<%BANNER%>

Designers' and Contractors' Perceptions of Each Other

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021399/00001

Material Information

Title: Designers' and Contractors' Perceptions of Each Other
Physical Description: 1 online resource (79 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Devier, Charlotte Joy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: architects, collaboration, communication, contractors, disputes, engineers, stereotypes
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to investigate the underlying issues that lead to miscommunication and resulting delays between General Contractors and Designers (Engineers and Architects). It has been observed that certain misperceptions exist between the two disciplines, hindering the establishment of cohesive and collaborative work environments. These issues are reoccurring. By examining the issues and finding there origination these issues can be resolved. As a construction project goes on and more issues arise the project tends to slow down. Tension can cause both disciplines on the project to feel as though they need to defend themselves. One member of the group transmits their tension to another member, who in turn feels the burden and transmits their stress along the chain eventually affecting everyone working on the project. The General Contractor can then begin to transfer tensions to the subcontractors. The subcontractors are then placed under a great deal of strain and there work effort suffers as a result. If the designer and contractor continue working on the same projects, more than likely conflict will continue to arise. These conflicts could easily be addressed and resolved with just a little more understanding on both sides of the spectrum, thus, creating a better work environment for everyone. The issues will not disappear but hopefully this study will help reestablish communication between Contractors and Designers and will help break ground for a firm and mutual understanding. A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed in order to investigate the perceptions of Designers and Contractors in the construction industry. The results concluded that there is no significant difference between the response patterns of Designers and the response patterns of Contractors. Therefore, the responses of Designers and Contractors are the same even if stereotypes and personal conflicts are evident on the project. This conclusion is logical considering Designers and Contractors should be working towards the same goal, regardless of whether or not the disciplines are working collaboratively.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Charlotte Joy Devier.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Flood, Ian.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2008-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021399:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021399/00001

Material Information

Title: Designers' and Contractors' Perceptions of Each Other
Physical Description: 1 online resource (79 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Devier, Charlotte Joy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: architects, collaboration, communication, contractors, disputes, engineers, stereotypes
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to investigate the underlying issues that lead to miscommunication and resulting delays between General Contractors and Designers (Engineers and Architects). It has been observed that certain misperceptions exist between the two disciplines, hindering the establishment of cohesive and collaborative work environments. These issues are reoccurring. By examining the issues and finding there origination these issues can be resolved. As a construction project goes on and more issues arise the project tends to slow down. Tension can cause both disciplines on the project to feel as though they need to defend themselves. One member of the group transmits their tension to another member, who in turn feels the burden and transmits their stress along the chain eventually affecting everyone working on the project. The General Contractor can then begin to transfer tensions to the subcontractors. The subcontractors are then placed under a great deal of strain and there work effort suffers as a result. If the designer and contractor continue working on the same projects, more than likely conflict will continue to arise. These conflicts could easily be addressed and resolved with just a little more understanding on both sides of the spectrum, thus, creating a better work environment for everyone. The issues will not disappear but hopefully this study will help reestablish communication between Contractors and Designers and will help break ground for a firm and mutual understanding. A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed in order to investigate the perceptions of Designers and Contractors in the construction industry. The results concluded that there is no significant difference between the response patterns of Designers and the response patterns of Contractors. Therefore, the responses of Designers and Contractors are the same even if stereotypes and personal conflicts are evident on the project. This conclusion is logical considering Designers and Contractors should be working towards the same goal, regardless of whether or not the disciplines are working collaboratively.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Charlotte Joy Devier.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Flood, Ian.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2008-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021399:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 DESIGNERS AND CONTRACTORS PERCEPTIONS OF EACH OTHER By CHARLOTTE J. DEVIER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOLOF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Charlotte Joy Devier

PAGE 3

3 To my parents, Dale and Willis Devier; and to my sisters, Claudia and Colleen Devier, for all their love and support.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all I would like to thank my parents for all thei r support. I would also like to thank my Uncle for helping with my survey. I also need to thank my best friend for all her advice and support. Finally, I need to thank all the companies who contributed to this survey.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 Interaction in the Construction Industry.................................................................................12 Impacts on Industry.........................................................................................................12 Key Causes..................................................................................................................... .13 Objectives..................................................................................................................... ..........13 Hypothesis..................................................................................................................... .........14 Methodology.................................................................................................................... .......14 Summary of Study............................................................................................................... ...15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................16 Importance of Collabora tion and Communication.................................................................16 Defining the Roles............................................................................................................. .....21 Architects..................................................................................................................... ....21 General view............................................................................................................21 Education and licensing...........................................................................................22 The American Institute of Architects contract.........................................................23 Engineers...................................................................................................................... ...24 General view............................................................................................................24 Education and licensing...........................................................................................25 Interior Designers............................................................................................................26 General view............................................................................................................26 Education and licensing...........................................................................................27 Construction Managers....................................................................................................27 General view............................................................................................................27 Education and licensing...........................................................................................29 The American Institute of Architects contract.........................................................30 Owners......................................................................................................................... ....31 Major Causes for Delays........................................................................................................32 Solutions in the Industry...................................................................................................... ...35 Partnering..................................................................................................................... ...35 Design/Build................................................................................................................... .36 The Need for Change............................................................................................................ ..37

PAGE 6

6 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................39 Design of the Survey........................................................................................................... ...39 Sample Selection............................................................................................................... .....40 Analysis of the Results........................................................................................................ ...40 4 SURVEY ANALYSIS............................................................................................................42 Demographics................................................................................................................... ......42 Section 1...................................................................................................................... ...........43 Question 1-1:.................................................................................................................. .44 Question 1-2: The resolution of conflicts is usually?......................................................45 Question 1-3: How often are conf licts resolved in your favor?......................................46 Question 1-4: How often do you agree with the Contractor/Designers methods?..........47 Question 1-5: How often do you communicat e with the Contractor/Designer?.............48 Section 2...................................................................................................................... ...........48 Section 2, Client..............................................................................................................49 Section 2, Quality............................................................................................................50 Section 2, Budget.............................................................................................................51 Section 2, Schedule.........................................................................................................52 Section 2, Project.............................................................................................................53 Section 2, Employer........................................................................................................54 Section 3...................................................................................................................... ...........55 Question 3-1................................................................................................................... .56 Question 3-2................................................................................................................... .57 Question 3-3................................................................................................................... .58 Question 3-4................................................................................................................... .60 Question 3-5................................................................................................................... .61 Section 3, Question 6.......................................................................................................62 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................66 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........66 Recommendations for Improvement......................................................................................67 Recommendations for Future Research..................................................................................69 APPENDIX A BLANK CONSTRUCTION SURVEY..................................................................................72 B BLANK DESIGN SURVEY..................................................................................................74 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..76 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................79

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Causes for inconsistencies in Saudi Arabia.......................................................................33 4-1 Responses for Question 1-1...............................................................................................44 4-2 Responses for Question 1-2...............................................................................................45 4-3 Responses for Question 1-3...............................................................................................46 4-4 Responses for Question 1-4...............................................................................................47 4-5 Responses for Question 1-5...............................................................................................48 4-6 Response rank of the client................................................................................................50 4-7 Response rank of quality................................................................................................... .51 4-8 Response rank of the budget..............................................................................................52 4-9 Response rank of the schedule...........................................................................................53 4-10 Response rank of the project..............................................................................................54 4-11 Response rank of the employer..........................................................................................55 4-12 Responses to Question 3-1.................................................................................................57 4-13 Response to Question 3-2..................................................................................................58 4-14 Response to Question 3-3..................................................................................................59 4-15 Response to Question 3-4..................................................................................................61 4-16 Response to Question 3-5..................................................................................................62 4-17 Response to Question 3-6..................................................................................................63

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Alternative approaches to collaborative work...................................................................19 2-2 Breakdown of contract relationshi ps in the construction industry.....................................23 2-3 All of the project managers obligations............................................................................28 4-1 Analysis of Question 1-1 responses...................................................................................44 4-2 Analysis of Question 1-2 responses...................................................................................45 4-3 Analysis of Question 1-3 responses...................................................................................46 4-4 Analysis of Question 1-4 responses...................................................................................47 4-5 Analysis of Question 1-5 responses...................................................................................48 4-6 Analysis of client response................................................................................................50 4-7 Analysis of quality response..............................................................................................51 4-8 Analysis of budget response..............................................................................................52 4-9 Analysis of schedule response...........................................................................................53 4-10 Analysis project response................................................................................................. .54 4-11 Analysis of employer response..........................................................................................55 4-12 Analysis of Question 3-1 responses...................................................................................57 4-13 Analysis of Question 3-2 responses...................................................................................58 4-14 Analysis of Question 3-3 responses...................................................................................60 4-15 Analysis of Question 3-4 responses...................................................................................61 4-16 Analysis of Question 3-5 responses...................................................................................62 4-17 Analysis of Question 3-6 responses...................................................................................63

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AEC Architecture, Engin eering and Construction AIA American Institute of Architects ADA Americans with Disab ilities Act of 1990 (US) ENR Engineering News-Record HVAC Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning NCIDQ National Council for Interi or Design Qualification PE Professional Engineer

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science of Building Construction DESIGNERS AND CONTRACTORS PERCEPTIONS OF EACH OTHER By Charlotte J. Devier August 2007 Chair: R. Raymond Issa Cochair: Ian Flood Major: Building Construction The purpose of this study is to investig ate the underlying issues that lead to miscommunication and resulting delays between General Contractors a nd Designers (Engineers and Architects). It has been observed that certain misperceptions exist between the two disciplines, hindering the establishm ent of cohesive and collaborative work environments. These issues are reoccurring. By exam ining the issues and finding there origination these issues can be resolved. As a construction project goes on and more issues arise the project tends to slow down. Tension can cause both disc iplines on the project to feel as though they need to defend themselves. One member of the group transmits their tension to another member, who in turn feels the burden and transmits their stress along the chain eventu ally affecting everyone working on the project. The General Contra ctor can then begin to transfer tensions to the subcontractors. The subcontractors are then placed under a great deal of strain and there work effort suffers as a result. If the designer and cont ractor continue work ing on the same projects, more than likely conflict will continue to arise. These conflicts co uld easily be addressed a nd resolved with just a little more understanding on both si des of the spectrum, thus, crea ting a better work environment for everyone. The issues will not disappear but hopefully this study will help reestablish

PAGE 11

11 communication between Contractor s and Designers and will help break ground for a firm and mutual understanding. A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed in order to investigate the perceptions of Designers and C ontractors in the construction i ndustry. The results concluded that there is no significant difference between the response patterns of Designers and the response patterns of Contractors. Therefore, th e responses of Designers and Contractors are the same even if stereotypes and personal conflicts are evident on the project This conclusion is logical considering Designers and Contractor s should be working towards the same goal, regardless of whether or not the di sciplines are working collaboratively.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Interaction in the Construction Industry The construction industry today and in the past has heavily relied on good communication in order to keep a project on the right track. Currently, it would appear that communication and collaboration are even more important. A traditi onal construction project in the past would begin with the owner hiring the architect. The architec t would represent the ow ner and help the owner decide on a contractor. In this situation, the owner communicates with the architect, who in turn communicates with the contractor. This system is beneficial to the owner because it limits the amount of nagging for approval. But it hinders inte raction between the team. The contractor is no longer an equal. However, the industry has been moving towards a design build delivery system. This system allows the owner to deal with one party, the design/build team. Delivery systems that are run in this manner need to maintain open streams of communication. Each person on the team needs to be aware of every part of the project. This delivery system depends on collaboration. Impacts on Industry For any project in the construction industry to succeed there must be communication. It is crucial that professionals in each discipline be capable of communi cating with their own personnel as well as with other professionals on the team. A lack of communication between Contractors and design professi onals leads to complications. Communication problems can result in excess money, time, inferior quality workmanship and unsatisfied customers. These problems reflect poorly on all part ies involved and can affect the co mpanies future endeavors. This paper intends to explore the possible mindset s of each discipline regarding skills and respect that further breakdown communication by investig ating the underlying ster eotypes responsible

