collaborative planning of aec projects and partnerships

10
Collaborative planning of AEC projects and partnerships Hans Verheij, Godfried Augenbroe * College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology, 245 4th Str, Atlanta, GA 30332-0155, USA Abstract This paper discusses the development of novel methods and a platform for the support of project planning processes in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC). Through the new approach it will be possible to systematically generate comprehensive project plans by cultivating and enacting the logic and intelligence of incremental and collaborative planning strategies. The underlying methodology treats project planning as the execution of a series of structured dialogues between prospective project partners. In the paper, the selection and preparation of a Design – Build partnership is used as an example implementation. It discusses the methodology and shows how workflow definition and enactment can be realized through the prototype platform developed in the European e-HUBs research project. The paper focuses on the first stage of the research and discusses future evaluation by domain experts to validate the approach. D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V. Keywords: Construction industry partnership; Contract negotiation; Internet; Collaborative workflow modeling; Project planning management; Process mediation; Design – Build delivery method; Structured dialogue 1. Introduction Recent advances in Internet collaboration offer compa- nies in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction industry the opportunity to break out of their traditional geographical limitations [1]. Yet, the possibility to form agile remote partnerships that collaboratively plan the design and construction process via the Internet is still in its infancy. Some of the reasons for slow adoption of collaboration technologies in the industry are difficulties in applying quality control, establishing trust [2], and estab- lishing mutually agreed upon project planning procedures between potential partners [3]. Moreover, traditional con- tracting processes do not reflect the ever more complex, remote and dispersed nature of business partnerships. More than in Ftraditional_ affiliations, these new forms of partnerships require clear work statements to make collaborations transparent and more likely to succeed. Increased transparency can for instance be achieved through tools that enable collaborative definition of work- flows that prepare for dynamic changes and define contingency plans. This paper makes a contribution to the evolving repertory of Web-enabled B2B partnering services that increase the readiness of AEC firms to engage in e-partnering. The focus is on the support of remote partnering processes in the industry, enabled by the introduction of a Project Planning Process Model (PPPM) which can be regarded as an expression of the logic rules and discourse items that govern Fprocess mediation_ between negotiating parties. Effective process mediation requires parties to engage in an active dialogue that results in an explicit model of planned work, responsibilities, transparent disclosure of risk factors, incentives, contractual obligations etc. The PPPM defines the methodical planning steps of projects by expressing the coordination logic of a collaborative discussion on joint work and resolution of planning items which is consequently enforced in a structured dialogue. The resulting project plan will consist of a rich collection of filled-out dialogue templates that constitute a comprehensive ‘‘project plan’’ which then drives operational project execution. The paper focuses on the example of Design – Build partnering scenarios. The Design–Build PPPM handles part of the initiation and 0926-5805/$ - see front matter D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2005.06.011 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 894 1686; fax: +1 404 894 1629. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Verheij), [email protected] (G. Augenbroe). Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 428 – 437 www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Upload: hans-verheij

Post on 26-Jun-2016

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • EC

    dfr

    hnolo

    platfo

    will

    and c

    s be

    plem

    tform

    ation

    applying quality control, establishing trust [2], and estab-

    Increased transparency can for instance be achieved

    through tools that enable collaborative definition of work-

    Effective process mediation requires parties to engage in an

    structured dialogue. The resulting project plan will consist

    of a rich collection of filled-out dialogue templates that

    constitute a comprehensive project plan which then

    e paper focuses on

    Automation in Construction 15 (lishing mutually agreed upon project planning procedures

    between potential partners [3]. Moreover, traditional con-

    tracting processes do not reflect the ever more complex,

    remote and dispersed nature of business partnerships. More

    than in Ftraditional_ affiliations, these new forms ofpartnerships require clear work statements to make

    collaborations transparent and more likely to succeed.

    active dialogue that results in an explicit model of planned

    work, responsibilities, transparent disclosure of risk factors,

    incentives, contractual obligations etc.

    The PPPM defines the methodical planning steps of

    projects by expressing the coordination logic of a

    collaborative discussion on joint work and resolution of

    planning items which is consequently enforced in a1. Introduction

    Recent advances in Internet collaboration offer compa-

    nies in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction

    industry the opportunity to break out of their traditional

    geographical limitations [1]. Yet, the possibility to form

    agile remote partnerships that collaboratively plan the

    design and construction process via the Internet is still in

    its infancy. Some of the reasons for slow adoption of

    collaboration technologies in the industry are difficulties in

    flows that prepare for dynamic changes and define

    contingency plans.

