Theory and practice in value management: a reply to Ellis et al (2005)

The constructivist model of 'soft' value management (VM) is contrasted with the VM discourse appropriated by cost consultants who operate from within UK quantity surveying (QS) practices. The enactment of VM by cost consultants is shaped by the institutional context within which they operate and is not necessarily representative of VM practice per se. Opportunities to perform VM during the formative stages of design are further constrained by the positivistic rhetoric that such practitioners use to conceptualize and promote their services. The complex interplay between VM theory and practice is highlighted and analysed from a non-deterministic perspective. Codified models of 'best practice' are seen to be socially constructed and legitimized through human interaction in the context of interorganizational networks. Published methodologies are seen to inform practice in only a loose and indirect manner, with extensive scope for localized improvization. New insights into the relationship between VM theory and practice are derived from the dramaturgical metaphor. The social reality of VM is seen to be constituted through scripts and performances, both of which are continuously contested across organizational arenas. It is concluded that VM defies universal definition and is conceptualized and enacted differently across different localized contexts.

Forum theorizing in the context of professional practice: The case for middle-range theories

This commentary seeks to complement the contribution of the Building Research & Information special issue on 'Developing Theories for the Built Environment' (2008) by highlighting the important role of middle-range theories within the context of professional practice. Middle-range theories provide a form of theorizing that lies between abstract grand theorizing and atheoretical local descriptions. They are also characterized by the way in which they directly engage with the concerns of practitioners. In the context of professional practice, any commitment to theorizing should habitually be combined with an equivalent commitment to empirical research; rarely is it appropriate to neglect one in favour of the other. Any understanding of the role that theory plays in professional practice must further be informed by Schon's seminal ideas on reflective practice. Practitioners are seen to utilize theories as inputs to a process of continuous reflection, thereby guarding against complacency and routinization. The authors would challenge any assumption that academics alone are responsible for generating theories, thereby limiting the role of practitioners to their application. Such a dichotomized view is contrary to established ideas on Mode 2 knowledge production and current trends towards co-production research in the context of the built environment.

Understanding construction consortia: Theory, practice and opinions

Firms form consortia in order to win contracts. Once a project has been awarded to a consortium each member then concentrates on his or her own contract with the client. Therefore, consortia are marketing devices, which present the impression of teamworking, but the production process is just as fragmented as under conventional procurement methods. In this way, the consortium forms a barrier between the client and the actual construction production process. Firms form consortia, not as a simple development of normal ways of working, but because the circumstances for specific projects make it a necessary vehicle. These circumstances include projects that are too large or too complex to undertake alone or projects that require on-going services which cannot be provided by the individual firms inhouse. It is not a preferred way of working, because participants carry extra risk in the form of liability for the actions of their partners in the consortium. The behaviour of members of consortia is determined by their relative power, based on several factors, including financial commitment and ease of replacement. The level of supply chain visibility to the public sector client and to the industry is reduced by the existence of a consortium because the consortium forms an additional obstacle between the client and the firms undertaking the actual construction work. Supply chain visibility matters to the client who otherwise loses control over the process of construction or service provision, while remaining accountable for cost overruns. To overcome this separation there is a convincing argument in favour of adopting the approach put forward in the Project Partnering Contract 2000 (PPC2000) Agreement. Members of consortia do not necessarily go on to work in the same consortia again because members need to respond flexibly to opportunities as and when they arise. Decision-making processes within consortia tend to be on an ad hoc basis. Construction risk is taken by the contractor and the construction supply chain but the reputational risk is carried by all the firms associated with a consortium. There is a wide variation in the manner that consortia are formed, determined by the individual circumstances of each project; its requirements, size and complexity, and the attitude of individual project leaders. However, there are a number of close working relationships based on generic models of consortia-like arrangements for the purpose of building production, such as the Housing Corporation Guidance Notes and the PPC2000.

How contractors price risk in bids: theory and practice

Formal and analytical models that contractors can use to assess and price project risk at the tender stage have proliferated in recent years. However, they are rarely used in practice. Introducing more models would, therefore, not necessarily help. A better understanding is needed of how contractors arrive at a bid price in practice, and how, and in what circumstances, risk apportionment actually influences pricing levels. More than 60 proposed risk models for contractors that are published in journals were examined and classified. Then exploratory interviews with five UK contractors and documentary analyses on how contractors price work generally and risk specifically were carried out to help in comparing the propositions from the literature to what contractors actually do. No comprehensive literature on the real bidding processes used in practice was found, and there is no evidence that pricing is systematic. Hence, systematic risk and pricing models for contractors may have no justifiable basis. Contractors process their bids through certain tendering gateways. They acknowledge the risk that they should price. However, the final settlement depends on a set of complex, micro-economic factors. Hence, risk accountability may be smaller than its true cost to the contractor. Risk apportionment occurs at three stages of the whole bid-pricing process. However, analytical approaches tend not to incorporate this, although they could.

Communities of practice in construction case study organisations: questions and insights

Purpose – At the heart of knowledge management (KM) are the people – an organisation's important knowledge asset. Although this is widely acknowledged, businesses seldom understand this axiom in terms of the communities through which individuals develop and share the capacity to create and use knowledge. It is the collective learning that takes place within the social systems, i.e. communities of practice (CoP) that are of particular significance to an organisation from a KM perspective. This paper aims to review, critique, and raise some pertinent questions on the role of CoPs; and with the help of case studies shed light on the “goings-on” in construction practices. Design/methodology/approach – After critically reviewing the literature on CoPs and querying some underlying assertions, this research investigates how these issues are addressed in practice. A case study approach is adopted. Three organisations operating in the construction sector are interviewed for the purpose of this paper. Findings – Case study findings highlight the potential challenges and benefits of CoPs to a construction organisation, the role they play in generating and delivering value to the organisation and their contribution towards the collective organisational intelligence. From the findings, it is clear that the question is not whether communities exist within organisations, but how they deliver value to the organisation. From an organisational perspective, the key challenge is to provide an environment that is conducive to developing and nurturing such communities as opposed to merely creating them. Practical implications – Challenges and benefits demonstrated through the case studies should be taken in context. The findings are not intended to be prescriptive in nature, but are intentionally descriptive to provide contextual data that allow readers to draw their own inferences in the context of their organisations. They should be applied taking into account an organisation's unique characteristics and differentiators, the dynamics of the environment in which it operates and the culture it harbours within. Originality/value – Investigating the role of CoPs in the context of case study construction organisations forms the prime focus of this paper.