Proceedings of the inaugural construction management and economics ‘Past, Present and Future’ conference CME25, 16-18 July 2007, University of Reading, UK

This conference was an unusual and interesting event. Celebrating 25 years of Construction Management and Economics provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the research that has been reported over the years, to consider where we are now, and to think about the future of academic research in this area. Hence the sub-title of this conference: “past, present and future”. Looking through these papers, some things are clear. First, the range of topics considered interesting has expanded hugely since the journal was first published. Second, the research methods are also more diverse. Third, the involvement of wider groups of stakeholder is evident. There is a danger that this might lead to dilution of the field. But my instinct has always been to argue against the notion that Construction Management and Economics represents a discipline, as such. Granted, there are plenty of university departments around the world that would justify the idea of a discipline. But the vast majority of academic departments who contribute to the life of this journal carry different names to this. Indeed, the range and breadth of methodological approaches to the research reported in Construction Management and Economics indicates that there are several different academic disciplines being brought to bear on the construction sector. Some papers are based on economics, some on psychology and others on operational research, sociology, law, statistics, information technology, and so on. This is why I maintain that construction management is not an academic discipline, but a field of study to which a range of academic disciplines are applied. This may be why it is so interesting to be involved in this journal. The problems to which the papers are applied develop and grow. But the broad topics of the earliest papers in the journal are still relevant today. What has changed a lot is our interpretation of the problems that confront the construction sector all over the world, and the methodological approaches to resolving them. There is a constant difficulty in dealing with topics as inherently practical as these. While the demands of the academic world are driven by the need for the rigorous application of sound methods, the demands of the practical world are quite different. It can be difficult to meet the needs of both sets of stakeholders at the same time. However, increasing numbers of postgraduate courses in our area result in larger numbers of practitioners with a deeper appreciation of what research is all about, and how to interpret and apply the lessons from research. It also seems that there are contributions coming not just from construction-related university departments, but also from departments with identifiable methodological traditions of their own. I like to think that our authors can publish in journals beyond the construction-related areas, to disseminate their theoretical insights into other disciplines, and to contribute to the strength of this journal by citing our articles in more mono-disciplinary journals. This would contribute to the future of the journal in a very strong and developmental way. The greatest danger we face is in excessive self-citation, i.e. referring only to sources within the CM&E literature or, worse, referring only to other articles in the same journal. The only way to ensure a strong and influential position for journals and university departments like ours is to be sure that our work is informing other academic disciplines. This is what I would see as the future, our logical next step. If, as a community of researchers, we are not producing papers that challenge and inform the fundamentals of research methods and analytical processes, then no matter how practically relevant our output is to the industry, it will remain derivative and secondary, based on the methodological insights of others. The balancing act between methodological rigour and practical relevance is a difficult one, but not, of course, a balance that has to be struck in every single paper.

Standards of university teaching

A set of standards is proposed for university teaching. Embedding these within the Higher Education Academy UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) would allow a more robust assessment of whether a university teacher has met a minimum acceptable threshold.

Diversity in mathematics assessment equals diversity in opinion?

We undertook a study to investigate the views of both students and staff in our department towards assessment in mathematics, as a precursor to considering increasing the diversity of assessment types. In a survey and focus group there was reasonable agreement amongst the students with regards major themes such as mode of assessment. However, this level of agreement was not seen amongst the staff, where discussions regarding diversity in mathematics assessment definitely revealed a difference of opinion. As a consequence, we feel that the greatest barriers to increasing diversity may be with staff, and so more efforts are needed to communicate to staff the advantages and disadvantages, in order to give them greater confidence in trying a range of assessment types.

An interdisciplinary modelling approach asessing the cost-effectiveness of agri-environmental measures on reducing nutrient concentration to WFD thresholds under climate change: the case of the Louros catchment

The application of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in the European Union (EU) targets certain threshold levels for the concentration of various nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorous being the most important. In the EU, agri-environmental measures constitute a significant component of Pillar 2—Rural Development Policies in both financial and regulatory terms. Environmental measures also are linked to Pillar 1 payments through cross-compliance and the greening proposals. This paper drawing from work carried out in the REFRESH FP7 project aims to show how an INtegrated CAtchment model of plant/soil system dynamics and instream biogeochemical and hydrological dynamics can be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of agri-environmental measures in relation to nutrient concentration targets set by the WFD, especially in the presence of important habitats. We present the procedures (methodological steps, challenges and problems) for assessing the cost-effectiveness of agri-environmental measures at the baseline situation, and climate and land use change scenarios. Furthermore, we present results of an application of this methodology to the Louros watershed in Greece and discuss the likely uses and future extensions of the modelling approach. Finally, we attempt to reveal the importance of this methodology for designing and incorporating alternative environmental practices in Pillar 1 and 2 measures.

Can we have confidence in generic structures?

The system dynamics concept of `generic structure' is dividable into three sub-types. This paper analyses the validity of these three, using both practical and theoretical perspectives. Firstly, a new set of measures is developed for generating validity-`confidence'-amongst a group using generic structures in a practical modelling situation. It is concluded that different confidence criteria are implicitly employed; there is an argument for trading-off model precision and analytical quality for simplicity and ease of use and future research is needed to combine these `process' and `content' aspects of confidence. From a theoretical stance it is shown that with two of the sub-types a scientific notion of confidence is achievable whereas the third (`archetypes') involves merely metaphorical thinking. It is concluded that the theoretical status of archetypes requires further development, whilst ensuring that its benefits are retained.

Rerum cognoscere causas: part I - How do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories and the voluntarism/determinism debate?