    This paper makes a contribution to the evolving repertory

    of Web-enabled B2B partnering services that increase the

    readiness of AEC firms to engage in e-partnering. The focus

    is on the support of remote partnering processes in the

    industry, enabled by the introduction of a Project Planning

    Process Model (PPPM) which can be regarded as an

    expression of the logic rules and discourse items that

    govern Fprocess mediation_ between negotiating parties.D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V.

    Keywords: Construction industry partnership; Contract negotiation; Internet; Collaborative workflow modeling; Project planning management; Process

    mediation; DesignBuild delivery method; Structured dialogueCollaborative planning of A

    Hans Verheij, Go

    College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Tec

    Abstract

    This paper discusses the development of novel methods and a

    Engineering and Construction (AEC). Through the new approach it

    by cultivating and enacting the logic and intelligence of incremental

    project planning as the execution of a series of structured dialogue

    preparation of a DesignBuild partnership is used as an example im

    definition and enactment can be realized through the prototype pla

    focuses on the first stage of the research and discusses future evalu0926-5805/$ - see front matter D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V.

    doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2005.06.011

    * Correspondi

    E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Verheij),

    [email protected] (G. Augenbroe).projects and partnerships

    ied Augenbroe *

    gy, 245 4th Str, Atlanta, GA 30332-0155, USA

    rm for the support of project planning processes in Architecture,

    be possible to systematically generate comprehensive project plans

    ollaborative planning strategies. The underlying methodology treats

    tween prospective project partners. In the paper, the selection and

    entation. It discusses the methodology and shows how workflow

    developed in the European e-HUBs research project. The paper

    by domain experts to validate the approach.

    2006) 428 437

    www.elsevier.com/locate/autcondrives operational project execution. Thng author. Tel.: +1 404 894 1686; fax: +1 404 894 1629.the example of DesignBuild partnering scenarios. The

    DesignBuild PPPM handles part of the initiation and

  • on a daily basis. On the other hand, smaller architectural and

    engineering companies, start-ups or sector-inexperienced

    tion incontractors (e.g. in specialized fields like hospital or school

    buildings) might be less well-informed, and therefore

    handicapped, in negotiations with large institutional owners.

    Many clients and providers of AEC services are not able to

    recognize contract provisions or omissions that could

    potentially have a negative or even harmful impact to them

    e.g. by an unbalanced allocation of risks or unreasonable

    performance requirements. Mediation by a brokering agent

    human or software can alleviate the inherent

    information asymmetries between negotiating parties byplanning phase of construction projects, as defined by the

    Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) put

    forward by the US-based Project Management Institute.

    Execution of the PPPM is supported by any workflow

    enactment engine as long as it is compatible with the

    syntax of the eXtensible Process Definition Language

    (XPDL) developed for Internet applications by the Work-

    flow Management Coalition [4].

    The following sections will explain the approach,

    evaluate the example case and discuss future steps.

    2. Research justification

    2.1. The need for better project planning

    Few professionals in the design and construction

    industry dispute that better project planning leads to better

    project deliverables in terms of time, cost and quality. An

    enhanced preparation ahead of time can reduce the amount

    of change orders, misunderstandings, litigation and delays

    later on during project execution. Current project planning

    suffers from a lack of methodical support, especially when

    multiple stakeholders are involved and the collaborative

    nature of project planning needs to be stressed. The lack

    of well established practices for collaborative project

    planning may be a major road block for the introduction

    of integrated project delivery methods with up-front

    alliance formation and risk sharing [5]. Research on

    human-mediated project planning methods has focused

    on meeting management styles, but has not touched upon

    a rigorous and transparent basis for the mediation. The

    aim of our research is to provide such a basis and supply

    it to project planning teams with or without the help of a

    human mediator.

    2.2. Mediated project planning

    Since architectural design or construction is not the core

    business of many owners, they are likely to be less

    knowledgeable and experienced than their professional

    counterparts in AEC firms who deal with contractual issues

    H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automabringing in expert knowledge to either party, gained from

    many similar project negotiations in the past.Furthermore, facilitation of the partnering process (either

    by a collaborative computer system or human agent) is

    necessary to ensure speedy execution of the negotiation

    process and resulting intermediary agreements, e.g. by

    tracking changes, showing deviations from standard con-

    tracts, recording an audit trail of planning decisions, or

    locking documents to avoid modification after contract

    closure.

    Managing the project preparation through a meta-

    process that suggests the relevant dialogue steps at each

    stage, and enforces planning activities and resolution

    events, will make for a shared planning burden between

    project partners and for a clear, optimized allocation of

    planning tasks to the proper, most proficient resource in the

    organization of the partners. The meta-process will

    guarantee both the timeliness of invoking planning events

    and the comprehensiveness of the planning outcome, by

    reducing the risk of errors and omissions. It will avoid an

    ad hoc approach to every contract definition, and instead

    foster knowledge retention in recurring partnering pro-

    cesses [6]. Joint project planning through a mediated

    process will increase transparency and mutual understand-

    ing of project expectations.

