How Briefing in Construction Project Management is Implemented Through
the Positioning of 5 Critical Success Factors (CSFs): the Example of Greece
Georgia Chatzi
Subject Area: MBA
Supervisor : Dr. Colin Price
Submitted : 31 September 2012
Dissertation submitted to the University of Leicester in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the
degree of Master of Business Administration
Table of contents
Acknowledgements……………………………………...………….………………………….………….5
Executive summary……………………………………………………………………..…………………6
Key to abbreviations…………………………………………………………….………………………...7
1.Introduction………………………………………..……………………...………….…………………8
1.1.Topic area……………………………..……………..……………….………………….…….8
1.2. Subject interest……………………..…...…………….….……………………….………….9
1.3. Aims and research questions……………………..………..…....….………………………..9
1.4. Chapter’s contents…………………………….……………………….…………………….9
2.Literature review……………………………..……………………………...……………..………….10
2.1. Introduction……………………………..………………..………………………………….10
2.2. Briefing……………………………..………….…………….…………………....…………10
2.2.1. The emergence of briefing………………………..……………..……..………….10
2.2.2. Definitions………………………...………………………………………..………10
2.2.3. Static briefing ………………………………………….……..……………….…..12
2.2.4. Dynamic briefing …………………………………….………..………..…………12
2.2.5. Strategic briefing …………………………………..……………..….……………12
2.2.6. Project briefing ………………………………………..……………………..……13
2.3. The CSFs…………………………………………………………………………..…..……..13
2.4. The CSFs to be investigated……………………………..………………….………………15
2.4.1. Communication among participants ……….……………………………………15
2.4.2. Clear objectives ……………………………..…………………………………….16
2.4.3. Clarity of roles …..…………………………..………………………..…………...16
2.4.4. Information sharing……………………………..………...………………….…...17
2.4.5. Design efficiency.……………………………..……………………………..……..18
2.5. Conclusions of literature review……………………………..……………….…………….19
3. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..………...…..21
3.1. Introduction………………………………………………..…………………...…...……….21
3.2. Secondary research………………………………………………………..…………..…….21
3.3. Research questions…………………………………..…………………………………..…..22
3.4. Primary research. ……………………………………………………………………....…..22
3.4.1. Data collection techniques……………………………………………...…………22
3.4.2. Sample selection………………………………………………………...…………22
3.4.3. Sample composition ……………………………………………...……………….23
2
3.4.4. Questionnaire administration…………………………………….………...…….24
3.4.5. Questionnaire design……………………………………………...………………24
3.4.6. Questionnaire pre-test………………………………..……………...……………24
3.4.7. Description of the questionnaire ………………….…..………………………….24
3.4.8. Interview …………………………………………..……………...……………….25
3.5. Data analysis…………………….…………………………..……………...……………….25
3.6. Reliability and validity…………………….…………………………..…………...……….26
3.7. Limitations …………………….…………………………..……………..………...….…….26
3.8. Ethical questions …………………….…………………………..……………..…………...27
4. Data analysis and results…………………….………….………………..……………………..…….28
4.1. Introduction………………………………………..……………………...………...……….28
4.2. Data analysis and results……………………………………………………………………28
4.2.1.What is construction project briefing……………………………….……………28
4.2.2. How construction companies conceive briefing in Greece………………...……31
4.2.3. How the CSFs are formulated in construction briefing in Greece………….….34
4.2.4. How the criteria are met within the construction management companies…...37
5. Conclusions and recommendations ….…………………………..……………..………...………….42
5.1. Introduction….…………………………………………..……………..………...………….42
5.2. Conclusions ….…………………………………………..……………..………...………….42
5.2.1. 1st Research question….…………………………………………..………………42
5.2.2. 2nd Research question….…………………………………………..……………...42
5.2.3. 3rd Research question….…………………………………………..………………43
5.2.4. 4th Research question….…………………………………………..………….…..44
5.3. Recommendations….…………………..………………….…………………..…………….45
5.3.1. 1st Research question …….………………………..………….…………………..45
5.3.2. 2nd Research question ……………………………..………….…………………..45
5.3.3. 3rd Research question ……….……………………..………….…………………..45
5.3.4. 4th Research question………..……………………..………….…………………..46
6. Reflections ……………………………..………………………………….……….…………………..47
REFERENCES.…………………………………..…………...…………..………….…………………..48
APPENDICES.…………………………………..…………...…………...………….…………………..54
Appendix A
Table A. Kruskal –Wallis PM-CMs’, architects’, design teams’ views on the formulation of
briefing in Greece.…………………………………..…………...………….……………………..……..54
Appendix B
Table B. Kruskal –Wallis PM-CMs’, architects’, design teams’ views on the improvement
3
sought in the CSFs.…………………………………..………………...………………...………..……..54
Appendix C
Proposal.………………...…………………………..…………...………….……………………..……..55
List of tables
Table 1. Juxtaposition of briefing success factors and project success factors………………………14
Table 2. Relevance of static and dynamic regarding the whole sample..…………………………..…28
Table 3. Relevance of static and dynamic according to business activity.….………………………...29