PAGE 13

13 for keeping these two disciplines at odds. Defi ning the roles of each di scipline involved, tracing relationships, investigating disputes, and seeki ng open communication will help to eliminate the territorial or Me First a ttitudes of each discipline and establish understanding and commonalities necessary to build resp ect and a collaborative attitude. Key Causes It is believed that issues between design prof essionals and Contractors do exist. Some of the issues stem from stereotypes that are comm only placed upon each profession. These issues are possibly related to educa tion. Architects and engineers go through a longer period of educational study to attain profe ssional licensure. In the constr uction industry, it is common to encounter Contractors who grew up in the family business following in parental foot steps. Others enter the construction industry starting w ith an entry level posi tion, doing manual labor and work their way through the ranks. The route taken to become a either a top construction or design professional is rather dive rse. This variation in educat ional and training may be a reason why the construction industry is perceived as a blue collar job, while architecture, interior design, and engineering role s are viewed as white collar jobs. However, the flaw in this concept is who decides which wealth of knowledge is more substantial, as both forms of learning have certain benefits. Other causes relate more specifi cally to the daily tasks of the industry. Chapter 2 discusses the importance of communication, collaboration and personal conflict which are contributors to delays on a project. Chapter 2 discusses thes e delays in more detail and possible solutions that are in place now and that will be needed for the future. Objectives The purpose of this thesis is four-fold. First, since communication is essential for collaboration it is necessary to investigate th e importance of communica tion between and within each discipline. Second, it is crucial to define the roles of each disciple on a project. Next, it is

PAGE 14

14 important to investigate the issues and problems that each discipline deals with on a project. Finally, this study aims at clarif ying issues found in the industry today, making sense of the main issues that can and have beco me barriers between the professi ons and hamper collaboration between the professions. The re sults of this study may suggest ways to provide improved communications and relations betw een the disciplines, allowing for greater collaboration and efficiency. Hypothesis The hypothesis for this study is that while most problems are a result of technical issues in the construction industry, there are underlyi ng personal issues that exacerbate the overall dilemmas. These personal conflicts contribute to overall larger complications on the project and at the jobsite. Methodology This study analyzed the views of Designers a nd construction employees in their respective fields throughout the United St ates. The analysis was conducte d through surveys. The surveys were distributed to the bottom 100 commercial construction companies (Engineering NewsRecords 2006 Top 400 Contractors) and th e bottom 100 design firms (ENRs 2006 Top 500 Design Firms). The first step conducted in th e methodology was collecting literature. During the literature review special attention was paid to issues of lack of communication and lack of collaboration. Other topics revi ewed during the research phase were construction delays, causes for litigation, construction management, and the sp ecific roles of each discipline. The literature collected gave an idea of what information need ed to be collected through the survey. The survey was seeking to find out both qualitative and quantitative information. The surveys were distributed through surface mail system and via th e Internet, and then recollected. Finally, the survey data were analyzed usi ng standard statistical methods.

PAGE 15

15 Summary of Study In the following chapter, Chapter 2, communi cation and collaboration are defined. The importance of these skills in the construction indu stry is exemplified. Chapter 2 also establishes the roles of architects, Contractor s, engineers, and inte rior Designers. Articles that demonstrate the importance of communication are reviewed. A literature review of construction disputes, communication between Designers and Contr actors, litigation causes, partnering, and collaboration are imparted. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology and the survey in more detail. Chapter 4 conveys the results drawn from the surv ey. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the problems identified, possible solutions, conclusions and recommendations for future studies.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Communication is essential to all collaborative e ndeavors. In the construction industry, communication is especially crucial, as there are numerous parties involve d, including the client, architect, engineer, designer, and general contr actor. By defining each partys role, professional expectations of each member, and delivery system s for disseminating information to all members of the team, one can work to eliminate th e break down in the traditional construction management delivery system. Each person on the t eam needs to be aware of every aspect of the project to create a cohesive and collaborative work environment. Importance of Collaboration and Communication Communication is the process by which inform ation is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or beha viors. It is a techni que for expressing ideas effectively. The collaborative exchanging of ideas and plans between professionals on a construction project is integral to its success. In the constr uction industry, poor communication becomes an obstacle to overcome. Although it is important to avoid fl awed design and outright mistakes, the number one cause of professional liability claims among design professionals is a breakdown in communication. Communication is at the heart of most problems on a project and must be the focus of attention (Schrag 2004, p.50). Too often in the construction industry, each discipline tends to be ego-centric, concerne d with their needs and instead of the overall needs of the project. In the past, construction projects were completed by a single company. Today however, collaborative team projects are the norm. On any given project, one may likely find architects, engineers, Designers, Contractors, and trades people working toge ther. Specialty fields have also been developed, adding more parties to the team. As the number of team members grows,

PAGE 17

17 so does the importance of communicating, unde rstanding, and cooperatin g together and is especially true for technically complicated proj ects, which necessitate a different balance among the typical cast of characters (Schrag 2004). With so many construction perspectives influe ncing a project, roles a nd relationships play a fundamental part. Each discipline wants to be right and wants to avoid being the source of an erroneous decision. For example, consultants a nd architects, outwardly acknowledge that if one is going to build something, it will require team work from a variety of people with different areas of expertise. Too often, however, they go about their business as if they were natural adversaries competing for turf, jealously guarding their own inte rests, and looking for ways to trick the other into ceding the advantage to them (Schrag 2004, p. 449). Negotiation and collaboration become a part of the communicat ion. If no one is willi ng to bend, then moving forward is no longer an option. Negotiation is about reaching a goal, not winning. It involves the use of common sense and basic co mmunication skills (Kasimer 2003, p. 12). A recent study on the potential causes of in consistencies between design and construction investigated large buildin g projects in Saudi Arabia (Arain et al. 2006). During the course of the study there was a major boom in c onstruction in Saudi Arabia, resu lting in an unusually high rate of construction within a limited period of time. Results identified 45 potential causes within three categories; design phase, construction phase, and design -construction phase. Results indicated the top five causes for inconsistenc ies (in rank order from one to five) are: 1) involvement of designer as cons ultant, 2) communication gap be tween constructor and designer, 3) insufficient working drawing deta ils, 4) a lack of human resour ces, and 5) a lack of designers knowledge of available materials and equipmen t. Strong communication was recommended by the researchers, as a way to solve the various inconsistenc ies seen throughout a project.

PAGE 18

18 A similar survey by Jahren and Dammeier ( 1990) also recognized communication as an important step in avoiding disputes. This su rvey interviewed Contractors, architects, and attorneys about various constr uction disputes and asked them to give recommendations for avoiding them in the future. Results were cat egorized into three ar eas: people, policy, and communication. Outcome indicated that to avoid construction disputes, implementation of good management techniques with regard to peopl e, policy, and communicatio n are more effective than attempting to shift risk to other partie s by using exculpatory clauses in contracts or narrowing the scope of services. A collaborative study between the University of Florida and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, suggested a lack of collabora tion during the educatio n process occurs and may perpetuate as Designers a nd Contractors enter the construc tion industry. Only 46% of all architecture alumni responding to a recent survey felt their school did a good job fostering their ability to work cooperatively in interdisciplinary teams (OB rien 2003, p. 78). In the study, a Collaborative Design Process course was designed for masters students, in which students at each university worked on collaborative teams with members from the other university, simulating the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry. Members collaborated through the use of o ff-the-shelf computer technology. Each team consisted of one architect, one structural engi neer, and one project manager. The students worked together towards completing a set of architectural design files, an estimate, pr oject schedule, and the structural design. At the end of the project, a virtual jury of students and the faculty provided a critique. Each member of th e team critiqued their own work and then the group critiqued themselves. Finally, the students were aske d to provide recommendations for future collaboration efforts. Since st udents were thousands of miles apart, they communicated through

PAGE 19

19 technology and never met face to face. All colla boration was conducted via the internet and was an added effort used to simulate a typical relationship seen in the AEC industry. Results of the study identified problems occurring in disseminati on of information. Three potential approaches or strategies for transferring information via distance collaboration were identified; Serial, Concurrent, and Integrative (Figure 2-1). The first strategy identified for transferring in formation is the Serial approach, in which team members perform their specif ic task and then hand off to th e next team member, it is also referred to as the over the wall method. The se cond approach, Concurrent consists of team Figure 2-1. Alternative approaches to collaborative work (OBrien 2003). members who work on their own task but also work parallel to each other. The third strategy is the Integrative approach, in which team member s are frequently exchanging information while working on their respective tasks at shorter dura tions. Although the Inte grative approach would have likely been a better approach for the AEC industry, and more specif ically, the best option for the students involved in the Collaboration Design Process, information obtained from the study reveals the students actually used the Serial approach. This study demonstrated the social,

PAGE 20

20 professional, and technological challenges of collaboration affecting the AEC industry and illuminating the failures in current off the shel f technologies. Current technologies are geared towards the Serial approach, restricting the i ndustries ability to collaborate over distance and demonstrate the need to gradually reshape th e curricula of architecture, engineering, and construction programs to encourage collabora tion and exchange of ideas among students. (OBrien 2003) Halpin stated the construction process involves the interacti on and coordination of a large variety of agents who rega rd, and participate in, the cons truction process from different points of view and with different technical and professional res ponsibilities (Halpin 1980, p. 4). The organization of the construction process de fines the nature of the relationships and establishes the order in which these agents interact. The relationships between these professionals can be categorized into four different types: ma ster-servant, business-service, contractual, and intimate cooperation of equals. The Master-Servant relationship occurs when one person hires another professional and pays th em for their services. The Business-Service relationship revolves around th e exchanging of goods in the industry. The third type, Contractual or formal obligation, occurs when one group freely binds themselves to another group to provide a service defined by a contr act. The final relations hip is the Intimate Cooperation of Equals, in which the bond is de fined by open communication between agents and an obligation to one another. (Halpin 1980) Weak communication and collabo ration can have an overwhelmingly negative effect on any project, as well as construc tion industry. Almost every cause for a delay on a job site can be linked to some level of poor comm unication. Therefore, it is impe rative each member remain in contact and aware of changes, updates, budgets, deadlines, and schedules for the project.

PAGE 21

21 Maintaining a standard level of contact and be ing persistent at keeping all team members informed is an important step to wards keeping a project on schedule. Defining the Roles On any construction project there are seve ral key members, including the owner, the architect, the engineer, and the contractor. By clarifying each members role, other members will gain an understanding of thei r unique skills and abilities. A lack of understanding about specialized skills, training, certification, and educ ation of another members role can lead to miscommunication, unnecessary errors and delays as the project progresses. The American Institute of Ar chitect (AIA) documents provides a standard to be used on construction projects. This document helps to mediate overlaps in scope of work and mass confusion which would certainly arise with out a set standard. Ther efore, examining and defining the various roles of team members on a c onstruction project will help all individuals on a project. The information below is based on 2006-2007 U.S. Departments of Labor Bureau statistics and the AIA contract document A201. Architects General view Architects are licensed professi onals trained in the art of science and building design. Architects transform the n eeds of people into concepts. Their concepts are then turned into images and building plans, which can then be co nstructed. Architects generate the plans for a wide variety of spaces that people need such as living spaces, work, play, govern, learn, worship, entertain, eat, shop, and sleep. Pe ople spend 90% of their time inside these places, emphasizing the importance of aesthetics, spac e and functionality. An architec t should consider the end user of the building and create a sp ace that suits the users needs. When creating their designs, architects have an obligation to keep the public safe. Certain codes must be adhered to by all

PAGE 22

22 architects. These codes are dependent upon the area or state in which the bu ilding is located. It is important that architects stay up to date on current codes and obligations in their jurisdiction. If an architect is drawing plans for a building that is not in his/her juri sdiction they must follow the codes in that region or wh ichever set of codes is more stringent. (Occupational 2006) Education and licensing Architects must also abide by Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Architects must be licensed before practicing in the United States, the District of Columb ia, and Puerto Rico. Licensure requires completion of a professional de gree in architecture and have interned under a licensed architect for three years. After these requirements have b een met, architects are eligible to sit for the Architect Registration Examination a nd must pass all 9 divisions of the exam. Once licensed most states require some form of conti nuing education. In addition, architects must learn and know the building codes and regulations within each area they design for. For example, the building code for wind impact resistance for a bu ilding in south Florida will be different than building code requirements for the same building bu ilt in northern Florida. An architect must know the codes and regulations within each area their designs are built. Construction documents are drawn up for the contractor to read and then build the structure. A successful architect must be able to communicate their vision persuasively and visually. Since few members or clients on a proj ect can visualize a space in the same manner as an architect, they must use various techniques to communicate their ideas on to paper. A typical program used by architects today is Compute r-Aided Design and Drafting software, which is replacing the traditional pencil and drafting board. At times, a model might be built for the owner or client to better visuali ze the end result. Perspectives of a type two dimensional drawing show the client a three dimensional view of the space (Occupational 2006).

