Beijing Metro Line 4 Project, this issue Mladenovic, G. Vajdic, N., Wündsch, B., and Temeljotov Salaj, A. (2013) Use of Key performance indicators for PPP transport projects to meet stakeholders’ performance objectives, this issue Nikolaidis, N. and Roumboutsos, A. (2013) A PPP Renegotiation Framework: A Road Concession in Greece, this issue           Pellegrino, R., Vajdic, N. and Carbonara, N. (2013) Real option theory for risk mitigation in transport PPPs, this issue Preston, J. (2012) Integration for seamless transport, International Transport Forum Discussion Paper, No. 2012-1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k8zvv8lmswl-en Roumboutsos, A. (2010) Sustainability, social discount rates and public procurement. International Advances in Economic Research, Vol. 16(2), pp. 165 – 174 Roumboutsos A., Pellegrino, R., Vanelslander, T. and Macario, R. (2012) Risks and Risk Allocation in Transport PPP projects: a literature review In Roumboutsos Α. and Carbonara, N. COST Action TU1001, Public Private Partnerships: Trends & Theory, 2011 Discussion Papers, ISBN 978-88-97781-04-2 Roumboutsos, A., Farrell, S., Liyanage, C. and Macário, R. (2013) COST Action TU1001, Public Private Partnerships: Trends & Theory, 2013 Discussion Papers, Part II, ISBN 978-88-97781-61-5 Sfakianakis, E. and van de Laar, M. (2013) Fiscal effects and public risk in public-private partnerships (PPPs), this issue         Tang, L.Y., Shen, Q. and Cheng, E.W.L. (2010) A review of studies on Public–Private Partnership projects in the construction industry, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28, pp. 683–694 Trigeorgis, L. (1996), Real options: Managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation, MIT, Cambridge.   [1] The Special Issue is the culmination and outcome of one of the activities of COST Action TU1001 “Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Trends & Theory (P3T3), in conjunction with CIB TG 72 on Public Private Partnership. [2] Corresponding Author: A. Roumboutsos, Email: athena@aegean.gr
BEPAM Issue 3.1 (Vol. 3 Issue 1) CONTENTS: Prevention through design: Trade-offs in reducing occupational health and safety risk for the construction and operation of a facility Helen Lingard, Tracy Cooke, Nick Blismas, Ron Wakefield, A Framework for Stakeholder Management and Corporate Culture Jason von Meding, Keith McAllister, Lukumon Oyedele, Kevin Kelly Modeling and Assessment of Competencies in Urban Local Bodies for Implementing PPP projects Ganesh A. Devkar, Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi   External Agencies for Supplementing Competencies in Indian Urban PPP Projects Ganesh A. Devkar, Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi   Value through Innovation in Long-term Service Delivery: Facility Management in an Australian PPP Graham Brewer, Thayaparan Gajendran, Marcus Jefferies, Denny McGeorge, Steve Rowlinson, Andrew Dainty PFI/ PPP, private sector perspectives of UK Transport & Healthcare Robert Eadie, Phillip Millar, Rory Grant Bathtub Curves and Pipe Prioritization based on Failure Rates Amarjit Singh, Stacy Adachi   Use of ANNs in Complex Risk Analysis Applications Nayanthara De Silva, Malik Ranasinghe, C.R. De Silva Strategies for Construction Waste Management in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Florence Yean Yng Ling, Dinh Song Anh Nguyen   BEPAM Issue 3.1 (Vol. 3 Issue 1) EDITORIAL: JOINING HANDS AND ADVANCING TOGETHER   After two good years and two well-received volumes, the BEPAM editorial team forges ahead with some minor transitions, that also align with adjustments at the publishing end. Emerald now has a Managing Editor helping each journal and we look forward to the increased support through this new role, as well as to the expected enhanced dissemination of the BEPAM message through Emerald, along with our steadily growing recognition and impact.   On our side, Thomas Ng and Linda Fan change their hats to ‘Joint Editors’, while Florence Ling and Janaka Ruwanpura move on to new positions as Deputy Editors; Athena Roumboutsos takes on an Associate Editor role. Koshy Varghese moves from Regional Editor - Asia to the Editorial Advisory Board, while Ananda Jayawardane moves in the reverse direction from the Editorial Advisory Board to become our new Regional Editor - Asia. Indeed, our internationally well-positioned editorial team includes 6 Regional Editors and 10 Associate Editors, supported by a strong Editorial Advisory Board and an expert Editorial Review Board.     