This is the first half of a two-part paper which deals with the social theoretic assumptions underlying system dynamics. The motivation is that clarification in this area can help mainstream social scientists to understand how our field relates to their literature, methods and concerns. Part I has two main sections. The aim of the first is to answer the question: How do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories? The theoretic assumptions of the field are seldom explicit but rather are implicit in its practice. The range of system dynamics practice is therefore considered and related to a framework - widely used in both operational research (OR) and systems science - that organises the assumptions behind traditional social theoretic paradigms. Distinct and surprisingly varied groupings of practice are identified, making it difficult to place system dynamics in any one paradigm with any certainty. The difficulties of establishing a social theoretic home for system dynamics are exemplified in the second main section. This is done by considering the question: Is system dynamics deterministic? An analysis shows that attempts to relate system dynamics to strict notions of voluntarism or determinism quickly indicate that the field does not fit with either pole of this dichotomous, and strictly paradigmatic, view. Part I therefore concludes that definitively placing system dynamics with respect to traditional social theories is highly problematic. The scene is therefore set for Part II of the paper, which proposes an innovative and potentially fruitful resolution to this problem.

Looking in the wrong place for healthcare improvements: a system dynamics study of an accident and emergency department

Accident and Emergency (A&E) units provide a route for patients requiring urgent admission to acute hospitals. Public concern over long waiting times for admissions motivated this study, whose aim is to explore the factors which contribute to such delays. The paper discusses the formulation and calibration of a system dynamics model of the interaction of demand pattern, A&E resource deployment, other hospital processes and bed numbers; and the outputs of policy analysis runs of the model which vary a number of the key parameters. Two significant findings have policy implications. One is that while some delays to patients are unavoidable, reductions can be achieved by selective augmentation of resources within, and relating to, the A&E unit. The second is that reductions in bed numbers do not increase waiting times for emergency admissions, their effect instead being to increase sharply the number of cancellations of admissions for elective surgery. This suggests that basing A&E policy solely on any single criterion will merely succeed in transferring the effects of a resource deficit to a different patient group.

Social theory and system dynamics practice

This paper explores the social theories implicit in system dynamics (SD) practice. Groupings of SD practice are observed in different parts of a framework for studying social theories. Most are seen to be located within `functionalist sociology'. To account for the remainder, two new forms of practice are discussed, each related to a different paradigm. Three competing conclusions are then offered: 1. The implicit assumption that SD is grounded in functionalist sociology is correct and should be made explicit. 2. Forrester's ideas operate at the level of method not social theory so SD, though not wedded to a particular social theoretic paradigm, can be re-crafted for use within different paradigms. 3. SD is consistent with social theories which dissolve the individual/society divide by taking a dialectical, or feedback, stance. It can therefore bring a formal modelling approach to the `agency/structure' debate within social theory and so bring SD into the heart of social science. The last conclusion is strongly recommended.

The greater whole: towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology

This paper makes a theoretical case for using these two systems approaches together. The theoretical and methodological assumptions of system dynamics (SD) and soft system methodology (SSM) are briefly described and a partial critique is presented. SSM generates and represents diverse perspectives on a problem situation and addresses the socio-political elements of an intervention. However, it is weak in ensuring `dynamic coherence'. consistency between the intuitive behaviour resulting from proposed changes and behaviour deduced from ideas on causal structure. Conversely, SD examines causal structures and dynamic behaviours. However, whilst emphasising the need for a clear issue focus, it has little theory for generating and representing diverse issues. Also, there is no theory for facilitating sensitivity to socio-political elements. A synthesis of the two called ‘Holon Dynamics' is proposed. After an SSM intervention, a second stage continues the socio-political analysis and also operates within a new perspective which values dynamic coherence of the mental construct - the holon - which is capable of expressing the proposed changes. A model of this holon is constructed using SD and the changes are thus rendered `systemically desirable' in the additional sense that dynamic consistency has been confirmed. The paper closes with reflections on the proposal and the need for theoretical consistency when mixing tools is emphasised.

On a resurgence of management simulations and games

The past few years have seen a significant resurgence of interest in ‘management games’ and ‘management flight simulators’, one particularly active source of such work being the system dynamics community. After proposing a distinction between games and simulations, this paper provides some background to these developments by briefly describing the historical roots of the field and the fundamental ideas of the system dynamics community, which are now giving rise to ‘microworlds’. The training advantages of management simulations and games are then discussed. The paper closes with a note on the research and findings of the system dynamics field and by offering some words of warning on the perils of simulation and game use. Two scenarios for how the use of simulations and games as management education devices might develop in the future are proposed. An Appendix describes five examples of very different types of management simulations and games.

Trying to think systematically about 'systems thinking'

I noticed with interest that Peter Checkland has now contributed' to the debate on the use of the term 'systems thinking' in a paper by Eric Wolstenholme2. However, due to the self-confessed lag in his reading schedule, Peter is responding to the original piece and not to any of the subsequent observations on it3'4 (although he is kind enough to reference some of my other work on the matter).

Modelling as learning: a consultancy methodology for enhancing learning in management teams

This article reviews the experiences of a practising business consultancy division. It discusses the reasons for the failure of the traditional, expert consultancy approach and states the requirements for a more suitable consultancy methodology. An approach called ‘Modelling as Learning’ is introduced, its three defining aspects being: client ownership of all analytical work performed, consultant acting as facilitator and sensitivity to soft issues within and surrounding a problem. The goal of such an approach is set as the acceleration of the client's learning about the business. The tools that are used within this methodological framework are discussed and some case studies of the methodology are presented. It is argued that a learning experience was necessary before arriving at the new methodology but that it is now a valuable and significant component of the division's work.