PAGE 23

23 The American Institute of Architects contract According to AIA document A201 Article 4, th e duties, responsibilities, limitations, and authority of the architect are st ated in the contract and shall not be restricted, modified, or extended without written consent from the owner. The architect will admini ster the contract and act as the representative of th e owner during construction. Figure 2-2 shows a breakdown of the contractual relationships. The owner and contr actor do not normally speak to each other. Therefore, all interactions shoul d be carried out through the arch itect and he/she must be in constant contact with the contractor. Figure 2-2. Breakdown of contract relationships in the construc tion industry (The Architects, 2001). Architects start out in a contractual relations hip with the owner, and between the two of them, they decide the aesthetic vibe of a building. The architect will then generate a set of plans. Once construction begins, the architect will occas ionally visit the site making sure that the construction process is on time and budget. While on site, the architect is responsible for making sure the contractor is carrying out the quality of work for the building. However, the architect does not have the authority to decide the means and methods for construction. All submittals are cleared by the architect, as well as payment a pplications, change orders, and substantial

PAGE 24

24 completion. It is the architects responsibility to resolve claims a nd disputes even when pertaining to errors or omission. The goal for ev ery dispute or claim is to solve it through the architect and avoid mediation, ar bitration, and or litigation. In summary, communication plays an integral role in an arch itects daily routine and overall responsibility on a project. Engineers General view Engineers design, test, specify functions, and ev aluate overall effectiveness, safety, cost, and reliability of products and procedures. They link a perceived social need with the commercial applications by applying the principl es of mathematics and science to develop economical solutions to technical problems. Within the engineering field, there are a variety of types of engineering and most are certified in their related field. For the purpose of this thesis, only engineers that impact the construction industry will be discussed. Th ese would include civil engineers, electrical engineers, mechanical e ngineers, and occasionally health and safety engineers. Engineers should be creative, inquisitive, anal ytical, and detail orie ntated and should be capable of working in a team setting. Oral and written communication sk ills are also imperative as engineers frequently have to communicate with people outside of the e ngineering filed. Civil engineers have the most interact ion with the construction industr y. Within this arena, civil engineers design and supervise the construction of airports, buildings, road, tunnels, damns, bridges, water supply and sewage systems. Just as with architects, there are many factors that an engineer has to consider while designing these structures, as well as following the codes and regulations. Electrical engineers design, deve lop, test, manufacture, and supervise the manufacturing and specification of electrical equipment. In the construction industry, these engineers specify

PAGE 25

25 the wiring and lighting systems for a building and c ontrol the transmission of electricity from the utility source. Mechanical engineers work on the air condi tioning and heating systems for buildings. These engineers develop and de sign any elevator or escalato rs designated in the plans. Mechanical engineering is one of the broadest engineering di sciplines, so finding engineers specific to HVAC and conveying systems is beneficial. The final type of engineer that contributes to the construction indus try is the health and safety engineering. These engi neers may not be seen on site, but their work has a major influence on the industry. They promote work site and product safety. Using a specialized knowledge, they identify and measure potentially h azardous situations for people and properties. They design and implement proce dures to reduce the risk of injury or damage. They must be able to anticipate recognize and evaluate hazardous conditions and methods to control those conditions. Education and licensing A bachelors degree in engineering is required for almost all entry level positions in the engineering field, although college graduates with degrees in ot her backgrounds are occasionally acceptable. Students have the option of possibly practicing in a different form of engineering then the degree they received, as long as the degree s are related. Every stat e in United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico requires licensing of engineers who offer services to the public. Generally, in order to get licensed an engineer must have a degree from a program accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engi neering and Technology. After graduating, an engineer must work for 4 years. An examination is also a part of licensure for engineers. The test can be split between immediately after grad uation and after working for 4 years. Beginning engineers usually work under the supervision of an experienced engineer. The first portion of

PAGE 26

26 the exam is the Fundamentals of Engineering and the second half of the exam is the Principles and Practice of Engineering. An engineer who achieves licensure is called a professional engineer or PE. After acquiring a license, engineers can achieve various certifications offered by professional organizations disp laying technical competency in specific areas. (Occupational 2006) Interior Designers General view Interior Designers draw upon di fferent disciplines to enhance the interior spaces of buildings. Designers are involved in planning the interior spaces of a wide variety of buildings. When designing, this group of professionals consider s the aesthetics of a sp ace, the functionality, space planning, color schemes, and detailing. An interior designer and architect work at a different scale. Interior Designers have the ability to enhance the interior spaces. Designers help to boost office productivity, increase sales, attract various clientel es, and create relaxing hospital rooms. Interior Designers work very closely w ith the client. The most important aspect for Designers is to create a space that has everything the client needs. This process of meeting and defining the clients needs is known as program ming. After meeting with a client, Designers will develop a scheme for the space and begin crea ting drawings to allow the client to visualize the end result. This process is can either be done by hand or again by Computer-Aided Design and Drafting software. After finalizing a plan for the space, a designer will then begin specifying materials, finishes, and furnishings for the ne w space. If a project requires any structural changes, a designer will have to consult either an engineer or an architect Eventually, a designer will need to hire a contractor to finish the interior space. The designer is responsible for creating a schedule and budget and keeping the contract or on task. Many people assume interior Designers simply pick out colors and furniture, a dding layers to interior surfaces. In the past,

PAGE 27

27 this was a common occurrence. However, there is a difference between interior Designers and decorators, the main difference being that Designers are licen sed. (Occupational 2006) Education and licensing A bachelors degree is recommended for an entr y-level position at an in terior design firm. The education restrictions for inte rior Designers are not as strict. A person who graduates from a 2 year or 3 year program for de sign receives an associates degree and can qualify as an assistant to a designer. If a person graduates from a 4 y ear program, they are eligible for an entry level position at a design firm. After graduating, most Designers will begin working under a licensed interior designer or architect for 1 to 3 years. After that time period, a designer would be eligible to sit for the licensing exam. Eligibility to sit for the exam includes 6 years of combined education and experience in th e field of interior design. Th e exam is administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ). Just like engineers and architects, continuing education is required fo r interior Designers. Currently, 24 states in the United States require licensing as well as the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Construction Managers General view Construction managers plan, di rect, and coordinate a wide va riety of construction projects, including the building of a ll types of residential, commercial, plants, school s, hospitals, civil, and industrial structures. A project can be overseen by a construction mana ger for portions of the construction process or all of the construction pr ocess. A construction manager is not involved with the actual physical and laborious part of the construction process. A construction manager will sometimes have other construction managers or supervisors working under them. Construction managers set up the schedule and k eep it up to date. Befo re construction begins, the construction managers job is to select, hire and oversee any subcontr actors for the project.

PAGE 28

28 Once it begins, they are responsib le for ensuring a project is co mpleted on schedule and within budget. Construction managers work hard to deve lop appropriate delivery systems, including the most cost effective plan and schedule for comple ting the project. They work to make sure all steps in the process are logical and meet all se t deadlines. A construction manager will usually work out of the main office, but in some cases they will work at the on site office. This will Figure 2-3. All of the project managers obligations (Bush, 1973). usually depend on the type of project and how th e company is run. The construction manager is also responsible for safety on the jobsite and making sure that all su bcontractors and their

PAGE 29

29 laborers are aware of safety mee tings and procedures. They are responsible for making sure that all materials, tools, and equipmen t are delivered to the jobsite on time. In addition, they take care of permits and licensing, depe nding on the contract documents. Traveling is a common occurrence for construction managers, especially if the job site is not close to the office. The construction manage r is usually on call 24 hours a day in order to handle any and all emergencies, delays, and weathe r issues on the site. Good oral and written communication skills also are important, as are le adership skills. Managers must be able to establish a good working relationship with ma ny different people, including owners, other managers, Designers, supervisors, and craft wo rkers (Occupational 2006 ). Figure 2-3 shows graphically all the tasks of a project manager. Education and licensing Construction managers should have a solid knowledge of building science, business, and management. They must be capable of reading pl ans, specs, and contracts and be familiar with the means and methods of construction. Constructi on managers should be flexible as they must be able to coordinate multiple people and tasks during extremely tense and stressful situations. Employers are more attracted to hire individuals who have a bachelors degree in construction science or something related. Working experience is also important to employers. Traditionally, someone could become a construction manager af ter having substantial k nowledge in a certain trade, craft or supervision. However, the indus try is becoming more complex and employers are placing more importance on postsecondary education. Many colleges offer a 4 year program in construction management or constr uction science and some also o ffer a masters degree program in construction management or science. Severa l industry associations offer further education programs linked with several 2 year programs. There is no license required to become a construction manager; however there is a push in the industry for this to take place. Voluntary

PAGE 30

30 certification is a good way to verify a construction manager is competent. Two associations that offer these certification exams are the American Institute of Constructors and the Construction Management Association of Ameri ca. In order to achieve these certifications, one must meet certain requirements and pass an examination. Agai n, these are voluntary ce rtifications and there is no industry standard as of yet fo r licensing of construction managers. The American Institute of Architects contract According to AIA contract document A201 Artic le 3, the contractor shall read over all sections of the document and all the construction drawings. He/she should carefully review the items and fully understand what is stat ed in them. It is the job of the contract or to go to the site and see the layout and ascertain any information th at will be necessary for the production of the project. Any design errors or omissions that ar e discovered by the contract or, either on site or while reviewing the documents and drawings, shoul d be immediately presented to the architect. Any errors in this process could result in increased time and money, causing the contractor to file a claim for these additional expenses. In regards to errors and omissions, the contractor will not be held liable unless he/she knowingly knew of the errors and failed to report them to the architect. The contractor shall be responsible for the means, methods, and coordination of all the work that falls under their contr act and is responsible for superv ising and directing the work on the site. If a procedure is specified in the docum ents, then the contractor shall follow those steps unless he/she feels it is unsafe and/or risky. In which case, the contr actor should inform the architect and wait for a response before completing th e task. The contractor is responsible to the owner for performance of the contractors empl oyees, the subContractors and their agents, and anyone else that performs work on the site for both the contractor and the subcontractor.