    2.3. Web-hosted project planning

    The multilateral and remote nature that characterizes

    many partnerships in current construction projects, calls

    for a suitable partnering medium tailored to those

    circumstances. Reaching a detailed agreement is the result

    of an iterative selection and negotiation process that

    involves many participants who may well be dispersed in

    time and place for at least part of the project planning

    process. The Internet provides the suitable anywhere

    anytime connectivity for this situation. Web-facilitation

    holds the promise of greater efficiency (faster, cheaper,

    repeatable processes), better quality (richer, more com-

    plete project preparation), and improved knowledge

    preservation in the project planning and negotiation

    process, as evidenced by developments in fields such as

    e-Business Process Reengineering [7], and Web-facilitated

    negotiation.

    A wide range of project execution applications is

    available today, ranging from stand-alone software to

    Web-based products, from generic to AEC-specific, from

    academic to commercial, and from simple to highly

    complex tools. Stand-alone or Web-enabled applications

    may use the Internet to exchange data, but they require

    an initial installation of application-specific software on

    every work station that needs to run the tool. Web-based

    applications on the contrary only require an Internet

    connection and a Web-browser. The latter offers an

    appealing proposition since it reduces the costs of IT

    staff and maintenance by taking away from clients the

    Construction 15 (2006) 428437 429continuous burden of having to install software upgrades.

    Application Service Providers are software providers that

  • rate according to this business principle [8]. ASPs that

    er Web-hosted project spaces with collaboration and

    rmation sharing functions dedicated for the building

    ustry are called Project Web Sites, or construction

    ranets. Major players in this constantly evolving arena

    companies like Buzzsaw, eBuilder, Constructware,

    Citadon.

    Most of these applications focus mainly on the opera-

    al project management aspects during the execution

    se, such as project communication, document manage-

    nt and, in more advanced systems, accounting and

    erprise Resource Planning. They offer no intelligent

    to form partnerships and create the more mechanistic

    descriptions of the project to be executed, such as

    Project Management Body of Knowledge, PMBOK [10,11],

    which represents the knowledge of over thirty years of

    H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 428437extensive work breakdown structures and project sched-

    ules. Most of the knowledge behind the procedures is

    unscripted. The premise of explicit project planning

    support is that the procedures are made more explicit,

    thus increasing transparency, predictability and ultimately

    planning effectiveness [9].

    The figure positions project planning at the tactical

    Partner

    Partner

    Strategic PartneringObjectives

    Project Execution

    Project Plan

    Operational

    Tactical

    Strategic

    Project Planning

    Project Planning Meta Model (PPPM)support for project planning beyond the very basic

    document sharing and notification function. Offering

    intelligent project planning support requires the explicit

    introduction and management of project planning models

    which translate the strategic objectives of each of the

    partners in a set of tactical dialogues. The next section

    explains this in more detail.

    3. The tactical planning concept

    Currently project planning methods in AEC have no

    clear status in the overall initiation and execution of

    projects. It is the stage where clients and potential

    providers of services find a match between expectations

    and fulfillment. This stage is dominated by the experienced

    dinosaurs in the industry. There is little recognition of

    the fact that project planning is the tactical translation of

    the strategic objectives into project execution (Fig. 1).

    Current project planning procedures are not explicit.

    Experienced champion planners bring partners togetherope

    off

    info

    ind

    ext

    are

    and

    tion

    pha

    me

    Ent

    430Fig. 1. Strategic, tactical and operational project planning.project management experience spanning multiple indus-

    tries worldwide. At the highest level the PMBOK describes

    project management as consisting of initiation, planning,

    execution, and project closure, with a Fcontrolling_ loopgoing back from execution to planning. During project

    initiation the recognition of the need for a project and the

    commitment of the (permanent or temporary) organization

    to it are assured by defining a project charter, an initial

    scope statement, project managers, stakeholders and the

    team composition, while assessing constraints and assump-

    tions in the cultural context of the endeavor. After

    completing project initiation, the PMI suggests a more or

    less consecutive development of a series of core planning

    processes although recognizing the iterative nature of

    project planning in parallel with a series of optional

    facilitating processes (Fig. 2). The latter are applied as

    deemed necessary based on the characteristics of the

    particular project at hand. Core planning processes are for

    example activity definition and schedule development,

    whereas facilitating processes could be risk identification

    and procurement planning. The various planning sub-

    processes should result in a consistent and coherent overallmiddle layer between strategic partnering objectives and