Table 4. Kruskal –Wallis on how construction companies conceive briefing…..……………………32
List of diagrams
Diagram 1. Importance of factors on how construction companies conceive briefing..……………..32
Diagram 2. Importance of factors on how the 5 CSFs are formulated in construction briefing..…..35
Diagram 3. The mean values of the 5 CSFs as emerging from the recent
implementation of briefing……………………………………………...………………………………35
Diagram 4. The mean values of the 5 CSFs on how the latter are met……………….………………38
Diagram 5. The mean values of the 5 CSFs requiring improvement……...……………….…………38
List of pies
Pie 1. Division of sample according to professions……………………………………………......……23
4
Acknowledgements
Although the journey towards the completion of the present dissertation was a lonely one, I would
never have managed to reach my destination without the guidance, help and encouragement of some
people.
I would like to thank Dr. Colin Price for his tireless feedback and guidance throughout the
dissertation and Mr. Mark Burridge whose help has been invaluable, as he showed me the way to embark
on such a difficult path and broadened my thinking in this field.
I would also like to thank all those people who participated in this research in good faith and
offered me insightful comments on their work in the construction industry in Greece.
Finally, I owe a lot to my family and my closest friends for their continuous and unabated
encouragement especially during the most difficult phases of this attempt.
5
Executive summary
The current essay attempts to cast some light in the perceptions of Greek construction companies
concerning the nature, the definition, the implementation of briefing through the five critical success
factors (CSFs) of ‘clear communication’, ‘clear objectives’, ‘clarity of roles’, ‘information sharing’,
‘design efficiency’ and as well as how those criteria are met.
The research was carried out through a triangulation of methods for the collection and analysis of
data, such as questionnaires, interviews, the SPSS program for statistics analysis in combination with a
wide reading through the existing literature on briefing. The research revealed that the three main
employment categories constituting construction companies, namely the PM-CMs (Project ManagersConstruction Managers), architects and design team members, defined briefing as a dynamic process that
is subject to changes that requires clear objectives and some degree of standardization when it comes to
the setting of goals , distribution of tasks, cost and time restrictions. The most appropriate professional for
the design of briefing was considered firstly the PM, and secondly the architect. While some mention was
made to its ‘static’ nature, not sufficient clarifications were given as to the tasks and stages in briefing
where standardization would be needed.
Participants to the research described it as a process beginning with the recognition of the clients’
and all stakeholders’ needs and the sharing of this information as to maximize communication efficiency
and information sharing.
Concerning how briefing is implemented in Greece participants mentioned that clear objectives
are set for all stakeholders, information is communicated in group meetings and that the work is done
with teams they have already worked before. Defining roles according to the size of the project and
attempting some familiarization of the client with basic principle of design and construction were
practices frequently used.
The participants mentioned the need for more cooperation and the implementation of new
technologies that would enable some further ‘standardisation’ of briefing. Stability in economy, politics,
and legislation regarding construction was also sought.
The questions raised concerning the findings have to do with 1) which comprise the most
standardized elements of briefing, 2) how familiarization of clients with the principles of design would be
made, by ‘whom’ and how it would ensure better communication 3) what the strengths and weaknesses of
using new software systems for briefing in Greece are from all stakeholders’ point of view.
6
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
CSF
Critical Success Factors
BIM
Building Information Modelling
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
PM
Project Manager
CM
Construction Manager
KPI
Key Performance Indicator
CAD Computer Aided Design
TEI
Technological Educational Institute
7
1. Introduction
1.1.Topic area
Briefing in construction project management emerged from the need for client involvement,
whose participation would help to limit changes possibly requested by the client had he not been involved
in the project (Ryd, 2004). Out of the need to avoid changes which would affect time, cost and quality
construction professionals soon realised its importance. Gradually, clients themselves became more
demanding and wanted to be involved as they became more aware of their needs (Blyth, 2008).