BEPAM arranged and presented ‘Best Paper Awards’ at two conferences in 2012: (1) the International Conference in the Built Environment in Developing Countries, in December, at Adelaide, Australia; and (2) the International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment at Kandy, Sri Lanka, also in December 2012. We are currently assessing papers for our annual Journal ‘Best Paper Awards’ from among those published in 2012 i.e. in Volume 2.   The current 3.1 issue, as in our previous ones, also benefits from the dual dynamics of thematic linkages between papers, amidst the demographic diversity across papers. The underlying consolidated message underpins the overarching goals of linking and synergizing project management with asset management in the built environment.   While one does not expect a clearly coherent overall message from any one general issue, the message will be clearer with the focused topical thrusts in a Special Issue. In this context, we look forward to our forthcoming first Special Issue (BEPAM 3.2) on. ‘Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Theory & Practice’. Our Guest Editors working hard on this Special issue, are Athena Roumboutsos and Rosário Macário.   Meanwhile, the paper themes in this issue range from issues in PPP procurement; through those in stakeholder management and corporate culture, assessment and enhancement of competencies and construction waste management; to value through innovation in service delivery, occupational health and safety, complex risk analysis and replacements prioritisation in asset management. Fields covered range from transport, healthcare and urban local government to building and pipeline assets. It is always interesting to map useful patterns and pick out common threads that link upstream planning, design and construction to downstream operations, maintenance and optimal utilisation of our built assets.   From another perspective, the issues are based on scenarios ranging from different parts of both Australia and UK, through Vietnam, India and Sri Lanka, to USA; while of course painted on a necessarily global canvas. The authors themselves draw on even more diverse backgrounds, hence enriching the broader context. Although unusual to host two papers from the same authors in the same issue, the companion papers herein on PPP competencies in urban local bodies, complement each other, hence their juxtaposition, to highlight the synergies.   BEPAM readers may have noted the steadily increasing numbers of papers in each issue. Although initially targeting 5 papers per issue in 2011, we never had less than 7 papers in each issue, while also upholding our high quality standards. We had 8 papers in the last issue and now have 9 in this. Before ‘bursting at the seams’, we plan to increase the number of issues per year from 2014 to meet the burgeoning demand for publishing, reading and citing high calibre research and development in this increasingly relevant field.   Readers are invited to spread the word further, about our well positioned BEPAM forum, i.e. to more prospective authors, readers and facilitators or disseminators (e.g. relevant networks and libraries), if indeed you concur that we should extend our reach and strengthen our impact in connecting project management issues (of planning, design, construction etc.) with asset management issues (of operations, maintenance etc.) in the built environment. Bringing these under one BEPAM banner enables a holistic helicopter perspective of the often disparate principles and practices of sustainable built infrastructure and related asset life cycle issues.     Mohan Kumaraswamy
Built Environment Project and Asset Management Issue 2.2 (Vol. 2 Issue 2) CONTENTS: Stakeholder Consultation Practices within Healthcare Infrastructure Planning: A Conceptual Approach to Strategic Asset Management Sameedha Mahadkar, Grant Mills, Andrew Price   Stakeholder Service Delivery Expectations of Military Facilities Management Abdul Rahman Jumat, Vaughan Coffey, Martin Skitmore   Quantitative Analysis of Defects in University Buildings: User Perspective Abdul Lateef Olanrewaju   Adequacy of Incremental Construction Strategy for Housing Low-income Urban Residents in Ogun State, Nigeria Eziyi Ibem, Egidario Aduwo, Obioha Uwakonye   Cost Overruns in Transport Infrastructure Projects in Asia: their Significance and Relationship with Project Size Young-Ill