    actual project execution. Strategic objectives are expressed

    as the business rules that govern how an enterprise wants to

    engage in a partnering dialogue. The rules are typically the

    result of strategic management decisions. They paint the

    broad brush strokes of the project planning meta model

    which is consequently refined to show all the tactical

    negotiation steps and the dialogue templates that each step

    is linked to. The resulting PPPM governs the tactical project

    planning process, typically conducted by experienced

    project planners from all potential partners. The tactical

    process leads to a project plan which should be complete

    enough to guarantee the successful management of the actual

    project execution, conducted by designers, engineers and

    project managers from both partners. It is important to note

    that the PPPM is not meant to impose a form of process

    tyranny on the project planners. Instead, participants may

    opt to start or abort any tactical process (represented in the

    PPPM) at any time, depending on the need to enter into

    improvisation or abort because of perceived lack of support

    from the system at a given instance. The next section details

    the generation of the PPPM.

    4. Methodology

    4.1. Project planning governed by a meta-process

    An elaborate but abstract series of project planning steps

    is proposed by the Project Management Institute in theirproject plan to guide execution and control.

  • tion inH. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automa4.2. Selection of a project window: planning of construction

    project delivery method

    A small project window (representing a sub-process out

    of the whole project planning process) was selected to test

    our approach. It is going to be fully implemented and

    evaluated by practitioners with the aim to test our

    hypothesis that a controlled, mediated planning process will

    result in better project planning. The selected sub-process

    focuses on the selection of the project delivery method,

    which is an important decision early on in the life of many

    construction projects. Although many variations exist, the

    main delivery methods are [12]:

    & DesignBidBuildseparate design and construction,with a fixed design before construction costs are

    known

    & Construction Managementa method to guarantee earinfusion of construction knowledge into the desi

    process

    & DesignBuildintegrated design and construction, tyically with an early fixed budget but a partly undefin

    design

    & Bridginga method to combine the fixed designDesignBidBuild with the early fixed price of Design

    Build.

    The main advantages of applying the DesignBu

    delivery method, are that it is generally faster, it produc

    an early fixed price for the owner, it optimizes t

    integration of design and construction knowledge (trad

    tionally dispersed across different disciplines and firm

    and it internalizes design and construction trade-offs a

    potential adversarial relations between architect and co

    tractor within the DesignBuild entity [5]. Disadvantag

    Fig. 2. PMBOK planning processes [10,11].ly

    gn

    p-

    ed

    of

    ild

    es

    he

    i-

    s),

    ndConstruction 15 (2006) 428437 431n-

    es

  • the other hand are the lesser influence by the owner on

    ign details, the quality that may be compromised over

    early fixed price, and the effect that later design

    nges become change orders (which increase the

    jects cost). In order to mitigate some of those

    advantages, the Bridging method was devised. Bridging

    orporates the strength of competitive bidding with

    ailed drawings instead of just performance requirements.

    ore or less fixed design is generated by the consultant/

    ners architect, thus reducing the owners exposure to

    r claims (change orders).

    Most participants in construction projects are more

    iliar with the traditional DesignBidBuild approach.

    y are therefore often hesitant to apply potentially more

    by predefined data templates [13] where items of concern,

    decisions, rationales, parameters, and documents are

    captured. These information items together with the

    predefined logic of the planning process guide the partners

    through the planning process, which is driven by a series

    of detailed workflows, such as the example shown in Fig.

    4. Every activity in a workflow points to one or more

    fields in a dialogue template. Each link between a

    workflow and a dialogue field can be qualified as

    providing read, write or read/write access. The process

    can define concurrent activities which may lead to different

    partners having read/write access to the same dialogue

    fields. This would represent a synchronous chat dia-

    logue. When all workflows have been completed, all

    dialogue templates will have been filled with information

    H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 428437innovative methods such as DesignBuild variations,

    although for certain projects these delivery approaches

    may offer significant advantages.

    The chosen window on the total project planning process

    provides a good case to test our hypothesis. All AEC

    projects go through a planning stage where the choice of

    delivery method is one of the most important tactical

    decisions that has to be made. Moreover, it is a tactical

    planning effort that involves a series of potential partners

    and consultants and it brings together different companies

    that have different strategic objectives. Modeling and

    enacting a structured dialogue for the selection of the

    delivery method is expected to make the decision making

    process more neutral, better informed, and in the best

    interest of the project. It enriches tactical decision making

    by objectively presenting the available options with the

    right background knowledge at the right time in the

    projects life cycle.

