ECAM editorial issue 18.1

Construction manpower demand forcasting:  A comparative study of univariate time series, multiple regression and econometric modelling techniques

James M W Wong, Albert P C Chan and Y H Chiang

The development and testing of a hierarchical measure of project occupational health and safety (OHS) performance

Helen Lingard, Ron Wakefield and Pat Cashin

Loosening the Gordian knot: The role of emotional intelligence in construction

Peter Love,David J Edwards and Elliot Wood

The logistics of construction supply chains - the builders' merchant perspective

Christos Vidalakis, John E Tookey and James Sommerville

Offsite Production: A model for building down barriers A European construction industry perspective

Wafaa Nadim and Jack Steven Goulding

Building 'Relationally Integrated Value Networks' (RIVANS)

Aaron Manno Anvuur, Mohan M Kumaraswamy and Gangadhar Mahesh

ECAM issue 18.1 published in January 2011 sees the start of a new year. As is the custom I wish all our readers, authors and referees a happy, productive and successful New Year. At the time of writing this editorial I am at the Universiti of Teknologi Malaysia and the weather and the aircon certainly do not remind me of New Year in the UK.

The six papers in issue 18.1 have been written by 17 authors, this is a higher number than usual, we have five papers with three authors and one paper with two authors. The distribution of authors by country is 5 from Australia, 5 from the UK, 3 from Hong Kong, 2 from mainland China and 1 each from Egypt and New Zealand. The presence of authors from 6 different countries demonstrates the international nature of our authors. One paper has authors from Hong Kong and China, one paper has authors from Australia and the UK, one paper has authors from New Zealand and the UK, one paper has authors from Egypt and the UK and one paper has authors from Hong Kong and the UK. Hence five papers have been written by authors from two countries. The most common collaborating country being the UK. One paper has an industry based author together with two academics. The country to country collaboration is good to see but as said before I would be keen on a greater number of jointly authored papers with industry and academia, that would help break down any barriers that might exist to such collaboration.

The range of topics in this issue is wide and covers 'econometric modelling of labour demand', 'measuring performance of health and safety on projects', the introduction of 'emotional intelligence' as a means of improving the project team, 'supply chain logistics', 'off-site production' and 'relationally integrated value networks'.

The range of research methods is pleasingly wide  and includes a number of modelling approaches papers involved in data gathered using focus groups and questionnaires.

The papers in this issue are:

Wong, Chan and Chiang are interested in predicting  the short to medium term demand for construction manpower. The techniques used are based on error-correction econometric modelling. The authors see forecasting manpower as an important element formulating policy to provide future construction skills. This approach is most probably of greater interest in China rather than here in the UK where such planning is not a major activity. However the main thrust of the paper relates to the accuracy of the econometric modelling techniques.

Lingard, Wakefield and Cashin introduce us to two new models for measuring Occupational Health and Safety performance in projects. The models were tested over the life cycle of one construction  project. The authors claim that the combination of the two measurement tools provides more comprehensive data relating to OHS performance and is a means of diagnosis of OHS issues. The authors believe that the diagnosis capability of these two models is greater than other methods such as injury frequency rates.

Love, Edwards and Wood lead a discussion on the role of 'emotional intelligence' as a new and growing area of behavioural science. The authors argue that emotional intelligence influences occupational success, satisfaction and the health of staff such as the construction managers. As individuals, teams and organisational structure of projects all influence performance the authors believe that using EI as a measurement tool will assist in improving organisation and structures and hence project performance.

Vidalakis, Tookey and Sommerville return us to issues relating to supply chains. In this case they address the use of logistics management to better understand construction supply chains. The authors used discrete-event modelling to conceptualise the logistics problem. They go on to argue that by studying the logistics issues great advances can be made. I have some empathy with this paper. Site planning used to be confined to the site boundary but it is now clear that logistics have to be extended to include the suppliers and the receivers of waste etc. Thus the logistical issues of a site, particularly a city centre site, is seen as a logistics management issue. There are experts in logistics but these are in the package delivery and super-market businesses and we can learn from these. There are clear disciplines behind logistics that we, construction, need to understand and develop for our own use. It is time that a Professor of Construction Logistics was appointed. A department that had a transport as well as a construction interests would be a good location.

Nadim and Goulding wish to contribute to the promotion of off-site production as a means of improving the efficiency of our industry and reducing demand for skilled labour which is becoming increasingly rare. With data from 54 questionnaires the authors identified the European Construction industry's reluctance to embrace off-site production. Amongst the impediments are past experience, a lack of flexibility, cost and productivity. The authors' advice to overcome these relates to the factors of 'people', 'technology', 'process', 'product', and the 'market'.

Anvuur, Kumaraswamy and Mahesh report on their work on building 'Relationally Integrated Value Networks (RIVANS). The case for more integration of the differentiated and fragmented project team is frequently argued and is clearly more difficult to achieve. This paper offers clear guidance by providing the building blocks that allow such integration to flourish. Primarily using focus groups in workshops as their data source this research produces guidance on 'value objectives',  'network management', 'learning' and 'maturity'. The research revealed a strong and enthusiastic interest in the approach. Public sector clients, however, need empowerment to provide the necessary leadership. This is a useful and constructive paper and the comments on the impediments of public sector clients raise an important issue that needs addressing.

Ronald McCaffer

www.mccaffer.com