Park, Theopisti Papadopoulou   A Contractor’s Perception on Early Contractor Involvement Motiar Rahman, Aminu Alhassan   Governance issues in BOT based PPP infrastructure projects in India Venkata Delhi, Ashwin Mahalingam, Seshanka Palukuri   System-of-Systems Approach for Assessment of Financial Innovations in Infrastructure Ali Mostafavi, Dulcy M. Abraham and Joung Lee   Issue 2.2 (Vol. 2 Issue 2) EDITORIAL: DIGGING IN AND DRILLING DEEPER   Moving on from the last editorial in Issue 2.1 that was entitled ‘Making a Mark and Carving a Niche’, we could say with the current crop of papers, that BEPAM is consolidating itself within its now established niche area, while continuing to delve deeper into specific issues. Of course this would be a generalised overview, since each paper is independent and earlier papers probed their own in-depth domains, while helping to map out our scope and range. In terms of range, we found it useful to extend our reach to add value where needed, as set out in the last editorial: while an important BEPAM aim is to highlight interface issues between project management and asset management of building or civil engineering infrastructure, we welcome papers that may focus more on either project management or built asset management issues. As said, this is necessary to build bridges to link important common or connected issues in each area e.g. related to maintainability, operability, usability and/or sustainability. Moreover, grouping such papers in one forum, helps identify useful links and brainstorm on potential mutual benefits. For example in this issue: Rahman and Alhassan’s paper on ‘early contractor involvement’ triggers thoughts on the benefits of extending this concept to ‘early operator/user involvement’; and not just on PPPs, where this is an expected inherent benefit. The paper on PPP infrastructure projects by Delhi, Mahalingam, and Palukuri focuses on governance issues across two major PPP interfaces – between public/private and project/societal stakeholders. Indeed, involving the latter sooner rather than later is clearly beneficial, but again not just in PPP projects. The paper by Park and Papadopoulou on cost overruns in Asian transport infrastructure projects unearths important procurement issues related to for example, project size and lowest bid. Such issues are worth probing in asset management too.   Unsurprisingly, some topical themes and critical threads continue to weave through successive BEPAM issues as well. For example, in the context of strategic asset management in the health sector, a paper in the last BEPAM issue (issue 2.1) by Loosemore and Chandra, probed ‘learning through briefing’ for ‘strategic facilities management’ in the Australian health sector. Some comparisons may now be drawn with the paper in this issue by Mahadkar, Mills and Price on ‘stakeholder consultation practices within healthcare infrastructure planning in the UK’. This in turn may merit some comparisons with the paper in this issue on another type of facilities – on ‘stakeholder service delivery expectations of military facilities management’ by Jumat, Coffey and Skitmore. Mostafavi, Abraham and Lee turn the spotlight to transportation infrastructure in the USA, probing much needed innovations in their financing, through an interesting system-of-systems approach for systematic assessments.   Olanrewaju’s paper points us to yet another large group of familiar infrastructure assets/ facilities -   university buildings, focusing on defects from the user perspective, which again also draws attention to the importance of connecting downstream users and operators to upstream project management. The other set of facilities probed and reported on in this issue is ‘housing for low-income urban residents’ in a developing country context. Ibem, Aduwo and Uwakonye report on the adequacy of an interesting ‘incremental construction strategy’ for this important group of built environment assets. Their importance is heightened by being not only, arguably, the most basic built environment assets, but also contributing significantly to the development of, less arguably, our most important assets – humans.   BEPAM continues to attract research manuscripts from diverse sources in terms of research study locations and author backgrounds. This is borne out not just from the papers published in Volumes 1 and 2, but also from those in the pipeline. Papers for our first BEPAM Special Issue are also in the pipeline. It will be on ‘Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Theory & Practice’ and is being ably steered by our Guest Editors Athena Roumboutsos and Rosário Macário, of the University of the Aegean, Greece, and the Instituto Superior Técnico, Portugal, respectively.   