    4.3. Modeling a structured dialogue

    In order to achieve better collaborative project planning,

    a mediated partnering process is devised in which

    participants carry out predefined sets of ordered activities

    (Fig. 3). Each of those activities requires the production

    and sharing of certain information items. This is supportedon

    des

    the

    cha

    pro

    dis

    inc

    det

    A m

    ow

    late

    fam

    The

    432Fig. 3. Structured dialogue between actors with witems that together form a complete project plan. This plan

    is a project plan repository that contains the results of all

    dialogues. It thus contains information with respect to all

    relevant issues such as responsibilities, rewards, quality

    control, risks, roles, and so on. Filters can be defined to

    process the information in the planning data repository for

    downstream use (Fig. 3). These filters can for instance be

    set up to provide a detailed work plan for execution, but

    can also be set up to generate specific documents for the

    project execution as a whole, such as the projects financial

    data or task schedule.

    4.4. Process validation

    The structured dialogue for the selection of a suitable

    construction project delivery method is being validated in a

    3-tier research effort consisting of:

    & Evaluation by domain expertsto determine whether theprocess correctly reflects actual practices, whether it is

    complete enough within its domain to be useful, and

    whether it needs further calibrating or fine-tuning

    & Presentation to practitionersto survey the applicability,usefulness, and value of the system in generalorkflows operating on data templates with filters.

  • tion in Construction 15 (2006) 428437 433H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automa& Enactment of an actual planning processto measureusability issues and system limitations of the imple-

    mented prototype.

    Future publications will report on the outcome of the

    validation.

    5. Implementation in the e-HUBs platform

    5.1. e-HUBs platform

    The described Project Planning Process Model (PPPM) is

    implemented in a web-hosted collaboration environment

    that was developed recently as a prototype in the e-HUBs

    project (www.e-hubs.org). e-HUBs e-Engineering

    enabled by Holonomic and Universal Broker Services

    was conducted by a consortium consisting of several

    European and Latin-American universities and companies

    to establish a brokering medium for outsourcing mechanical

    and construction engineering services [14]. The project

    defined a so-called e-HUB, a Web-hosted broker site that

    offers services to project planners. An e-HUB will act as a

    wo-way collaboration and integration broker to establish

    engineering partnerships on a project-by-project bas

    matching demand and supply for specialized expertise, f

    example, to check building code compliance, or seism

    structural analysis.

    Existing virtual collaboration environments (VC

    primarily focus on operational collaboration suppo

    offering the basic services for information sharin

    community building, virtual meetings etc. e-HUBs a

    meant to act as an add-on to a VCE, offering its tactic

    partnering instruments on top of the basic collaborati

    platform. It is expected that diversified e-HUBs will st

    catering to specific industry sectors. The aim of o

    research is to validate the assumption that AEC-specific

    HUBs may offer a unique value to the constructi

    industry.

    Good reasons for project consortiums to go through

    AEC-specific e-HUB for partnering and tactical proje

    planning and outsourcing services will be:

    & The large number of dedicated services needed inconstruction project (where the fragmentation of t

    industry might have negative scale effects)

    Fig. 4. Partial process model for the DesignBuild delivery method in construction projects.e-

    is,

    or

    ic

    E)

    rt,

    g,

    re

    al

    on

    art

    ur

    e-

    on

    an

    ct

    a

    het -

  • ion in& The uncertainty and management overhead involvedin contracting services on a one-by-one basis (selec-

    tion, certification, pricing, contracting, monitoring,

    coordination)

    & The lack of available options for increasing competitive-ness and optimizing efficiency, cost and quality once

    engineering project consortium partners are bound to

    their pre-established contractual relations and provisions.

    It should be noted that the expected advantages for a

    particular firm might not be obvious within just one project,

    but rather during management of multiple projects with an

    increasing number of subcontractors.

    The mediated process in this paperselecting a con-

    struction delivery methodhas the potential to create long-

    term, domain-specific partnership, between building owners

    and AEC firms as contracting parties within the core of a

    project consortium. Such longer-term business relationships

    are in contrast with the collaboratively defined short term

    working agreements which are the main target for e-HUBs

    in the e-engineering outsourcing domain. It may be argued

    that the AEC industry, with its complex, interdependent

    interactions, have the most to gain from tactical planning

    support. The next sections will amplify this when explaining

    the developed PPPM.

    5.2. Workflow definition

    Workflow modeling is defined as the computerized

    facilitation or automation of a business process [4]. By

    applying workflow management, documents, information,

    or tasks are passed from one participant to another in a way

    that is governed by rules or procedures. Ideally, processes to

    guide project planning should be expressed in a common,

    standardized workflow modeling representation, so as to

    allow creation and execution in a broad variety of adhering

    software packages.