PAGE 31

31 According to AIA 201A Article 3 the contr actor shall pay and supply all materials, supplies, tools, equipment, machinery, water, heat, utilities, trans portation, and any other facilities necessary for the work to be perfor med. The contractor may make changes to the specifications, but only after the architect has re viewed them and the owner has approved. The proper steps for this procedure are known as a ch ange order and shall be completed appropriately for each change. Contractors must ensure all employees wo rking on the site are of good character and capable of handling tasks given to them. The contractor has a warranty with the owner and architect, that all materials and equipment sha ll be of proper quality and new unless otherwise stated in the documents. In a ddition, all work completed by the c ontractor shall be free from defects unexpected. The contra ctor is responsible for acqui ring and paying for all building permits, providing the project schedule and keeping it up to date, providing allowances, providing an intelligent superintendent, maintaining samples and documents on the site, providing shop drawings, and cut sheets. As for the site, the contractor is responsible for remaining within the site boundari es, providing access to the site for the owner and architect, and cleaning up at the end of the project. Owners The owners first task is to de signate in writing a representati ve to assume authority for all decisions requiring the owners approval. The owne r is required to provide the contractor with any information necessary for the mechanics of lien rights. Except for payments mentioned in the previous section the ow ner is responsible for all other costs. Surveys of the site shall be paid for by the owner. These surveys provide nece ssary information for the contractor. Any information or services needed by the contractor shall be handled promptly. The owner will provide the contractor with draw ings and project manuals free of charge. Owners have the right

PAGE 32

32 to stop work if the contractor ha s not adequately perfor med certain tasks. Al so the owner has the right to carry out work, meaning if the contract or fails to finish some thing properly the owner has the right to request it be redone. If the cont ractor refuses to fix the work they are given a second warning, if in which the contractor sti ll does not comply the owner can then issue a change order and deduct costs from the contractor. Major Causes for Delays Delays on a construction project are realisti c. However, Arains study attempts to remediate some of the common delays which occu r on construction projects in Saudi Arabia. These delays were often the result of communi cation barriers and persona l issues between the disciplines. The key factor to be consider ed for successful completion of a project is communication between the discipline s. It is postulated that disagreements between these two parties have caused barriers in the design phase and constructi on process (Arain et al. 2006, p. 74). A study conducted by Arain and his colleges established 45 possible causes of delays in the construction process. These 45 causes (Table 2-1) were co mpiled in a list to be ranked by Contractors. This list included predominant causes of delays occurring on a majority of construction projects. Among this list were several causes that relate more specifi cally to this thesis, communication and personal inte raction which would include; communication gap between constructor and designer, lack of mutual resp ect between constructor and designer, lack of coordination between the parties, obstinate natu re of participants, pa rticipants honest wrong belief, and personal conflicts of professionals Looking over the results of the survey, the average mean of all delays was 2.85. However, the average mean for delays related to communication or interpersonal c onflicts is at or well above the 2.85 mean, implying these are prominent issues amongst the construction industry.

PAGE 33

33 Table 2-1. Causes for inconsistencies in Saudi Arabia (Arain et al. 2006) Failure with in the structure of the delivery syst em is also a major issue. This failure can lead to complications throughout the entire proce ss, from design to construction. The traditional delivery system is typically where the complications begin. A traditional delivery system intends to evoke coordination and team effort. However, this is rarely the case. In addition to the 45 causes mentioned prior, there is one which appears to have been overlooked, economic differences. The designer wants to provide the client with a design at the lowest possible cost to

PAGE 34

34 the design firm, while generating an income which covers the firms costs and labor. The client is seeking to protect his/her i nvestment by purchasing a highly func tioning facility at the lowest possible cost. The contractor is looking to produce the building fo r their client at the lowest possible cost, while maintaining sufficient quality to last through the warran ty. Each member of the team is united in desiring the best product for the absolute lowest price. However, price is not distinguished the same by each member. The di chotomy of goals creates adversity between key participants. At some point in the constructi on process the carefully fashioned construction team begins to unravel (Kavanagh 1978, p. 28). As a project begins, a design is chosen and the contractor selected. As the contract states, the contractor is responsible for mentioning a ny errors found in the construction documents. This is the first juncture at which the design usually comes under attack and creates tension between the team. The contractor begins to re view plans and point out any infractions. The designer becomes defensive, protec ting both the company and their de sign. The project starts to slow down due to paperwork and disputes. Pressu re is placed on the owner, as they need to approve of final changes and make decisions quickly to keep the project moving. As the process continues, delays creep up from weather, design issues, labor problems, and other uncontrollable events. These delays bring up change orders an d requests for more time. As confrontations develop, each party begins to defend themselves out of self-interest. Usually the designer and the owner will unite as they tend to share the sa me vision. As a result, conflict develops among the owner, the design team, and the Contractors. In fact the antagonism is inherent even before the Contractors are selected; usually it is a carryover from prior projects (Kavanagh 1978). Delays on a construction project can often be linked to the drawings and specifications. A lack of awareness and communica tion is once again a factor on these issues. A questionnaire

PAGE 35

35 created by Fisk (1978) sought to in vestigate contractors reactions to specifications. After the Contractors responded to the survey he then took th e reactions to architects and engineers. Fisk wanted to get the responses of the architect s and engineers after re ading the Contractors reactions. Contractors responding to this survey emphasized that specifica tions were not at the level needed for construction. Th e architects agreed with contra ctors response on a majority of questions. Specifications are wri tten by a specifications writer and not the engineer directly. If the specification writer is unaware of the construction pr ocess or materials than the specifications will not be up to professional requirements a nd the contractor will have to request more information or a change order. Often, the writ er will try to copy specifications from previous jobs, or use a performance based specification, instead of perspective specifi cations. Contractors prefer this; however it places the burden of de signing the connection on the contractor, when clearly this is a procedure that should be done by the engineer. Contractor s are not licensed to make this decision, nor having to wait for a response. Sometimes a writer will over specify, just to make sure they do not omit anything. This is another way of prot ecting the engineer and putting the risk on the contractor However, it leads to many problems on the site. It appears that specifications can cause a lot of tension on the project. Engineers should make sure their specification writers are qualified and understand the construction process. Improving the specifications can help alleviat e a little tension between the De signers and the Contractors. Solutions in the Industry Partnering Partnering utilizes the concept of team building. It is a ne wer concept in the industry and is based on 5 core values. The first value is commitment by management to communicate their support to all workers and labo rers throughout the project. Mana gement encourages decision making on all levels and are consta ntly working to instill partneri ng characteristics to employees

PAGE 36

36 on every level. The second core value is a mutual trust developed between all individuals of the team. This is achieved by help ing others to succeed and trusti ng they will. Core value number three is open communication. This quality inspires people to trust more and integrate themselves within the team. The more co mmunication they see, the more willing they are to open up and trust in the future. The fourth value is sharing re sponsibilities, which also means sharing the risk and benefits. It becomes every members respons ibility to keep the proj ect on course. If one fails, all fail. This may be seen as a push to help and encourage each other to succeed. The final core value is a common goal. Together the team creates a goal and makes sure that everyone is working together for that goal. This process en courages collaboration and a team effort and is a great solution to the many problem s that drive the industry apart. A correctional facility which was built in Flor ida was a success, mostly due to the use of the partnering process. Ask any member of th e project team how they were able to overcome the odds, and theyll tell you that partnering was the number one reason Were convinced its the way of the future (Galey 1996, p. 124). The project had many factors that could slow it down; the amount of materials, location, size, and time. The team managed to get the job completed on time and in budget. A partnering meeting was set up and the disciplines met together, conducting personality tests, accessing goa ls, and practicing problem solving. At the conclusion of the meeting, an agreement was ma de and signed. When problems arose on the jobsite, they were handled at that level and onl y passed to upper management as a last resort. The project was a success because all parties i nvolved worked together towards a common goal; completion. Design/Build The design build delivery proce ss provides the owner with one contact. No longer does the owner have to contract with the architect and contractor se parately. Design build companies

PAGE 37

37 can either have the architect, engineers, and Cont ractors all in one office or they can subcontract out some of the work. The benefit to the owner is that more coordination is placed on the design builder. Although, the contractor may loose the system of checks and balance in this system, the result is the same, al members working for th e same goal of producing a quality facility for the owner. An advantage to design build team is th at a project can be built at a faster pace. In most cases, drawings are still being completed while constructi on has begun and time wasted on waiting for feedback from the designer is shortene d, as it is done in house. Feedback from an owner is likely shortened too, because the contra ctor no longer has to go through the architect to get to the owner. As long as collaboration be tween the disciplines continues, this form of delivery is a great solution. The Need for Change Success in the construction industry can be achieved and amplified when the value of cooperation is accepted (Carr 1999, xvii). Unfort unately, in the construc tion industry this is rare and requires more commitment from all pa rties involved. Without collaborative working relationships the consequences can be disast rous. The amount of litigation and construction disputes in the last few decades has increased tremendously. The cost of these situations is substantial and can become overwhelming to all parties involved. Due to an underlying breakdown of relationships in th e construction industry, change is necessary. Each party has maintained a separate agenda and conflicting object ives. As a result, each has contributed to this breakdown and they have become opponents. Distrust in the industry increased and communication was hindered, thus claims increased. Solving t echnical jobsite problems slows down production, while increasing money and time. Because of these confrontations, Designers and Contractors lose profits and owners end up paying more.

PAGE 38

38 The need for change is great, but cultural nor ms that have evolved over decades are not easily changed. A simple fix cannot reverse th e system of confrontation and conflict in place for years. A cultural change in the mindsets of construction organizations is required. This is a significan t paradigm shift for many orga nizations. To make such a shift, those in the construction industry not onl y have to recognize the need for change and be fully committed to making it, they also require a clear path to follow for building better relationships. (Carr 1999, p. xviii) This need for change is still an issue in the indus try today. There are severa l solutions that are in place already. These solutions work to a degree, however, the industry still needs to accept this need to change in order to grow. While these so lutions address the problems, they still have are not sufficient. Even though these solutions have been around for several decades, the industry has neglected to implement them. The construc tion industry continues to mask the problems by changing the delivery system. Un fortunately, this fails to ad dress the underlying issues of communication and adversarial rela tionships within the industry and perpetuates the problem. Communication and collaboration are integral to the success of any project. The industry needs to strengthen this skill with in each individual company and amongst all disciplines.

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Currently there is little information availabl e on the opinions of prof essionals in the design and construction industry. The research conduc ted for this study an alyzed the roles of professionals to define each disciplines obliga tions and responsibilities While conducting the literature review the value of collaboration throughout the industry was investigated. Communication proved to be a critical part of the success or failure on a construction project, according to the literature examined. The development of delays is evidently linked to communication and other underlying issues. In order to get an indication about the experience and opinions of professionals on collaboration in the constr uction industry a survey was developed. The survey allows professionals to anonymously express their opinions on topics within the industry. Design of the Survey The survey (Appendix A and B) was designe d to ask both qualita tive and quantitative questions in order to get an understanding of the employees background and how it does or does not affect there views of associated disciplines. It was important that the same survey be used for all disciplines in th e construction industry. By conducting the survey in this format it keeps every employee on the same level. However, it became evident that there was a need for two surveys to be drawn up. The questions on each survey were exactly the same, but in order to decipher the disciplines one survey geared all questions towards Designers and the other survey towards Contractors. The questions asked incl uded demographic information, as well as educational level, and work hi story. The survey also sought information about past work experiences with other discipli nes. In the survey questions asked employee s their view on collaboration with other disciplin es. The questions asked were for the most part closedended,

PAGE 40

40 resulting in a direct response. However, a fe w open-ended questions allowed the employees to say as little or as much as they felt necessary to get their opinion across. At the end of the survey space was provided for participants to add commen ts, concerns, and common stereotypes of their profession. This section can not be statistically analyzed; how ever the information is still applicable and can be categorized. Sample Selection The sample selection is based on a companys interaction with various disciplines in the construction industry. Commercial work was sp ecifically surveyed because of the scale and variety of work done in this arena. Both sides of the industry needed to be asked in order to get a complete understanding of the issues. Otherw ise the answers would onl y provide one view. ENR top 500 Design Firms from 200 6 was the list used to select design professionals. ENR top 400 Construction Companies from 2006 was the list used to select Contractors. Initially the idea was to select the top 100, however this wa s reevaluated. The bottom 100 companies were selected from each list. The top 100 companies we re assumed to be at a point were collaboration was integrated into the company policies. It was assumed that the bottom 100 companies would not be at the same level as the top 100 compan ies. The surveys were mailed to each company along with a consent form. Surveys were ei ther addressed to th e attention of design professional(s) or project manager(s). In some cas es the survey were sent either electronically or through a facsimile due to time. Out of the 100 surveys sent to construction companies 21 responded. Only 20 design firms have responde d out 100 surveys that were distributed. Analysis of the Results The results from the surveys were entered into a MS Excel spreadsheet. The answers were totaled and separated into constr uction or design responses. The survey can be broken into four separate sections based on the formatting of que stions and responses. Each section has to be

PAGE 41

41 analyzed differently. The data collected from th e quantitative questions sets the parameters for the study, which in this case is very broad. Sec tion 1 and 3 were analyzed using the chi-squared test. Section 2 used a rank correlation analysis Every question in each section was analyzed separately, comparing the res ponses given by design professi onals with those given by construction professionals. The response to each question is discussed in Chapter 4.