We thank all the Authors, Reviewers and Associate Editors who have contributed to the current issue and helped us to continue to disseminate quality research and developments in a very timely manner. In the context of the growing BEPAM community, it is with deep regrets that I report the passing on after an illness of a founder-member of our Editorial Review Board. Dick Feast was a leading international expert in bridge asset management and his knowledge and advice has benefitted many, ranging from Europe to Asia. Dick’s passion for the civil engineering profession, for teaching and for developing excellent practices in his work, bubbled through whenever one interacted with him.   Mohan Kumaraswamy  
Built Environment Project and Asset Management Issue 2.1 (Vol. 2 Issue 1) CONTENTS: Contracting dynamics in the Competitive Dialogue procedure Hans Voordijk, Mieke Hoezen, Geert Dewulf     Short-Line Railroad Management System for Bridge Prioritization Robert Guyer, Jeffrey A. Laman   Energy Performance and Public-Private Partnership Frederic Bougrain   Ghana’s Public Procurement Reform and the Continuous Use of the Traditional Procurement System: the Way Forward Fan Yang, Z. Ren, P. Kwaw     Factors Influencing the Equity Share of Build-Operate-Transfer Projects Giulio Mangano, Alberto De Marco, Xin-Yu Zou   Satisfaction Assessment in Construction Projects: a Conceptual Framework Chinny Nzekwe-excel   Learning through Briefing: for Strategic Facilities Management in the Health Sector Martin Loosemore, Venny Chandra   Issue 2.1 (Vol. 2 Issue 1) EDITORIAL:   MAKING A MARK AND CARVING A NICHE My last BEPAM editorial was entitled "Overtaking Targets and Marking Milestones". Moving on to "Making a Mark and Carving a Niche" seems appropriate at this next stage of our BEPAM journey. Having made our mark, we have positioned ourselves better, for carving out the envisaged niche in our field. While focusing on our primary target of ‘interface issues between project management and asset management of building and civil engineering infrastructure’, as stated in our web-site ‘BEPAM also welcomes papers that may focus on either project management or built asset management issues’. Of course this is necessary to build bridges to link emerging issues in each area. Doing this under one roof (with apologies for mixing metaphors) or in one forum, enables identification of useful links, mutual benefits and overall synergies. In moving on, we have also ‘graduated’ from our 2011 ‘new launch’ status in Emerald where we were nurtured by Valerie Robillard and Kieran Booluck, so BEAPM is now under the care of Publisher Stephanie Hull and Assistant Publisher Emma Steele at Emerald. Talking of Emerald, I also had a welcome opportunity to exchange ideas on some current common editorial issues with other Emerald editors from Asia and Australia at an Emerald Editors’ day’ forum chaired by the Publishing Director Rebecca Marsh last October.   Talking of contributions to BEPAM, we are grateful for the efforts and time spent by Authors, Reviewers and Associate Editors who have made the current issue what it is and helped to deliver it ahead of schedule, hence maintaining our track-record too.   On the above twin notes of passing milestones and recognising contributors to BEPAM, we have had the pleasure to arrange more BEPAM awards, i.e. after the two Conference Awards conveyed in my last editorial – at the June 2010 ‘Innovation in AEC’ Conference in USA in and the June 2011 ISEC-6 Conference in Switzerland. Since then: (1) At the January 2012 Joint CIB W070, W092 and TG72 International Conference on Facilities Management Procurement Systems and Public Private Partnership’ in South Africa: The ‘Best Paper Award’ was won by Ganesh A. Devkar and Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi for their paper entitled ‘External Agencies for Supplementing Competencies in Indian Urban PPP Projects: A Perception Analysis’. The ‘Highly Commended Paper Award’ was given for the paper entitled ‘Value Generation and Delivery in long-term Service Concession Projects: the role of Facility Management in Value Optimisation’, to Graham Brewer, Marcus Jefferies, Thayaparan Gajendran, Denny McGeorge, Steve Rowlinson and Andrew Dainty.   (2) The 2011 BEPAM Journal Paper Awards are as follows:   BEPAM Best paper Award 2011 Performance of Mid-Project Reviews (MPRs): Quantification based on Fuzzy Recognition - Ming Xu, Colin Duffield, Jianqin Ma.   BEPAM Highly Commended Paper Awards 2011 A real options framework to evaluate investments in toll road projects delivered under the two-phase development strategy - Baabak Ashuri, Jian Lu, Hamed Kashani. A Management Framework for the Built Environment: BEM2 and BEM3 - Thomas Madritsch, Matthias Ebinger. Impact of Flood Damaged Critical Infrastructure on Communities and Industries - Abhijeet Deshmukh, Eun Ho Oh, Makarand Hastak.   Outstanding Reviewers: Florence Y.Y. Ling, National University of Singapore. Pantaleo D. Rwelimila, University of South Africa.     In terms of marking milestones and making our mark, another item of general BEPAM news I should share is about our first BEPAM Special Issue. This is planned for mid-2013 and will be on ‘Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Theory & Practice’. The Guest Editors Athena Roumboutsos and Rosário Macário are already working on this.   Now focusing on the present, the current Issue 2.1 continues the BEPAM tradition in delivering to you an interesting package of papers covering a spectrum of topics within the common theme of built environment project and asset management (i.e. of building and civil engineering infrastructure).   Although topics range from ‘energy performance and PPPs’ in France to ‘satisfaction assessment’ in UK projects and ‘bridge maintenance prioritisation’ in the USA, common threads do inter-link and indeed criss-cross sub-groups. For example, ‘contracting dynamics’ when implementing more innovative ‘competitive dialogue’ protocols in procurement in the Netherlands, provide an interesting counterpoint to the difficulties in breaking out from ‘traditional procurement’ to the envisaged ‘public procurement reform’ in Ghana.   Other examples of common threads connecting different topics, scenarios and outcomes, include a sub-theme of PPP, in three papers from different European scenarios and PPP types – in France, Italy and the Netherlands, while the Health Sector case study in Australia also involves a ‘partnership’ project. Indeed the Australian paper particularly illustrates some potentially useful linkages BEPAM seeks to unveil, in this case connecting hitherto ‘downstream’ facilities managers to the front-end of upstream project management i.e. when developing the design brief, so that their facilities management strategies and mind-sets can also benefit from ‘cultural learning’ during the briefing process.   As in previous issues, the diversity of paper/ research study locations adds considerable value to the package. Country scenarios of the reported studies range from the USA to Australia, while including three countries in Continental Europe, the UK and one in Africa. Interestingly, there is no paper based in Asia in this issue, and regretfully there is still no paper from South America so far. On the other hand, the experiences of the authors extend even further, since some were previously and/or are now in countries other than those in which the papers are based, e.g. China, Indonesia, South Korea, Switzerland.   Finally, while we have already got one Special Issue in the pipeline and are discussing possibilities of another, our open invitation stands to any of you who have a bright idea for a topical theme relevant to our BEPAM thrusts, coupled with the dedication to shepherd a ‘Special Issue’ on this theme: you are welcome to submit a brief proposal in about 250 words, also indicating any previous editorial experiences as a Guest Editor or otherwise.   Mohan Kumaraswamy
Built Environment Project and Asset Management Issue 1.2 (Vol. 1 Issue 2) CONTENTS: A Management Framework for the Built Environment: BEM2 and BEM3 Thomas Madritsch, Matthias Ebinger   Multi-criteria decision making for collaborative design optimization of buildings Benny Raphael   Performance of Mid-Project Reviews (MPRs): Quantification based on Fuzzy Recognition      Ming Xu, Colin Duffield, Jianqin Ma   Impact of Flood Damaged Critical Infrastructure on Communities and Industries Abhijeet Deshmukh, Eun Ho Oh, Makarand Hastak   Conflict dynamics in a dam construction project: A case study Braj Kishor Mahato, Stephen Ogunlana   Bayesian analysis for causes of failure