Editorial

Citation

McCaffer, R. (2006), "Editorial", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 13 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam.2006.28613faa.001

Editorial

Edition 13.6 brings 2006 to an end and we have another collection of internationally authored papers from UK, Korea, Thailand, Finland and Nigeria. The author distribution is seven authors from UK (three in one paper, four in another), three authors from Korea and two authors each from Thailand, Finland and Nigeria. The first two papers are linked in their subject where the Korean researchers investigate the factors that cause conflict and blame the client and the consultant as the biggest source of conflict factors. The second paper from the UK studies what makes clients satisfied. If the Koreans are correct then the answer to the UK question is more competent clients or perhaps an industry more skilled in dealing with less experienced and competent clients. However this may be taking the comparison too far as one source of data is in Korea and the other in the UK. Can these really be compared?

The third paper from Thailand deals with knowledge creation and the fifth paper from the UK explains, yet again, that the industry is slow to take up IT solutions. There is a common denominator there somewhere.

The final two papers from Finland are plotting the connectivity in projects and the study of company assets in Nigeria, these papers stand alone.

The papers in this edition are outlined below.

Acharya, Lee and Im examine what they describe as “conflicting factors” in construction projects in Korea. The source of their data is a questionnaire receiving 124 responses followed by ten interviews. The six critical conflicting factors they identify are site conditions; public interruptions; change order evaluation; design errors; contract quantities variation; and “double meaning” of specifications. For most of, these conflicting factors the “blame” is placed on the owner and the consultant. The authors say that previous research has shown an increase in construction conflictions and their contribution is to attempt to provide an explanation of the underlying reasons.

Cheng, Proverbs and Oduoza surveyed UK clients to determine their levels of satisfaction arguing that client satisfaction is one of the major determinants and there is a responsibility on all construction participants to constantly strive to improve. The survey was confined to the clients of a large engineering and management consultancy company. The indications are that the clients’ criteria for satisfaction with consultants are: technical accuracy; quality of service; quality of staff; and effective communication. The authors hope that their work will lead to a better understanding of client expectation.

Wasan and Chotchai attempt to examine knowledge factors and the relationship with the knowledge creation process in construction projects. The authors identify knowledge factors as: vision of leadership; trust; collaboration; incentives; IT support; individual competencies. They identify the knowledge creation processes as: socialisation; systematisation; combination; and internalisation. Armed with this framework they surveyed 70 construction projects in Thailand and identified the factors that affected the processes most. The authors believe that the data and information they have collected will help Thai construction build a knowledge creative culture. I think the authors may have just taken the first step and the creation of a knowledge culture will need more practical and pragmatic guidance for their industry.

Sandhu and Helo attempt to describe inter-organisational relationships in projects. They wish to provide a better understanding of the dynamic processes and critical interfaces. The tools they advocate are agile supply-demand networks (ASDN) and design structure matrixes (DSM). To study these issues the authors have produced a conceptual paper. The authors conclude that the use of ASDN and DSM provides a solid framework for describing and understanding projects, that the approach has been implemented in large multinational companies but may be of less value in smaller companies.

Anumba, Dainty, Ison and Sergeant return us to the perennial issue of implementing IT. The argument is, and always has been, that the industry is slow to implement IT solutions and if we only understood the impediments we could overcome this reluctance. Having been a student of this issue for 25 years my observation is that the impediments and both “static” e.g. structure, working practices and culture and “dynamic” in that the impediments mutate and adjust to impede the latest IT solutions. The authors present a case study on the implementation of a geographic information system aimed at assisting the labour market planning process. The authors examined the implementation and the socio-technical systems that surround the system. The authors’ findings are consistent with every previous similar investigation; conservative culture; slow uptake; need for flexible implementation processes. But these impediments were all known before it is time to get implementation right rather than examine the weaknesses afterwards. I know the difficulties with personal experience with a large budget for development and virtually a zero budget for implementation. The argument it seems is not yet won that IT systems need implementing not just abandoning in a company. The centre of gravity of academic effort has not shifted sufficiently in the direction of guiding implementation, developing the next new systems always holds more attraction.

Kehinde and Mosaku examine the assets of building construction contractors in Nigeria. The sources of their data are audited financial statements and questionnaires. Their results indicate that half the assets are fixed and half current assets mainly in account receivables. This they conclude indicates a low investment in fixed assets would. This would only really be important if the companies were raising funds and needed collateral otherwise does a company really need fix assets? The authors are silent on the value of the company. What would another company pay to acquire the company. This would require a valuation of a much more interesting asset – the company’s knowledge, skills and reputation.

Finally as this is the last edition of 2006 it is appropriate to thank the unsung heroes of any journal, the referees, who without reward or recognition give of their time, their knowledge and their wisdom. We have counted the 92 referees who have helped us produce the six editions containing 36 papers in 2006. The publishing team and I wish to record our thanks to each and everyone of them. We are most grateful for their efforts.

Ronald McCaffer