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 4 SURVEY ANALYSIS Surveys were sent to ENR top construction a nd design companies, all together 200 surveys where sent out. The bottom 100 out of ENR, En gineering News Record, top 400 were selected for construction and the bottom 100 of ENRs top 500 design firms were selected. The surveys sent to Designers asked questions relating to their interaction w ith Contractors, while surveys sent to Contractors asked questi ons relating to their interaction with Designers. Out of the 100 surveys sent to the design companies 25 surveys we re returned and out of the surveys sent to the construction companies 26 surveys were returned. All the data collected from the surveys were compiled and analyzed for this study. Demographics Section 1 of the survey asked participants to provide some information about themselves. The questions asked were regarding age, geograp hical location, gender, jo b title and level of education. The ages of Designers responding ranged from 30 to 60 years of age. Respondents to the construction survey where between the ages of 24 and 65. A majority of the participants were male: 23 from construction and 24 from design. There was 1 female Designer who responded and 3 female construction employees w ho responded. All participants had a college education, some more advanced then others. Out of all design responde nts 16 had a bachelors degree, 7 respondents had a masters degree, and 1 had a Ph.D. Of all construction respondents, 18 had a bachelors degree and 6 had a maste rs degree. All the respondents were in management positions. Over half of the respondents were upper level management, such as Presidents, Vice Presidents, or Principles. Th e surveys were sent to companies all over the United States so locations varied. Surveys were collected from cities located in 23 different

PAGE 43

43 states. The one common link among all these co mpanies was their listing among the ENR top construction and design companies for 2006. Section 1 Section 1 of the survey inquired about the am ount of interaction that takes place between the two disciplines. This section also investigated the nature of their interaction, be it positive or negative. A Chi-squared test was performed on a ll the questions in this section and a 90% level of confidence was assumed. The analysis of Section 1, Question 1 will be explained in detail with the remaining questions in this section following the same procedures. A Contingency Table calculation was employed to determine if a significant difference in the distribution of responses existed between De signers and Contractors. The procedure is illustrated in Table 4-1. The Observed responses of the Designers and Contractors are shown in the second and third columns for each of the possi ble response categories. The total number of responses from each group is shown in the bottom row. The total number of responses for the two groups combined in each category is displayed in the 4th column. The percentages in the 5th column represent the distribution in each ca tegory of the Designers and the Contractors combined. In order to perform a Chi-squared test of the hypothesis that th ere is no significant difference between the distribution of responses given by the Designe rs and the Contractors, it is necessary to calculate expected response rates. If ther e is no difference between the two groups of respondents, then the percent of resp onses in each response category should be about the same. Thus, the percentage distribution of the combined respondents that is shown in the 5th column is used to compute the expected respons e rates. This step involves multiplying the Observed percentage responses in each row of the 5th column times the total number of Designer respondents to produce the Expected response frequencies for the Designers in column 6. This

PAGE 44

44 process is repeated using the percentage in the 5th column and the total number of Contractor respondents to produce the Expected response fr equencies for Contractors shown in the 7th column. Question 1-1: How often do you work with a Contractor/ Designer? The Chi-square value for testing the null hypot hesis uses the Observ ed response rates and the Expected response rates to produce a Chisquare value with thr ee degrees of freedom [d.f.=(rows-1)(col-1)]. As shown in Table 4-1, the Chi-square value for the Designer responses is 0.10 and the Chi-square for the Contractor respons es is 0.09. The critical value of Chi-square with 3 degrees of freedom at the 90% confidence level is 6.25 (Ostle and Malone 1988). Since the calculated Chi-squared value is less than th e tabulated value it can be concluded with 90% confidence that there is no signi ficant difference between the re sponse patterns of the Designers and the response pattern of the Contractors. Th ere is a minimal deviati on between the expected Table 4-1. Responses for Question 1-1 Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Response Designers Contractors Total% DesignersContractorsDesigners Contractors Never 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 Seldom 0 1 1 1.96 0 1 0 0 Often 11 10 21 41.1810 11 0.10 0.09 Frequently 14 15 29 56.8614 15 0.00 0.00 Total 25 26 51 24 27 0.10 0.09 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 NeverSeldomOftenFrequently Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-1. Analysis of Question 1-1 responses

PAGE 45

45 and the observed results. It is evident in the ch art that (See Figure 4-1) there was a slight, but significant, difference in opinions between the disciplines. However, responses received were either categorized as often or frequent with one Contractor responding seldom. Question 1-2: The resolution of conflicts is usually? Question 2 had 3 responses to choose from, pos itive, negative and no change. One of the participants did not answer this question. Therefore, this questi on has a different total and there are only 2 degrees of freedom. The critical value of Chi-square w ith 2 degrees of freedom at the 90% confidence level is 4.61. The hypothesis stat es that there is no significant difference between Designers and Contractors relative to the resolution of conflicts. The results indicated that the differences observed are a random occu rrence. Based on the responses in Table 4-2 there is minimal and insignificant deviation betw een the expected and the observed results. The data also indicate with a 90% confidence that there is no significant difference between the Table 4-2. Responses for Question 1-2 Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Response Designers Contractors Total% DesignersContractorsDesigners Contractors Positive 22 24 46 92.0023 23 0.04 0.04 Negative 0 1 1 2.00 1 1 0.50 0.50 No change 3 0 3 6.00 2 2 1.50 1.50 25 25 50 25 25 2.04 2.04 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 PositiveNegativeNo change Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-2. Analysis of Question 1-2 responses

PAGE 46

46 response pattern of the Designers and the respon se pattern of the Contractors. All but 4 participants felt that conflicts were solved pos itively. No change wa s selected by 3 of the participants and 1 Contractor e xperienced negative resolution. Fi gure 4-2 graphically represents the participants responses. Question 1-3: How often are conflicts resolved in your favor? Question 3 is evaluated using 3 degrees of freed om again. Therefore, the critical value of Chi-square with 3 degrees of freedom is 6.25. The hypothesis in this question states that there is no significant difference between De signers and Contractors relative to conflicts being solved in their own favor. This is a true assumption accord ing to the surveys collected. Data collected for question 3 again concluded a ra ndom occurrence with minimal de viation between the observed and expected values. The data in Table 4-3 su pports the conclusion with a 90% confidence, the conclusion that there is no signifi cant difference between the res ponse pattern of the Designers Table 4-3. Responses for Question 1-3 Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Response Designers Contractors Total% DesignersContractorsDesigners Contractors Never 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 Seldom 2 3 5 9.80 2 3 0.08 0.08 Often 19 21 40 78.4320 20 0.02 0.02 Frequently 4 2 6 11.763 3 0.38 0.37 25 26 51 25 26 0.48 0.46 0 5 10 15 20 25 NeverSeldomOftenFrequently Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-3. Analysis of Question 1-3 responses

PAGE 47

47 and the response pattern of the C ontractors. Majority of responde nts stated that conflicts were often resolved in their favor fo r both disciplines, whic h is interesting, and suggests a cooperative association between the 2 groups. However, co nsidering both parties are working towards the same goal or end result, their responses should be the similar as illustrated in Figure 4-3. Question 1-4: How often do you agree wi th the Contractor/Designers methods? Hypothesis: there is no signifi cant difference between Designe rs and Contractors relative to how often they agree with the other disciplines methods. The hypothesis for this question could not be rejected with 90% confidence. The differences observed were regarded as a random occurrence. The data in Table 4-4 supports the conclusion with 90% confidence and with 3 degrees of freedom that there is no significant difference between the response pattern of the Designers and the response pattern of the Cont ractors. (See also Figur e 4-4) Majority of participants stated they often ag reed with the methods used by e ither the Contractor or Designer. Table 4-4. Responses for Question 1-4 Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Response Designers Contractors Total% DesignersContractorsDesigners Contractors Never 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 Seldom 0 1 1 1.96 1 0 0.51 0.53 Often 21 20 41 80.3921 20 0.00 0.00 Frequently 5 4 9 17.655 4 0.04 0.04 26 25 51 26 25 0.55 0.57 0 5 10 15 20 25 NeverSeldomOftenFrequently Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-4. Analysis of Question 1-4 responses

PAGE 48

48 Question 1-5: How often do you communi cate with the Contractor/Designer? Data collected for question 5 show the grea test difference between the two disciplines responses in Figure 4-5. However, the Chi-square calculated values are still not large enough to result in rejection of the hypot hesis. The hypothesis for questi on 5 states that there is no significant difference between Designers and Contractors relative to how often they communicate. Therefore, the data shown in Table 4-5 indicate w ith 3 degrees of freedom at a 90% confidence level that there is no significant difference between the response pattern of the Designers and the response pattern of the Contractors. Table 4-5. Responses for Question 1-5 Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Response Designers Contractors Total% DesignersContractorsDesigners Contractors Never 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 Seldom 2 2 4 7.84 2 2 0.00 0.00 Often 13 8 21 41.1810 11 0.71 0.68 Frequently 10 16 26 50.9813 13 0.59 0.57 25 26 51 25 26 1.30 1.25 0 5 10 15 20 NeverSeldomOftenFrequently Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-5. Analysis of Question 1-5 responses Section 2 The second section of questions asked particip ants to rank the importance of 6 aspects of the construction and design industr ies. In order to analyze the data collected Spearmans Coefficient of Rank Correlation was used. A c onfidence level of 90% was used again for this

PAGE 49

49 section of the analysis. This se ction of the survey was important in order to verify if design professionals and Contractors vi ew different facets of the pr oject with the same level of importance. Here are the 6 aspects respondents where asked to rank: client, project, schedule, budget, quality and employer. The analysis of the first aspect will be explained in detail. The remaining aspects will be analyzed in the same manner. Section 2, Client The surveys were collected and the results tallied for each aspect and then separated according to the type of survey completed. The next step was to create a graph for each aspect. Figure 4-6 shows the order in which both discipli nes ranked the client with 1 being the most important. This analysis showed the magnitude of the correlation and helped determine if the hypothesis would be accepted or re jected. Table 4-6 was used to calculate the difference and then the difference squared in order to calcula te Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient (Rs). Rs was computed as: Rs=1-[6 d^2/n(n^2-1)]. Where n is the to tal number of pairs of ranks, in this section n will always be 6. According to Spearmans coefficient of rank correlation the degrees of freedom are calculated as the number of ratings. In this section (n) will always be 6 and therefore there will always be 6 degrees of freedom. In order for the hypothesis to be rejected the critical value with 6 degrees of freedom at a 90% confidence level must be greater then 0. 83. The hypothesis for the ranking of th e client in section 2 states that there is no significant difference between Designers and Contractors rela tive to their view on the importance of the client. As shown in Table 4-6, Rs equals 0.63. Si nce the Rs is less than the critical value of 0.83 with 6 degrees of freedom at the 90% confiden ce level, the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the ranks assigned by Designers and Contractors is accepted with 90% confidence. The numbers coll ected show that Contractors place slightly,