    The Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC), founded

    in August 1993, is a non-profit, international organization of

    workflow vendors, users, analysts and university/research

    groups. The Coalitions mission is to promote and develop

    the use of workflow through the establishment of standards

    for software terminology, interoperability and connectivity

    between workflow products. When developing a collabo-

    rative workflow model, taking the body of knowledge of the

    WfMC as a base is a rational starting point, since the WfMC

    represents one of the most comprehensive standardization

    efforts in the field of process modeling. A variety of

    different tools may be used to analyze, model, describe and

    document a business process. In order to provide a common

    method to access and describe workflow definitions, a

    workflow process definition meta-data model has been

    established. This meta-data model identifies commonly used

    entities and attributes within a process definition. Based on

    H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automat434this model, vendor-specific tools can transfer models via a

    common exchange format. It has a version specificallyaimed at Internet applications: XPDL (XML Process

    Definition Language) [4]. XPDL uses eXtensible Markup

    Language (XML, see: http://www.w3.org) schemas as the

    mechanism for process definition interchange. The XML

    language allows the workflow model to be expressed in

    computer-interpretable data entities, independent of any

    particular implementation mechanism such as programming

    language, modeling software, data transport mechanism or

    Operating System/hardware platform (WfMC 2002). In

    order to be XPDL-compliant, a vendor needs to enable

    both import and export of workflow definitions as a

    character stream into or from its internal representation.

    A dedicated JAWE-based Process Modeler (shareware) is

    integrated with the e-HUBs platform and generates XPDL-

    compliant workflows. The modeler retrieves workflow

    participants from a database of e-HUBs users who registered

    (and were authorized by the domain administrator) to be

    part of a particular construction planning project. Once a

    completed process model has been uploaded to the e-HUBs

    platform, the participants can log in and trigger the start of

    the designed series of activities according to the sequence

    and logic defined in the model.

    5.3. Implemented process model for DesignBuild/Bridging

    project delivery

    Fig. 4 shows a graphical representation of (part of) the

    workflow model that was developed within the e-HUBs

    modeler for the DesignBuild/Bridging delivery methods

    in construction projects. The horizontal swim-lanes repre-

    sent the possible roles that might be present in the project;

    in this case, the building owner organization, its consultant

    (owners architect), and the designbuild entity with an

    architect-of-record and a general contractor. Dark gray

    boxes represent planning activities, such as deciding

    whether to apply fast-tracking, selecting the contract

    format, etc. Arrows indicate temporal and other logical

    dependencies between activities.

    The process in Fig. 4 starts with an activity for the owner

    to decide whether to hire a consulting architect/criteria

    consultant, who may be engaged to perform (later) one or

    more of the following functions:

    & Support owners decisions (for example in selecting bidsfrom DesignBuilders),

    & Assist the owner in requirements engineering andsurveying the building needs of the owner organization,

    & Generate an initial preliminary design, laid down inbridging documents, and/or

    & Oversee the later work of the selected DesignBuildentity.

    When the owner organization indicates its consultancy

    needs, by submitting its selections to the system (Fig. 5),

    Construction 15 (2006) 428437subsequent activities will be launched accordingly, at the

    appropriate timing within the further process. For example,

  • tion inH. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automaif the owner opts to appoint a consultant for advisory

    support, the selected consultancy firm will receive a

    notification of its first task, Advising the Owner,

    available upon logging in to the e-HUBs platform. As next

    three activities, the owner organization needs to decide on:

    i) the desired ownership situation for the construction

    project; ii) whether to apply fast-tracking or not; and iii)

    whether to apply bridging or not. DesignBuild delivery

    allows for special ownership arrangements such as Build

    OwnOperate or BuildOperateTransfer, where the

    designbuilder provides financing and even facility man-

    agement to the owner (e.g. on public projects such as toll

    roads where a regular stream of revenues can be expected

    but where public funds are insufficient to finance initial

    construction). Of course the correct timing, sequence,

    completeness, and logic of delivery decisions like these

    are of critical importance to downstream activities, such as

    the later preparation of a Request For Qualifications and the

    resulting selection of qualified submitting designbuilders.

