ECAM 19.5

Mobile Application Prototype for On-Site Information Management in Construction Industry

Mehdi Nourbakhsh, Rosli Mohamad Zin, Javier Irizarry, Samaneh Zolfagharian and Masoud Gheisari

Critical Strategies for Chinese Architectural, Engineering and Construction Firms to Achieve Profitability

Shan Li and Florence Y.Y. Ling

Exploring Lean Construction Practice, Research, and Education

Thaís da C. L. Alves, Colin Milberg and Kenneth D. Walsh

Development of a Comprehensive Model for Construction Project Success Evaluation by Contractors

Gholamreza Heravi and Mohammad Ilbeigi

Analysis of factors critical to construction project success in Malaysia

Yee Cheong Yong and Nur Emma Mustaffa

Managing resources in disaster recovery projects

Yan Chang, Suzanne Wilkinson, Regan Potangaroa and Erica Seville

ECAM 19.5 has six papers produced by 18 authors from 5 countries and interestingly not one from the UK or Europe. There are six authors from Malaysia, four from the USA, four from New Zealand two from Iran and two from Singapore. The reason for this large number of authors is that all six papers are multi-authored. One paper has five authors, one paper has four authors, one paper has three authors and three papers have two authors. The five authored paper has authors from two institutions, one in Malaysia and one in the USA. The four authored paper has authors from three academic institutions all in New Zealand. The three authored paper has authors from a University and one from industry all in the USA. I’m particularly keen on industry/academic joint papers, its hard evidence that the work is aimed at a practical impact. These multi-institution, multi-country papers present the evidence of collaboration that is now established in our research community.

The topics in this edition are rich and varied. Two deal with the factors that can be used to measure project performance. One is in Iran and one in Malaysia. This seems to me to be an opportunity for some collaboration. The other papers deal with the practical topic of on-site mobile communications, the characteristics for success in Chinese architecture and engineering practices, lean construction and an interesting paper on managing resources in disaster recovery.

The papers in this issue are:

Nourbakhsh, Zin, Irizarry, Zolfagharian and Gheisari explore mobile applications for on-site communication. The researchers collected the specification data for a mobile communication application and used this to build a prototype which they tested in the laboratory. I like this paper which goes beyond theoretical results and produces a physical prototype. The next step must be to get a functional mobile application onto a real site and tested.

Li and Ling examine strategies for Chinese architectural firms to achieve profitability. Targeted on mainland China architectural and engineering firms the data collection was postal questionnaires and face to face interviews. The sample firms were drawn from the China Construction Industry Association’s database. The evidence is that the profitable companies have made an effort to differentiate themselves and have been skilled in using collaborative networks. I suppose the value of this study is the understanding of the commercial evolution of a construction industry. I’m not convinced that the military tactic of Sun Tze’s Art of War is appropriate. I don’t think that it’s the aim of most commercial businesses to kill their rivals.

Alves, Milberg and Walsh return us to exploring lean construction, in particular their intertest is to explore the dissemination and use of lean construction and the challenges for further use.The data sources are meetings with practitioners, literature and published case studies. The challenges the researchers identify are the variations in the meaning of ‘lean’, the constant adaptation of the concepts and tools and finally without a sustained effort lean construction may be seen as a fad. The way ahead is seen as partnering with practioners. This is mainly a discussion paper giving the authors a platform to set out issues as they see them. Its difficult to see how to turn this into practical progress.

Heravi and Ilbeigi present a model for evaluating construction project success by contractors. The two components of success are the effectiveness of the final product and the success of project management focussing on the project processes. The methodology adopted five steps identifying critical indices, quantifying the performance of the indices, normalizing the indices, integrating of the indices to create an overall project performance and applying the model to real projects in Iran.

The authors claim that the model can be used as a reliable tool to identify strengths and weaknesses in projects. This is based on a case study conducted on a real project. The true worth of this model will be evidence of its use in guiding contractors’ decisions and management. A future paper on this would be welcomed.

Yong and Mustaffa analyse factors critical to construction project success in Malaysia. Based on literature the researchers identified 37 factors which they consolidated into seven categories to describe the success of projects. These were used as the basis of a questionnaire sent to clients, consultants and contractors. From this 15 factors were agreed to be critical to the success of projects. These factors are seen as a means of developing relationship-based procurement in Malaysia. The critical test for these factors is will it be used by the industry to guide the development of relationship-based contracts.

Chang, Wilkinson, Potangaroa and Seville explore the interesting and very challenging topic of managing resources in disaster recovery projects. Using a case study approach the researchers had field trips to Indonesia, China and Australia. They constructed comparative case studies and triangulated the data. From this they identified the critical factors that affected resource availability. The case studies exposed cultural elements, the socio-economic environment and politics as influences on the resourcing problems. Nevertheless the competence of the construction professionals and the government’s response were the key common determinants to managing resources in disaster recovery. I found this paper interesting and valuable. I have in the past had some exposure to drafting recovery plans for a major nationalised construction company, but these plans constructed in the calmness of a office without a real disaster before the planners were optimistic. This paper will be very helpful to future disaster recovery planners.

Ronald McCaffer

www.mccaffer.com