PAGE 50

50 although not significantly, more importance on the C lient as the most important aspect of the project. Figure 4-6 illustrates that the disc iplines ranked the clients importance in a similar manner. Table 4-6. Response rank of the client Rank Designers Contractors d d^2 1 18 19 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 3 0 3 9 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 1 1 T 25 26 7 13 Rs 0.63 d.f. 6 0 5 10 15 20 123456 Rank Designers Contractors Figure 4-6. Analysis of client response Section 2, Quality Hypothesis: there is no signifi cant difference between Designers and Contractors in regard to the importance of quality. The hypothesis fo r quality could not be rejected with 90% confidence. The Rs value calcu lated in Table 4-7 is -0.34 indi cating there is a weak, but not significant, negative correlation. Since the Rs is less than th e critical value of 0.83 with 6 degrees of freedom at the 90% confidence level, the null hypothesis that th ere is no statistically significant difference between the ranks assigned by Designers and Contractor s is accepted with 90% confidence. The views of Designers and Contractors differ in the ranking of quality. Contractors regard it as the second most importa nt aspect on a project. Designers ranked it

PAGE 51

51 evenly between the second and fifth most importa nt aspect. (See Figure 4-7) According to the Rs value there is a weak, although not significan t, negative correlation between the 2 parties regarding quality. Table 4-7. Response rank of quality Rank Designers Contractors d d^2 1 3 2 1 1 2 4 9 5 25 3 6 2 4 16 4 5 7 2 4 5 4 4 0 0 6 3 2 1 1 T 25 26 13 47 Rs -0.34 d.f. 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 123456 Rank Designers Contractors Figure 4-7. Analysis of quality response Section 2, Budget Hypothesis: there is no signifi cant difference between Designe rs and Contractors relative to the importance of budget on a project. Again the hypothesis can not be rejected at the 90 % confidence level. According to Table 4-8 the Rs value is 0.63. Since th e Rs is less than the critical value of 0.83 with 6 degr ees of freedom at the 90% conf idence level, the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the ranks assigned by Designers and Contractors is accepted with 90% confidence. Figure 4-8 demonstrates the ranking of participants relative to the importance of budget. Budget was ranked as the third most important

PAGE 52

52 aspect of a project according to both Designers a nd Contractors. The views of both disciplines on this portion of a project are similar. Table 4-8. Response rank of the budget Rank Designers Contractors d d^2 1 0 2 2 4 2 4 4 0 0 3 9 9 0 0 4 5 7 2 4 5 5 4 1 1 6 2 0 2 4 T 25 26 7 13 Rs 0.63 d.f. 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 123456 Rank Designers Contractors Figure 4-8. Analysis of budget response Section 2, Schedule Schedule is seen as the fourth most important characteristic of a project by both Designers and Contractors. Hypothesis: there is no signifi cant difference between Designers and Contractors relative to the importance placed on the schedule. Again the resulting data confirmed an insignificant random occurrence of variation among responses in regards to the schedule. The Rs value calculated in Table 4-9 equals 0.34. Since the Rs is less than the critical value of 0.83 with 6 degrees of freedom at the 90% confidence level, the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant differen ce between the ranks assigned by Designers and Contractors is accepted with 90% confidence. The similarity of the responses is shown graphically in Figure 4-9.

PAGE 53

53 Table 4-9. Response rank of the schedule Rank Designers Contractors d d^2 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 3 9 3 5 7 2 4 4 9 8 1 1 5 5 5 0 0 6 1 4 3 9 T 25 26 9 23 Rs 0.34 d.f. 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 123456 Rank Designers Contractors Figure 4-9. Analysis of schedule response Section 2, Project The significance of the project itself was ranke d as the fifth most im portant portion of a job by both Designers and Contractors. Figure 4-10 illustrates the participants survey responses. The views of the Designers and Contractors were ve ry similar in ranking this aspect as may be seen in Figure 4-10. The hypothesis stated th at there is no significant difference between Designers and Contractors relative to the importan ce of the project. Anal ysis of the results of responses to this question came ve ry close to rejecting the null hypothesis. The data collected in Table 4-10 resulted in an Rs value of 0.80. Sin ce the Rs is less than the critical value of 0.83 with 6 degrees of freedom at the 90% confiden ce level, the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the ranks assigned by Designers and Contractors is accepted with 90% confidence. These resu lts are shown graphically in Figure 4-10.

PAGE 54

54 Table 4-10. Response rank of the project Rank Designers Contractors d d^2 1 2 2 0 0 2 5 4 1 1 3 2 4 2 4 4 2 1 1 1 5 11 11 0 0 6 3 4 1 1 T 25 26 5 7 Rs 0.80 d.f. 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 123456 Rank Designers Contractors Figure 4-10. Analysis project response Section 2, Employer Employer is the sixth aspect discussed in this section. The data show that both Contractors and Designers ranked the employer as the least most important issue on a job. The hypothesis states that there is no significant difference betw een the Designers and Cont ractors relative to the importance placed on the employer. According to the data collected and represented in Table 4-11 the null hypothesis is true. The Rs va lue calculated equals 0.63. Since the Rs value is less than the critical value of 0.83 with 6 degr ees of freedom at the 90% confidence level, the null hypothesis that there is no statistically si gnificant difference between the ranks assigned by Designers and Contractors is accepted with 90% confidence. Views of the 2 disciplines were similar for the most part. In Figure 4-11 the response ranking of the em ployer is graphically demonstrated.

PAGE 55

55 Table 4-11. Response rank of the employer Rank Designers Contractors d d^2 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 3 2 2 0 0 4 1 3 2 4 5 0 2 2 4 6 16 15 1 1 T 25 26 7 11 Rs 0.69 d.f. 6 0 5 10 15 20 123456 Rank Designers Contractors Figure 4-11. Analysis of employer response Section 3 Section 3 of the survey asked participants que stions regarding the ot her disciplines. This section was intended to verify th at each discipline knew the roles and duties of themselves and each other. Also within each question there is a negative opti on. The negative option needs to be in the survey otherwise the responses w ould be skewed and anyone who has a negative experience would be inclined to skip the question. This provides respondents the opportunity to select any response they feel is appropriate to their experiences. After the surveys were collected the data was tallied. The Chi-squa re method was used to verify the responses for this section. In this section each question had 5 options. The fi fth being Other, allo wing the participant to write exactly what they thought should be the answ er. In this section th e total for each question will be different because of the participants optio n to check all that apply. Question 1 in this section will be explained in detail. The re maining questions followed the same format.

PAGE 56

56 Question 3-1 What do you think of the Contractors/Desi gners you work with on a daily basis? Knowledgeable about methods of construction. Able to make informed decisions. Capable of recognizing errors of design or construction Able to communicate effectively with other professionals. Other (Please specify) The first step was to tally the responses and separate them into th e appropriate category. The survey responses are the observed data, shown in columns 2 and 3 of Table 4-12 and subsequent tables. The next step was to calcula te the percentage using the total number for each disciplines response divided by the total number of responses. Then, each percentage can be multiplied by the observed totals providing the expected numbers in columns 6 and 7. After the expected totals are calculated they are applied to the formula: [(OE)^2/E]. This formula is used for each disciplines response. The results are summed providing the number used to evaluate the hypothesis in the Chi-square char t. In section 3 the degrees of freedom are calculated in the same fashion as section 1, [d.f.=(rows-1)(col-1)]. Therefore, all questions in section 3 have 4 degrees of freedom. The critical value of Chisquare with 4 degrees of freedom at the 90% confidence level is 7.78. In question 1, the participants are providing information about the other disciplines. The hypothesis for this question states that there is no significant difference between the Designers and Contractors relative to what they think of each others abilit ies on a daily bases. Question 1 of section 3 resulted in only random variation in the responses and the hypothesis could not be rejected. Therefore, there is minimal deviati on between observed and expected values as shown in Table 4-12 and Figure 4-12. The data supports accepting with 90% confidence that there is no significant difference between the response pattern of the Designers and the response pattern of

PAGE 57

57 Table 4-12. Responses to Question 3-1 Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Designers Contractors Total % DesignersContractorsDesigners Contractors 1 21 14 35 25.1818 17 0.45 0.49 2 17 17 34 24.4618 16 0.02 0.02 3 20 16 36 25.9019 17 0.10 0.11 4 12 19 31 22.3016 15 1.03 1.10 Other 2 1 3 2.16 2 1 0.13 0.14 72 67 139 72 67 1.73 1.86 0 5 10 15 20 25 12345Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-12. Analysis of Question 3-1 responses the Contractors. Design particip ants that responded to the 5th option, Other, commented that the answers are dependent on which Contractor you are working with since some are good and some are bad. The Contractor that responded Other stated that De signers are somewhat knowledgeable of methods and able to make informed decisions. Question 3-2 Interior Designers differ from interior decorators in that They only select colors, fabrics and finishes. They plan spaces and consider other building systems in the design. They can alter non-load b earing walls in buildings. They lack an understanding of the building process. Other (Please specify) Out of all responses 13 participants did not answer this question, 7 Contractors and 6 Designers. In most cases it was because the partic ipant did not work with an Interior Designer. Hypothesis: there is no signifi cant dependence between Designer s and Contractors relative to

PAGE 58

58 there perceptions of interior Designers or d ecorators. The hypothesis was concluded to be acceptable. This question was intended to veri fy that Contractors and Designers understand the Table 4-13. Response to Question 3-2 Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Designers Contractors Total% DesignersContractorsDesigners Contractors 1 1 1 2 3.33 1 1 0.00 0.00 2 17 18 35 58.3316 19 0.03 0.02 3 2 5 7 11.673 4 0.49 0.43 4 3 7 10 16.675 5 0.60 0.52 Other 5 1 6 10.003 3 1.73 1.51 28 32 60 28 32 2.85 2.49 0 5 10 15 20 12345 Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-13. Analysis of Question 3-2 responses expertise of an Interior Designe r. The results indicate that th ere is minimal deviation between the observed and the expected values. Based on Table 4-13 it can be concluded at a 90% confidence level with 4 degrees of freedom that there is no significant difference between the response pattern of the Designers and the response pattern of the Contractors. These data are presented graphically in Figure 4-13. Designe rs who responded Other generally commented that Interior Designers have a br oader understanding and are an integr al part of the project team. A contractor responded that sometimes Interior Designers are no schedul e oriented or lack understanding of the bigger picture. Question 3-3 Architects:

PAGE 59

59 Only select colors, fabrics and finishes. Are more important than Contr actors and interior Designers. Do not consider clients or user needs. Incorporate user needs, clients wishes and good design solutions to create built environments. Other (please specify) Hypothesis: there is no significan t dependence between Designers a nd Contractors relative to the characteristics of architects. Th e hypothesis could not be rejected in this case. Therefore, only a minimal deviation exists between the observed an d expected results. The data in Table 4-14 indicates that at a 90% confidence level with 4 degrees of fr eedom that there is no significant difference between the response pattern of the Designers and the response pattern of the Contractors. The majority of professionals selected option 4 a positive response for the tasks an architect does on a project. However, it can be se en that a few respondents selected the negative options. Out of all the participants 1 selected option 2 and 2 participan ts selected option 3. These responses can be seen in Figure 4-14. A to tal of 5 participants responded to option 5. One of the Designers who responded to option 5 noted th at architects consider th e project holistically. Another participant mentioned that architects need to have an understanding of constructability. The last design response claimed that architects tr eat engineers as subservient. One Contractor stated that architects work best in a team attitude. The other Contractor mentioned that sometimes architects incorporate the user needs, but not all the time. Table 4-14. Response to Question 3-3 Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Designers Contractors Total % DesignersContractorsDesigners Contractors 1 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 1 0 1 1.89 1 0 0.42 0.47 3 0 2 2 3.77 1 1 1.06 1.18 4 24 21 45 84.9124 21 0.00 0.00 Other 3 2 5 9.43 3 2 0.05 0.05 28 25 53 28 25 1.53 1.71

PAGE 60

60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 12345Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-14. Analysis of Question 3-3 responses Question 3-4 Contractors: Are only interested in money and profit on a project. Never select the specif ications requested by th e architect/Designer. Work towards the end goal of creating a safe structure. Are capable of seeing and interpreting plans. Other (Please specify) The hypothesis for this question states th ere is no significant dependence between Designers and Contractors relative to the Cont ractors characteristics on a project. The hypothesis could not be rejected leading to the conclusion that there is minimal deviation between the observed and expected values. The da ta in Table 4-15 leads to the conclusion with 90% confidence and with 4 degrees of freedom that there is no significant difference between the response pattern of the Designers and the response pattern of the Contractor s. In question 4 the majority of participants selected either one or both of the posi tive responses. However, there are those few who selected the negative options. (S ee Figure 4-15) In this case it was only Designers and they felt that Cont ractors are only inte rested in money on pr ojects, which is a typical stereotype of Contractor s. In general the written resp onses note that Contractors work toward building a safe, profitable and quality product for the client and Contractors work best in a team oriented setting.