    The next task for the owner and if hired for this task

    owners consultant, is to specify performance requirements

    of the needed facility, such as square footages and overall

    ppearance, e.g. class A office building. In the case

    Bridging, the performance specifications are used

    produce and communicate design intent through bridgi

    documents. The gathered specifications are later included

    the Request for Proposal that will be issued to a (limit

    number of) qualified designbuild entities. Following

    structured (sub-)process for information gathering c

    ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of performan

    demands on the building. Before issuing a Request F

    Qualifications, the owner needs to select an appropria

    procurement method (low-bid, Quality-Based Selectio

    sole source, etc.), an appropriate contract type (lump-su

    cost-plus, Guaranteed Maximum Price) and an appropria

    contract format (e.g. standard contracts from the Americ

    Institute of Architects, the DesignBuild Institute

    America, Associated General Contractors, etc.). The syste

    offers decision support for each of these options by listi

    the available alternatives, and by providing task-speci

    resources, tools, and knowledge bases. It is important

    note that all steps in the planning process are linked to fiel

    in dialogue templates that are formalized by a conceptu

    data model. Each field can contain typed variables (re

    string, binary, enumerated, array). Moreover every field al

    Fig. 5. An activity and linked dialogue fields during workflow enactment.of

    to

    ng

    in

    ed

    a

    an

    ce

    or

    te

    n,

    m,

    te

    an

    of

    m

    ng

    fic

    to

    ds

    ala-

    Construction 15 (2006) 428437 435al,

    so

  • presentation parameters, which determine how the field

    presented as a form when the planning activities are

    cuted. The figures in the next section show some

    mples of the appearance of the dialogue fields during

    planning process.

    . Workflow enactment

    Once the above process model (XPDL file) is uploaded

    particular project in the e-HUBs platform (e.g. Atlanta

    h Museum of Art Expansion), activities will be

    nched according to the logic defined in the Process

    deler. Upon logging into the platform, the projects

    ticipants will not only have at their disposal all the

    ular features one might expect in a virtual collaboration

    ironmentsuch as document management, communica-

    , and calendaring toolsbut they will also see the

    ding activities on their desktop, ready for execution. In

    case of the process model from Fig. 4, owners would

    t see the activity Hire Consulting Architect/Criteria

    nsultant.

    When executing a particular activity, the performer will

    asked to provide relevant information items, whereas the

    tem provides the activity-specific (write or read-only)

    logue field to the user (Fig. 5). Each activity displays a

    ools and resources (Fig. 6). Upon submitting the requested

    data, the current performer will launch consecutive activities

    for him/herself or other project partners, which may be

    based on selected options in previous tasks.

    6. Future research

    The research is based on the premise that collaborative

    project planning is in need of a new support paradigm. The

    choice advocated in this paper is one of a managed dialogue

    where the logic of the dialogue process and the way the

    dialogue is driven by pre-ordered project items is defined in

    a meta-model of the project planning process. The current

    work delivers a first prototype based on this paradigm

    within a small but relevant project window on the total

    ownerarchitect project planning process. The outcome of

    the validation with practitioners will reveal whether the

    chosen paradigm has the promise to lead to more productive

    project planning. Future research will develop the metrics

    for this validation which has to deal with several dimensions

    of project planning effectiveness. Although project sched-

    ules describe activities and their dependencies for multiple

    actors, paradoxically they are often defined by a single

    project manager, analyst, supervisor or consultant, i.e. not

    H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 428437link to a dedicated Website with specific instructions on the

    task at hand, delivering required background information,

    an explanation of the relevant information items, the impact

    of selected options to be made, and references to relevant

    t -has

    is

    exe

    exa

    the

    5.4

    to a

    Hig

    lau

    Mo

    par

    reg

    env

    tion

    pen

    the

    firs

    Co

    be

    sys

    dia

    436Fig. 6. Corporate planning Websitcollaboratively planned. Enabling joint planning of the

    project allows organizations to tap into their collective

    knowledge, to actively engage the process participants

    ahead of time, and to mitigate the problem of unilaterallye with task-specific instructions.

  • will need extensive research of the fields of dialogue

    analysis and dialogue interaction methods to align the work

    struction Information 2 (2002) 115.

    [7] O.A. El Sawy, Redesigning Enterprise Processes for e-Business,

    2000.

    [12] C. Hendrickson, Project Management for Construction: Fundamental

    tion in Construction 15 (2006) 428437 437in those areas with the future design of the templates. In

    doing so, it should be noted that the face-to-face meeting

    and telephone are the main communication channels of the

    project planner, and any additional way of communication

    should augment rather than replace these channels. Our

    work acknowledges the vital role of face-to-face and phone

    conversations and supports the multi-channel interaction

    that will always occur in practice. For this reason,

    synchronous communication is enabled at any moment in

    the enacted workflows, in some cases specifically enforced

    by their logic. The result of these conversations leads to

    the mostly serialized entries in the communication tem-

    plates. The latter raises important questions with respect to

    registration discipline and personal manager styles. It is

    also recognized that any (even moderate) serialization of

    the communication leads to a degeneration of the way

    that people engage in interaction. It is a topic of future

    research to find out how this degeneration affects the

    efficiency and user acceptance of the project planning

    process.

