Editorial

Citation

McCaffer, R. (2005), "Editorial", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 12 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam.2005.28612eaa.001

Editorial

Issue 12.5 of ECAM has six papers and is unusually UK dominated with four papers, one from the USA and one from Denmark. Perhaps as the advice for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise is published and the assessment panels are all appointed (and I have the great pleasure of doing it one more time) then the UK academics are being stirred to even greater activity.

Of the 19 authors taken to produce these papers 13 are from the UK, three from the USA and three from Denmark. The distribution of the authors is one paper with two authors, three papers with three authors and two with four authors.

The subjects are wide ranging including knowledge management, contract price forecasting and safety issues of night-time working representing the practical advice. A report on the state of Danish Construction comparescriticisms of the 1990s with today. Two papers on process mapping or modelling attempt to move on the application and development of these techniques.

The papers in this issue are:

Robinson et al. address the issues of knowledge management in large construction organisations and use case studies from UK construction. A method for benchmarking knowledge management maturity is proposed and a plea is made that knowledge management and its strategic formulation are more closely linked to business strategy.

Fortune and Cox review the current practice amongst quantity surveying or project management companies in forecasting the ‘contract price’ for a building project. The authors have found that the traditional tried and tested methods have not yet yielded to newer approaches and this is independent of the type of organisation. It has always been interesting that what these organisations are offering to do in price forecasting is to model what the contractors do in tender preparation. Yet these organisations never seem to consider adopting the contractors’ methods, lack of detailed information and time is usually offered as the two reasons.

Matsumato et al. argue that process mapping lead to a holistic understanding of a organisation. The trick is then to convert the embedded knowledge in any process map into practical guidance to improve processes and efficiency. The authors present an example of an engineering design consultancy’s use of process maps to develop more practical and useable management briefing sheets.

Tzortzopoulos et al. also wish to promote process modelling. Their approach is to offer a synthesis of the literature in process model implementation, to identify the gaps, propose a set of questions and challenge the research community to respond. A different approach, most researchers try to promote their “solutions”, these authors have stood back and reviewed where process modelling is going and where it has got stuck.

Arditi et al. return us to the practical issues of safe working. They present the results of their investigation into the practices of night-time highway construction particularly with respect to visibility and the use of safety vests. Their work leads to practical advice on the use of safety vests.

Kristiansen et al. respond to a report commissioned by the Danish Building Development Council which reported construction as an evolving and dynamic construction sector. The results of this latest upbeat report are contrasted with much more critical reports of the 1900s. The authors hope that their comments will direct the research activities in Danish Construction. What is not entirely clear is whether the new positive conclusions are reporting on a great improvement in Danish Construction or simply saying that the critical reports of the 1990s were exaggerated. It seems to me that in the last decade it became fashionable to criticise your nation’s construction industry. I suspect the UK started it. What I am not convinced about is that all the criticisms were well founded, I think there was more fashion than fact.

Ronald McCaffer