PAGE 61

61 Table 4-15. Response to Question 3-4 Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Designers Contractors Total % Designers Contractors Designers Contractors 1 3 0 3 3.03 2 1 1.46 1.48 2 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 19 24 43 43.4322 21 0.34 0.35 4 23 23 46 46.4623 23 0.00 0.00 Other 5 2 7 7.07 4 3 0.61 0.62 50 49 99 50 49 2.40 2.45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 12345 Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-15. Analysis of Question 3-4 responses Question 3-5 My biggest concern when working with a Contract or/Designer is? They do not understand my vision for the project. They are only concerned about money. They do not understand the building process. They do not know how to work with others. Other (Please specify) Question 5 shows a few stereotypes consiste nt in the construc tion industry. The hypothesis that there is no significant dependence between th e Contractor and Designer when they are working with the opposing discipline is no longer valid. The data in the responses vary greatly which is evident in Figur e 4-16. Contractors responded th at Designers are not aware of the building process and Designers feel that Contractors do not understand their vision. The results show a large deviation between the observe d and expected values. Something other then a random occurrence appears to have created this deviation. The da ta in Table 4-16 shows that at

PAGE 62

62 Table 4-16. Response to Question 3-5. Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Designers Contractors Total % Designers Contractors Designers Contractors 1 10 3 13 20.977 6 1.16 1.40 2 8 0 8 12.904 4 2.98 3.61 3 2 13 15 24.198 7 4.71 5.72 4 8 4 12 19.357 5 0.31 0.37 Other 6 8 14 22.588 6 0.37 0.45 34 28 62 34 28 9.52 11.56 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 12345Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-16. Analysis of Question 3-5 responses a 90% confidence level with 4 degrees of freedom that there is a significant difference between the response pattern of the Designers and the re sponse pattern of the Contractors. A lot of participants responded Other and expresse d their own opinions. Designers felt that Contractors were not aware of th e design process and at times were more concerned with money issues then providing the client what they wanted. The Contractors mentioned issues with contract documents, time, money, schedule and prot ecting themselves from errors. All of these are typical issues on a construction project. Section 3, Question 6 When on the jobsite I prefer to work with People in my own profession. Professionals in other disciplines. No one. Subordinate professionals. Other (Please specify)

PAGE 63

63 Hypothesis: there is no signifi cant dependence between Designer s and Contractors relative to whom they prefer to work with on the jobsit e. Question 6 again produced random variation among the responses. The hypothesis could not be rejected based on the data collected. Therefore, there is only a minimal amount of deviation between the observed and expected values. The data collected in Table 4-17 and Fi gure 4-17 illustrates that at a 90% confidence level that there is no significant difference betw een the response pattern of the Designers and the response pattern of the Contractors. The highest response of both Design ers and Contractors was to work with other professionals A substantial number of th e participants responded to the Other option. These responses almost all were to work with everyone on the team including the owner and the superintendent A few other comments were people with common sense, common goals or those that are qualified. Table 4-17. Response to Question 3-6 Observed Expected (O-E)^2/E Designers Contractors Total% DesignersContractorsDesigners Contractors 1 8 12 20 26.679 11 0.13 0.10 2 16 14 30 40.0014 16 0.42 0.35 3 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 4 3 6 9 12.004 5 0.29 0.24 Other 7 9 16 21.337 9 0.01 0.01 34 41 75 34 41 0.84 0.70 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 12345Response options Designers Contractors Figure 4-17. Analysis of Question 3-6 responses

PAGE 64

64 After section 3 there was a space provided for part icipants to provide typical stereotypes of their industry. Many of th e participants replied to this portion of the surv ey. The following is a list of stereotypes common to the design industry: Dull/boring Architect and Contractor have separate agendas Architects are not grounded in reality re garding time, budget, schedule and building process Too artistic Concerned only with personal design goals Arrogant Stubborn Do not understand the building process Just draw plans The following is a list of co mmon Contractor stereotypes: Not professionals Uneducated Owner and architects do not trust their judgments Only interested in money Do not understand design Dishonest Cut corners to save money Architects look down on Contractors Do not have a similar goal with owner Undependable Adversarial relationships Substitute for quality products selected by the design professional There were several comments participants we re willing to share. These comments were concurrent with the information collected during the literature review. The comments are a major asset to the survey. This portion of the su rvey was available for participants to express exactly what they have experien ced or participants could expre ss there concern for the industries future. A design respondent noted the current arrangements for design and construction promote an adversarial atmosphere between the disciplin es. This was also poi nted out by Kavanagh in Construction Management a Professional Approach Another common comment mentioned in

PAGE 65

65 several surveys from both Designers and Contra ctors was communication; honest and frequent communication to resolve problems and work colla boratively is the key successful projects. While reading comments by the partic ipants it is clear that a lack of collaboration is a concern. This survey has the ability to ma ke more professionals aware of the need for change. Out of all 3 sections, 17 questions total, only 1 question resulted in rejecting the hypothesi s that there is no significant difference between the Designers a nd Contractors and that was question 5 from section 3: My biggest concern when working with a Contractor /Designer is? Conclusions and recommendations for the survey will be discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions In the construction industry, th e motto time is money remains a valid statement and an accurate concern. As projects with in the industry progress at an increasing pace, companies are justifiably concerned with any source which beco mes an obstacle to the building process. With the addition of more specialized fields on a project, defining the roles and responsib ilities of each discipline becomes crucial. Each discipline is aware of its unique and specialized skills. However, often some disciplines have preconc eived misconceptions about other disciplines abilities within the industry. These miscon ceptions are often the basis for inadequate communication and personal conflict from the st art of the project. Miscommunication hinders collaboration between the disciplines, causing a ri pple effect, which impacts each phase, slowing the process and ultimately impacting the entire project by increasing the overall amount of time and money required. A key factor thwarti ng open communication is personal conflict. Literature reviewed during the course of th is study clearly acknowledges underlying personal issues within the industry. These underlying pers onal issues are linked to communication, either stemming from a lack of communication or c ontributing to the resistance to communicate. Open communication between the disciplines is vital to the collaborative process. In an industry where there are few as pects that can be controlled, communication remains the one constant factor that influences all decisions. However, communication is also the only factor which can be acted upon to produce a positive ef fect. Educating project members regarding skills and abilities of other di sciplines, clarifying roles, and amending commonly held misconceptions leads to shared communication, improved opportunity for joint collaboration, and the basic elements of trust required in orde r to form the basis of personal relationships.

PAGE 67

67 Developing personal relationships between team members on construction projects strengthens the bond between companies. Since these skills are essential to any business, the construction industry would benefit from taking the initiativ e to educate its members to become more effective communicators. In addition to strengthening communication and collaboration among project members, the traditional delivery system currently used with in the industry must be reconsidered. This old-fashioned system hinders open communicatio n, creating adversity between disciplines, resulting in unnecessary complica tions and delays. This system creates tension early in the project, thus fostering unnecessa ry bias and resentment towards other members. This cycle of mistrust, poor communication, and animosity cr eates division between project members and obstructs the flow of collaborative exchange of ideas and information. On any construction project, there is the lik elihood that numerous problems may arise, resulting in delays and making it difficult to ad here to the timeline. Working within and around time constraints complicates the collaborative process, making the jobs of Designers and Contractors more difficult. By establishing open communication and collaborative environment, personal conflicts among the disciplines are less like ly to develop. If more companies worked on strengthening the necessary sk ills of communication, collabor ation, and improved delivery methods, preconceived misconceptions and their resu lting personal conflicts could be eliminated, resulting in benefits towards time, money, and job satisfaction within the construction industry. Recommendations for Improvement Review of literature and inform ation collected through this st udy indicates that the most important step toward improving the industry w ould be getting the construction industry to acknowledge that there is a problem with the cu rrent method of communication on most projects. In order to improve the lack of effective co mmunication, it must be addressed. Improving

PAGE 68

68 communication within the industry will positivel y impact projects on many levels. Personal relationships will improve, allowing projects to be completed quicker and with less conflict, permitting collaboration between the disciplines The literature reviewed validates the importance of collaboration on all projects. Co llaboration between Designers and Contractors can be complicated, as the two disciplines th ink and function with different mind sets and opposite areas of the brain. Designe rs are very visual (left braine d) and whereas Contractors rely on hard facts (right brained). Communication between the two di sciplines would require using both mind sets (and both sides of the brain). Br idging this gap has the potential to improve the construction industry on the most basic leve l, communication, which is often overlooked. Once the construction industry accepts and begins to address these weaknesses in communication, it makes sense to also advocate for similar changes to be advanced in construction education. These neces sary adjustments will require a period of time before they are assimilated and begin to impact the construc tion industry. Education is the best arena to begin implementing the theories of this and previ ous and studies. Curren tly the two disciplines are educated in different fashi ons, making it problematic to interact. This study revealed that only 46% of graduates felt their education prepar ed them for the collaborative nature of the industry. As students acquire the necessary sk ills for communication and collaboration, their abilities to effectively co mmunicate with other disciplines will be enhanced. New graduates entering the workforce have a fresh and untainted outlook on the AEC industry. These new workers have not been ridicu led or scorned by the nature of this industry. They have positive mind set, allowing them to be open to communication and collaboration with all disciplines. Since students are the future of our industry, encouraging th em to communicate at the educational level will empower them as they assimilate into the workforce.