    7. Conclusion

    This paper proposed the enactment of a Project Planning

    Process Model to guide prospective AEC partners through a

    comprehensive preparation of their project plan. This is

    accomplished by codifying tactical project planning logic

    and adopting a structured dialogue paradigm. Structuring

    the dialogue is meant to make the planning process more

    intelligent, faster, and easier to control, while reducing risks.

    A Web-based, mediated process platform is used to enable

    control and oversight of planning activities, and to enforce

    the timeliness and completeness of planning deliverables.

    Workflows are modeled in the neutral process definition

    language XPDL, to be able to run them in any workflow

    enactment engine compliant with the standards of thedesigned and thus potentially misrepresented work

    plans, with underestimated resources, end-user resistance,

    bias towards the business interests of the modeler, and so

    on. Collaborative work planning of AEC projects can lead

    to more comprehensive, mutually understood agreements, a

    better process of reaching such agreement, and consequently

    a better implementation of agreements. Research that

    develops adequate process metrics to verify these expect-

    ations must be conducted.

    In the current stage of the work the design of the dialogue

    templates is mainly driven by the creative thought

    processes of the PPPM designer, driven by a sound

    understanding of the roles and activities involved in the

    planning process at hand. It is obvious that this approach is

    not sustainable for the design of future large scale PPPMs. ItWorkflow Management Coalition. An initial prototype isConcepts for Owners, Engineers, Architects and Builders

    (http://www.ce.cmu.edu/pmbook/), 2000.

    [13] R. Watson, S.R. Lockley, S. Shaaban, Creating usable models for re-

    usable data managing electronic project specification information,

    Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 9 (3) (2002)

    272283.

    [14] G. Augenbroe, e-HUBs: e-Engineering enabled by Holonomic and

    Universal Broker Services, Proc. e-Challenges, Vienna, 2004, IOS

    Press, Amsterdam, 2004, pp. 1530.Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2001.

    [8] S.R. Lockley, R. Watson, S. Shaaban, Managing e-commerce in

    constructionrevolution or e-business as usual?, Engineering Con-

    struction and Architectural Management 9 (3) (2002) 232240.

    [9] V. Allee, The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational

    Intelligence, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA, 1997.

    [10] PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,

    Edition v 1.3, Project Management Institute, Philadelphia, PA, 2000.

    [11] PMI, Construction Extension to a Guide to the Project Management

    Body of Knowledge, Project Management Institute, Philadelphia, PA,implemented focusing on the selection and preparation of

    the DesignBuild delivery method in construction projects.

    Early observations indicate that the selected planning

    process provides sufficient detail to provide meaningful

    support to practitioners who want to plan DesignBuild

    partnerships. More extensive testing and surveying will

    follow in order to validate the approach.

    Acknowledgements

    Thanks to Jeff Beard, past President of the DesignBuild

    Institute of America, for providing feedback on the accuracy

    of the process described in this paper. Thanks also to Arol

    Wolford, past President of the Construction Market Data

    Group, for his generous long-time support of the AEC

    research at Georgia Tech.

    References

    [1] R. Johnson, M. Clayton, G. Xia, JH. Woo, Y. Song, The strategic

    implications of e-commerce for the design and construction industry,

    Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 9 (3) (2002)

    241248.

    [2] R. Zaghloul, F. Hartman, Construction contracts: the cost of mistrust,

    International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 419424.

    [3] S.A. Austin, A.N. Baldwin, J.L. Steele, Improving building design

    through integrated planning and control, Engineering Construction

    and Architectural Management 9 (3) (2002) 249258.

    [4] WfMC, Workflow Process Definition InterfaceXML Process Def-

    inition Language (WFMC-TC-1025), 2002 (Lighthouse Point, FL)

    (accessed from http://wfmc.org/standards/docs.htm).

    [5] J. Beard, M.C. Loulakis, E.C Wundram, DesignBuildPlanning

    Through Development, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2001.

    [6] J.M. Kamara, G. Augenbroe, C.J. Anumba, P.M. Carillo, Knowledge

    management in the A/E/C industry, International Journal of Con-H. Verheij, G. Augenbroe / Automa

    Collaborative planning of AEC projects and partnershipsIntroductionResearch justificationThe need for better project planningMediated project planningWeb-hosted project planning

    The tactical planning conceptMethodologyProject planning governed by a meta-processSelection of a project window: planning of construction project delivery methodModeling a structured dialogueProcess validation

    Implementation in the e-HUBs platforme-HUBs platformWorkflow definitionImplemented process model for Design-Build/Bridging project deliveryWorkflow enactment

    Future researchConclusionAcknowledgementsReferences