at a water utility Amarjit Singh   Boosting performance of road infrastructure: A case study based on motorist satisfaction in Singapore Florence Ling, Wee Tat Ng   Issue 1.2 (Vol. 1 Issue 2) EDITORIAL:   OVERTAKING TARGETS AND MARKING MILESTONES   It is a pleasure to preface this second BEPAM editorial with a confirmation that we are meeting milestones and exceeding expectations. Apart from keeping ahead of publication schedules, we are publishing more papers than planned for the inaugural year, while upholding quality and our initial objective of linking the project management in the design and delivery of built infrastructure, to the downstream management of these built assets, e.g. in designing for better operations and maintenance.   Some of you may recall an email debate in March 2011 in the ‘cnbr’ (‘co-operative network of building researchers’) group, on the merits or otherwise of launching new journals in our field. We trust that BEPAM is already proving its worth in general, as well as carving a particular niche in highlighting growing imperatives to identify and explore critical interfaces that link front-end design and construction management issues to downstream asset management, in the pursuit of a more sustainable built environment.   For example, in this issue, Raphael’s paper targets improved design processes through multi-criteria optimsation of the designed built asset, in terms of energy use in building services. Ling and Ng’s paper focuses on improving performance of another type of infrastructure – roads, based on an end-user survey and linking back to design, as well as construction productivity issues. At a broader level, the paper by Madritsch and Ebinger takes us from a “Built Environment Management Model” for measuring the Facility Management capability of an organization to a “Built Environment Management Maturity Model” to measure Facility Management /Real Estate maturity. This tool enables the authors to assess the FM capability of a wide range of organisations with real estate portfolios including hospitals, across USA and Europe, particularly in Austria. Approaching another important issue, as well as from an interestingly different angle, Xu, Duffield and Ma develop and validate from Australia, what they call a ‘Fuzzy Recognition Based-Benefit Estimation Model’ to quantify benefits obtained from Mid-Project Reviews to inform and improve critical decisions in capital projects, including in optimising project lifecycle performance. Braj and Ogunlana’s paper analyses conflicts in dam projects using system dynamics tools. This also provides a counterpoint in terms of the chosen conflict analysis approach to that in a paper by Tam in the first BEPAM issue, that focused on another type of water-related infrastructure i.e. in harbour-front design. Singh uses Bayesian analysis to identify relative failure vulnerabilities of different pipe types at a water utility, thereby providing useful information to both designers and asset managers who can factor these into both initial designs and maintenance strategies. In another topical context given increasing concerns following recent natural disasters, Deshmukh, Oh and Hastak develop and present a Severity Assessment Tool to evaluate the social and economic impact of floods, on critical infrastructure. For example, highways and utilities including electric, water, waste management and gas are considered in their detailed impact assessments.   Indeed it is also interesting to observe the diversity of the built infrastructure types addressed across the papers in this issue as well. Rather than diluting the message, this range illustrates the pervasiveness and relevance of the core BEPAM thrusts and objectives. In terms of geographical diversity, a couple of dimensions are noteworthy – apart from the countries where the studies are based, e.g. Australia, Austria, Nepal, Singapore, USA; the national roots and international exposures of the various authors e.g. from China, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Korea etc. apart from those countries mentioned above, also indicate the wealth of experiences being woven together in the rich tapestry herein.   