PAGE 69

69 Education can improve industry in another wa y. Construction schools should require all students to take several design courses. Resp ectively, design schools shou ld require students to take courses relating to construction and cons truction management. This training will teach students to think more divergently, encompassing bot h disciplines. Students will gain respect for their counterparts and work to improve situations on future projects within the industry. It would be beneficial for a construction company to es tablish continuing education programs to address collaboration and communication amongst their em ployees. Education programs could also be created to inform non-constructi on employees about the building process, potentially improving their work effort and forming relations w ithin the company. Im provement within the construction industry will take dedication from all disciplines in order to generate change. Recommendations for Future Research This survey contained items which were problematic, which could be improved upon in future studies. The first area which could be improved upon would be the selection of companies. In this study, there was no limit on variation, meaning the part icipants had very few characteristics in common. Also, restricting the su rvey to a certain region or type of construction may have helped limit the responses to a more specific group. In this survey, companies were selected from various states in the U.S. and were involved in all types of c onstruction. In future studies the survey should be limite d to specific regions or type s of construction. Since civil companies did not reply to the survey because qu estions asked did not apply to their type of work, these companies could be eliminated from the list of companies surveyed. In the demographics section, it would be bene ficial to inquire about the profitability of each company and the type of delivery system us ed; information obtained from these questions further limits the scope of the survey. Several i ssues were pointed out in the first section that should be reevaluated. The main problem with these questions was the response options, never,

PAGE 70

70 seldom, often and frequently or negative, posi tive and no change. The difference between the significance of often and frequently is too close, which could be misleading to some participants. Always, should have been an included option, even if none of the participan ts selected it. The option no change is too vague, th ere has to be an outcome. Th e second section is relatively established. One discrepancy exists with the aspect of project. The question asks participants to rank the importance of 6 aspects on a project. By using the word project in the question and the answer, there is the potential for participants to ge t confused. The third se ction can be viewed as 6 questions or as 25 questions. Ea ch option can be seen as a ques tion in and of itself. By not selecting an option participants acknowledged the option was false. The survey can viewed in either format; just consider the method of analysis before deciding which format will work the best. Question 6 in section 3 has a discrepancy. The option, subordinate pr ofessionals, is not an appropriate response option, because it has a differe nt correlation then the remaining options. The survey can be improved upon for future use; however there is plenty of relevant data available from the survey. This survey attempted to inve stigate peoples opinions of th e industry and their opinions of other disciplines. On average the responses collected were positive. It appears that most participants work well with each other. After al l the data was collected, tabulated, and calculated the null hypothesis could not be re jected. Only one question out of the entire survey rejected the null hypothesis. Therefore, the survey concluded that there is no signifi cant difference between the response pattern of Designers and the response pattern Contractors in most situations. Since only 1 question rejected the null hypothesis, all data collected concluded that Designers and Contractors responses where the same. However, the responses are sti ll important and valid; they corroborate that there is a significant c onclusion to be drawn from this survey. In

PAGE 71

71 conclusion, the responses are as one would e xpect them when considering the questions logically. Designers and C ontractors are working towards a common goal, completing a satisfactory building for the client. The view s of Contractors and De signers are the same according to the rank correlation analysis. Theref ore, both disciplines are evaluating the aspects of each job in the same order. If both discip lines goals and views are the same then their responses should be the same as well. The su rvey demonstrates that regardless of personal opinions, communication, and ster eotypes, Designers and Cont ractors are completing their projects consistent with the main objective, the end product. Written comments at the end of each survey provide a space for participants to acknowledge common stereotypes within their disc ipline. These stereotypes signify areas of vulnerability in each discipline. The list of st ereotypes in each industr y is long, that is why collaboration and communication need to be a part of the process. The mo re interaction between the disciplines, the easier it will be to breakdow n these misconceptions a nd negative stereotypes, allowing the industry to co mmunicate openly and positively.

PAGE 72

72 APPENDIX A BLANK CONSTRUCTION SURVEY Contractor Survey Male_____ Female_____ Age ______ Geographic location City:___________________ State:_________________ Level of education completed _____________________________________________ Professional Degrees (check all that apply) ___Architecture/Design ______Constr uction _____Engineering Job title at current company ______________________________________________ How often do you work with an Architect/ Designer? ___Never ____Seldom ___Often ___Frequently Resolutions of conflicts are us ually? ____Positive ___Negative ____No change How often are conflicts re solved in your favor? ___Never ____Seldom ___Often ___Frequently How often do you agree with the Architect/ Designers methods? ___Never ____Seldom ___Often ___Frequently How often do you communicate with the Architect/Designer? ___Never ____Seldom ___Often ___Frequently Prioritize the following items from 1-6 (1 being most important and 6 being least important) in terms of your concerns on a project. ____Client/ Owner satisfaction ____Within budget ____The Project ____On schedule ____My employer ____Quality of materials/workmanship For the following questions please check all op tions that apply to your perception of tasks performed by professionals in their respective fields. What do you think of the design prof essionals you work with on a daily basis? ___They are knowledgeable about th e methods of construction. ___They are able to make informed decisions. ___They are capable of recognizing errors of design or construction. ___They are able to communicate eff ectively with other professionals. ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) Interior Designers differ from Interi or Decorators in that Designers: ___ only select colors, fabrics and finishes ___ plan spaces and consider othe r building systems while designing ___ can alter non-load bear ing walls in buildings

PAGE 73

73 ___ lack understanding of the building process ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) Architects: ___ only select colors, fabrics and finishes ___ are more important than Cont ractors and interior Designers ___ do not consider clie nts or user needs ___ incorporate user needs, clients wish es and good design solutions to create built environments ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) Contractors: ___ are only interested in money and profit on a project ___ never select the specs reque sted by the architect/designer ___ work towards the end goal of creating a safe structure ___ are capable of seeing and interpreting plans ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) My biggest concern when working with an Architect/Designer is: ___ they do not understand my vision for the project ___ they are only concerned about money ___ they do not understand the building process ___ they do not know how to work with others ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) When on the jobsite I prefer to work with: ___ people in my own profession ___ professionals in other disciplines ___ no one ___ subordinate professions ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) Common stereotypes of my profession include: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Comments: Concerns:

PAGE 74

74 APPENDIX B BLANK DESIGN SURVEY Architect/Designer Survey Male_____ Female_____ Age ______ Geographic location City:___________________ State:_________________ Level of education completed _____________________________________________ Professional Degrees (check all that apply) ___Architecture/Design ______Constr uction _____Engineering Job title at current company ______________________________________________ How often do you work with a Contractor? ___Never ____Seldom ___Often ___Frequently Resolutions of conflicts are us ually? ____Positive ___Negative ____No change How often are conflicts re solved in your favor? ___Never ____Seldom ___Often ___Frequently How often do you agree with the Contractors methods? ___Never ____Seldom ___Often ___Frequently How often do you communicate with the Contractor? ___Never ____Seldom ___Often ___Frequently Prioritize the following items from 1-6 (1 being most important and 6 being least important) in terms of your concerns on a project. ____Client/ Owner satisfaction ____Within budget ____The Project ____On schedule ____My employer ____Quality of materials/workmanship For the following questions please check all op tions that apply to your perception of tasks performed by professionals in their respective fields. What do you think of the Contractors you work with on a daily bases? ___They are knowledgeable about th e methods of construction. ___They are able to make informed decisions. ___They are capable of recognizing errors of design or construction. ___They are able to communicate eff ectively with other professionals. ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) Interior Designers differ from Interi or Decorators in that Designers: ___ only select colors, fabrics and finishes ___ plan spaces and consider othe r building systems while designing ___ can alter non-load bear ing walls in buildings ___ lack understanding of the building process

PAGE 75

75 ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) Architects: ___ only select colors, fabrics and finishes ___ are more important than Cont ractors and interior Designers ___ do not consider clie nts or user needs ___ incorporate user needs, clients wish es and good design solutions to create built environments ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) Contractors: ___ are only interested in money and profit on a project ___ never select the specs reque sted by the architect/designer ___ work towards the end goal of creating a safe structure ___ are capable of seeing and interpreting plans ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) My biggest concern when work ing with a contractor is: ___ they do not understand my vision for the project ___ they are only concerned about money ___ they do not understand the building process ___ they do not know how to work with others ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) When on the jobsite I prefer to work with: ___ people in my own profession ___ professionals in other disciplines ___ no one ___ subordinate professions ___ Other (Please specify__________________________________________________) Common stereotypes of my profession include: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Comments: Concerns:

PAGE 76

76 LIST OF REFERENCES AlQudsi, H. (1995). Dont burn that bridge! Journal of Management in Engineering, 11(6), 22-25. Arain, F. M, Pheng, L. S., and Assaf, S. A. ( 2006). Contractors Views of the Potential Causes of Inconsistencies between Design a nd Construction in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20(6), 74-83. The Architects Handbook of Professional Prac tice. (2001). A201 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction (13th ed.). AIA. John Wiley & Sons. Baldwin, Jr., Manthei, J.M., Rothbart, H., & Ha rris, R. B. (1971). Causes of delay in the construction industry. ASCE Journal of Construction Division 97(CO2), 177-187. Bennett, L. F. (2003). The Management of Construction: A Project Life Cycle Approach (1st ed.). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Bush, V. G. (1973). Construction Management A Handbook for Contractors, Architects, and Students (1st ed.). Reston: Prentice-Hall Company. Carr, F., Hurtado, K., Lancaster, C ., Market, C., and Tucker, P., (1999). Partnering in Construction: A Practical Guide to Project Success (1st ed.). Chicago: Forum on the Construction Industry American Bar Association. Conners, Susan M. Measuring the Perception of Professional Roles within the Construction Industry. Thesis & Dissertations. Gaines ville: University of Florida, 1998. Cooke, B., & Williams, P., (2004). Construction Planning, Programming & Control (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Fisk, E. R. (1978). Designer Evaluation of Contractor Comments on Specifications. ASCE Journal of the C onstruction Division 104(1), 77-83. Fruchte, Renate. (1999). A/E /C Teamwork: A Collaborative Design and Learning Space. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 13(4), 261-269. Galey, M., Pogrzeba, R., and Reinarman, P. ( 1996). Coleman Federal Correctional Complex: The Power of Partnering at Work. Corrections Today 58(2), 124-127. Gould, S. J. (1996). The Measure of Man (2nd ed.). New York: Norton & Company. Graziano, A.M. and Raulin, M.L. (1989). ResearchMethods: A process of Inquiry. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Halpin, D. W., and Woodhead, R. W. (1980). Construction Management (1st ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

PAGE 77

77 Hammerschmidt, Mark A. The need to redefine the roles and responsibil ities of the Architect. Research Report. Gainesville: University of Florida, 2006. Jahren, C. T., & Dammeier, B. F. (1990). I nvestigation into Constr uction Disputes. Journal of Management in Engineering 6(1), 39-46. Kasimer, J. H. (2003). Winning is not about coming out on top. Construction Specifier, 56(5), 12-14. Kavanagh, T. C., Muller, F., & OBrien, J. J. (1978). Construction Manageme nt A Professional Approach (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Kubal, M. T. (1994). Engineered Quality in Construction (1st ed.). New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. Mulvey, D. L. (1997). Trends in project deliveryA Contractors Assessment. ASCE Construction Congress Proceedings, Managi ng Engineered Construction in Expanding Global Markets pp. 627-633. OBrien, W., Soibelman, L., & Elvin, G. (2003). Collaborative Design Process: An Activeand Reflective Learning Course in Multidisciplinary Collaboration. Journal of Construction Education, 8(2), 79-93. Occupational Outlook Handbook (2006-2007). U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. Oey, M. (2007). What Engineers and Constructors have in Common. The Construction Zone 7(2). Ostle, B. & Malone, L. C. (1988). Statistics in Research. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Pierce, W. J. (2002). Meeting of MindsArchitect, contractor and owner, the subtle process of communication. ASTM Special Technical Publication (1422), 3-9. Ruby, D. I. (2006). Quality assurance for e ngineers: Are we where we should be? Modern Steel Construction, 46(5), 37-38. Schrag, R. (2004). Working at Working Together Acoustical consulting in todays collaborative design and construction environment. Sound and Video Contractor 22(13), 44-51. Sobo, W., and Zahn, J. K. (2004). Architect s and owner contractor claims. Construction Specifier, 57(11), 18-19. Stein, S. G. M., & Hiss, R. (2003). Here comes the judge Duties and responsibilities of design professionals when deciding disputes. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 129(3), 177-183. Torone, B. (1998). Winning ADR battles. Journal of Management in Engineering 14(5), 32-34.

PAGE 78

78

PAGE 79

79 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Charlotte Joy Devier was born in 1982 in Ho llywood, Florida. Growing up, she preferred playing sports and being outside as opposed to dolls. She also enjoyed coloring. She attended private school all the way through high school. Be fore attending the Rinker School of Building Construction, Charlotte earned a bachelors degree in interior design from the University of Florida. At the completion of this degree, sh e felt it necessary to further her education and strengthen her knowledge of cons truction and construction manageme nt. As a result, she applied to the University of Floridas Building Cons truction program where she has been working toward a Master of Science in Building Construction degree.