In order to better understand briefing a research was carried out around the definitions which vary
from researcher to researcher. It is interesting though that briefing is mainly characterized in the literature
as static and dynamic. Static is when it is approached as a specific phase of the project which has a
beginning and an end and what is agreed upon takes place without any alterations in the process
(Ormerod and Newton, 2005; Othman, Hassan, Pasquire, 2004). On the other hand, dynamic briefing is a
process that is subject to changes, following the changing needs and requirements of the participants and
clients (Ormerod and Newton, 2005).
This study aims to understand how professionals conceive briefing, whether they think it is a static
or a dynamic process and how they understand and implement it. Given the wide range of the subject, in
this essay, briefing will be studied in relation to five critical success factors as to investigate how they are
formulated and met and thus elaborate on the ways briefing is practised.
Related work in construction project management has given rise to many success factors. The
interesting point is that many times project success factors are the same with briefing success factors and
this was seen in the literature. Such similarity underlines the level of importance of briefing for the whole
project.
The factors that were selected for this study are communication among participants, clear
objectives, clarity of roles, information sharing and design efficiency. The group of factors was selected
because of their frequent reference in academic journals after eliminating the most usually studied ones as
those of cost, time and quality (Chan, Scott, Chan, 2004). Communication is a major factor that leads to
briefing success as briefing is a means of communication (Bogers, van Meel, van der Voordt, 2008). The
clear objectives deals with how well targets and intentions are defined and then expressed to all
participants (Blyth and Worthington, 2000; Yu, Shen, Kelly, Hunter, 2006). The clarity of roles focuses
on the clear delegation of tasks to be undertaken as to avoid misunderstandings concerning who decides
for each decision (Blyth, 2008; Yu et al., 2006). The information sharing for the briefing success relates
to the well established communication means and the amount of information available to all stakeholders.
The design efficiency regards the ways briefing can achieve quality, save time and money (Yu et al.,
2006; Yin, Qin, Holland, 2011). Many virtual design programs and platforms help to that like BIM.
8
1.2. Subject interest
The specific subject concerns a challenging issue which connects many professions and analyzes
the complexity of factors that contribute to the briefing success. In addition, it is an evolving subject in
the industry. What is more, briefing would add to analyzing in steps all tasks that need to be done and
delegating responsibilities in a more formal way than it usually happens. Therefore, it would limit
complexities and would contribute to making professionals feel they should become better, more efficient
and improve briefing practices. In addition, it is very interesting to see how professionals think and react
to formulating briefing. Finally, evolution in the processes is a sought-after objective as one should accept
the challenges and be one step ahead of them.
1.3. Aims and research questions
This dissertation aims to understand how briefing in the construction project management is
implemented through the five critical success factors. The companies are under the microscope with the
view to drawing up a real picture of how they view briefing, how they formulate it and if these critical
success factors are met. We need to see if the critical success factors reveal other needs and factors and
how these factors interrelate with one another and contribute to successful briefing.
To achieve understanding of briefing four key questions are addressed:
I. What is construction project briefing,
II. How construction companies conceive briefing in Greece,
III. How the CSFs are formulated in construction briefing in Greece,
IV. How the criteria are met within the construction management companies.
The 5 CSFs are: communication among participants, clear objectives, clarity of roles, information
sharing, design efficiency.
1.4. Chapter’s contents
The present dissertation consists of six chapters. In the introductory chapter the reader gets
familiarised with the subject and the dimensions that will be researched. In the second chapter, which is
divided in two subparts, the literature related on the subject is reviewed. The first subpart concerns the
briefing in construction project management where the definitions given by various researchers, its
origins, its static and dynamic nature and the types of strategic and project briefing are introduced. The
second subpart is dedicated to the critical success factors, their alternatives and the critical success factors
applied in this assignment. The third chapter describes the methodology techniques applied as to gather
primary and secondary data in a reliable and effective way. The next chapter consists of data analysis and
results where the findings are interpreted and processed. Chapter five includes the conclusions and
recommendations and chapter six concerns the reflections of the dissertation.