Two points from the inaugural editorial merit expansion as follows: (1) the gratitude I owe to our Emerald colleagues, the Editorial team, Authors, Reviewers and others without whom this issue would not have been released on time and with a quality that you are invited to judge; and (2) the gratitude I offer in advance to those of you who will contribute as authors and reviewers in the near future, as well as those who decide to spread the word about BEPAM to relevant colleagues, students and friends who may find something of interest in BEPAM, whether purely in some of the content and/or in specific methodologies, or also in the BEPAM vision of bridging project management with asset management issues, within one holistic forum.   Two new points are worthy of mention in terms of ‘spreading the word’ and more important in improving and developing ‘the word’ which after all must grow with, if not ahead of the times: (1) we arranged BEPAM ‘Best Paper Awards’ to recognise and reward quality at two past international conferences: (a) at the 6th International Conference on ‘Innovation in AEC’, in USA in June 2010 and (b) the ISEC-06 Conference in Switzerland in June 2011; while one more is now on offer for the most deserving paper in the ‘Joint CIB W070, W092 and TG72 International Conference on Facilities Management Procurement Systems and Public Private Partnership’ in South Africa in January 2012; and (2) any of you who have a great idea for a topical theme relevant to our BEPAM thrusts, more importantly coupled with the dedication to shepherd a ‘Special Issue’ on this theme: are welcome to submit a brief proposal, say, in about 250 words for our consideration, also indicating any previous experiences as a Guest Editor.   On the above note of Special Issues, I refer to the 50th Anniversary Special Issue of the ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Issued in Sep. 2007, it contains many interesting papers, e.g. a review of 50 years of construction engineering research by Daniel Halpin and a vision of the next 50 years by Ray Levitt. In the latter, he envisages (in 2007) a challenge for the next 5 decades to ‘conduct research that will help to maximise the lifecycle economic, environmental and social value of the built environment over its lifecycle through an integrated global network of firms’; also highlighting an ‘associated educational challenge’ to educate ‘system integrators with a focus on lifecycle triple bottom line maximisation of the built environment’.   It seems to me that the BEPAM vehicle is driving in the same direction as envisioned above. We look forward to accelerating this journey by inspiring and drawing on academia and industry on topical themes and developments, exciting research questions, enlightening findings and breakthrough practices; including of course through synergies with the dissemination in relevant sister journals and other media. Interestingly, the ‘founding editor’ of the above ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Dan Morris wrote on the ‘Evolution of a Journal’ in its 50th Anniversary Special Issue. Of course all founding editors may not aspire to contribute directly to a golden jubilee issue, given that there is more than one set of sustainability and lifecycle issues involved! Still it is hoped that the foundations we are laying will enable some amongst us to look back in appreciation of how BEPAM itself grew and contributed in its first fifty years, while charting a course for its future contributions.     Mohan Kumaraswamy

MERIT 2019


1) Information for student games can be found by clicking on the Universities button on the home page of www.MERITgame.com

 2) MERIT 2019

The search for the 29th MERIT Champion is about to start

In its 29th Competition MERIT is well established in developing skills and knowledge in company and financial management together with teamwork, leadership and disciplined decision making preparing participants for future senior roles.


Career Posts at Loughborough University

  • Emeritus Professor ( 2009- )
  • Professor of Construction Management (1986-2009)
  • Director of Strategic Business Partnerships, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer (2002-2006)
  • Deputy Vice-Chancellor (1997-2002)
  • Dean of Engineering (1992-1997)


Loughborough University Profile

External Appointments


The British University in Egypt

egyptProfessor McCaffer advised on the formation of the BUE since the concept was launch in 1998 by Prime Minister Blair and the then prime minister of Egypt. With support of both countries the British University in Egypt became operational in September 2005.

Professor McCaffer has been advising on the feasibility of other international Universities.