9
2. Literature review
2.1. Introduction
As the chapter of literature review unfolds the reader is presented with information on what
briefing is according to the various researchers, how it emerged and its main complexities and
alternatives. In addition, a deeper analysis on how the 5 Critical Success Factors are demonstrated in the
bibliography will be attempted. Researchers’ work such as that of Blyth, Worthington, Smith, Wilkinson,
Othman, Yu, Shen, Kelly, Wyatt, Chen, Love has been reviewed as to find out how they have contributed
to enriching the particular field of project briefing concerning its emergence and evolution. The
theoretical background not only underlined the critical issues but also, helped the formulation of the
research questions of this study. Previous research will pave the way for the following research and as
Newton put it: ‘If I can see further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants’ (Baker,
2000:219).
The first part of the literature review regards how writers define briefing, how it was viewed as it
evolved and where it stands now. The next step of this chapter relates to the 5 CSFs selected for this
research. Communication among participants, clear objectives, clarity of roles, information sharing and
design efficiency are reviewed to see how the performance of briefing can be improved based on how
they interrelate and act as helpful tools for managing a project.
2.2. Briefing
2.2.1. The emergence of briefing
Through the process of construction the client’s role became more important. Customers got
involved in the building phases, an action the markets appreciated and asked for (Ryd, 2004). The other
side of the same coin points that clients became more demanding and more aware of what they wanted
and needed (Blyth, 2008). That idea originated from the need of construction managers (CMs) and project
managers (PMs) to achieve client satisfaction and understand clients’ needs as users. The forecast and
brief led to the ‘program’, the name the Swedish gave briefing (Ryd, 2004). Other terms attributed to it
were ‘architectural programming’ (Yu et al., 2006:1178, 1179; Shen, Li, Chung, Hui, 2004: 213) and
‘program of requirements’ (Bogers et al., 2008: 109).
In the end, briefing ended up communicating the needs and requirements among the clients, the
designers and companies involved in construction.
2.2.2. Definitions
In the literature, one can find a variety of definitions on briefing in construction project
management such as ‘architectural programming’ (Yu, et al., 2006: 1178, 1179; Shen, et al., 2004: 213)
or ‘program of requirements’ (Bogers, et al., 2008: 109) which is the keeping of records of the detailed
10
performance specification of a project (Kelly, Hunter, Shen, Yu, 2005) (Othman et al., 2004). Following
the existence of many terms attributed to briefing a variety of definitions appeared.
In Smith, Kenley, Wyatt (1998) briefing is defined as the written result which is produced after indepth discussions with the client. Similarly, briefing is defined as the written and official medium that
connects clients’ needs and aims (Othman et al. 2004). Likewise, briefing is seen as a communication
channel of architects and clients that expresses clearly the needs of clients and shows draft designs and
various design options to clients from the architects’ side (Bogers, et al., 2008). This definition seems
more limited in that it draws the attention to the communication among architects and clients. Other
players are not mentioned. On the contrary, the definition given in Shen, et al. (2004) underlines the
importance briefing has for the project in that stakeholders describe their requirements and these
requirements are understood by all stakeholders. Blyth and Worthington (2000: 11) support the same idea
by reporting that ‘briefing is a collaborative process’ among all the participants of the project. Agreeing
with Shen et. al. (2004), Othman et al. (2004), Bogers et al. (2008) and Blyth and Worthington (2000),
Ryd (2004) describes construction brief as the paper which defines a project’s requirements and its
background relating to costs, time limits, qualities and quantities, as well as details on technical issues
and environment and landscape design. Simply put, clients’ targets and needs are included in brief and the
‘transfer’ (London, Chen, Bavinton, 2005: 297) of these to the PM or architect is the briefing process. It is
interesting to know (Ormerod and Newton, 2005) that in practice briefing is implemented through several
meetings and through drawings as well. The checklist option and written form of the brief are less
frequently used.
As to the question of who is responsible for drawing up the brief there is a variety of players who
formulate the brief as professionals, team members or end users of the project (Ormerod and Newton,
2005). Each participant views the project from a different perspective according to their job or needs. The
involvement of many stakeholders, however, may provoke some complexities (Smith et al., 1998).
Complexities that arise are more effectively managed when we look into where they start from, as to
understand how people ‘conceive them’ (Deamer, 2010: 70).
Markus in Ryd and Fristedt (2007) and Ahmad, Ismail, Alwi and Rashid (2011) converge to the
view that briefing is about ordering concepts, analysing needs, planning and defining problems with the
difference that Markus draws attention to spatial and material parameters whereas Ahmad et al. (2011) to
the part of communicating the needs of clients.
Therefore, briefing is exercised once all the information concerning the type and operational
purpose of the building, the cost and time, the environmental and site issues the clients’ needs and safety
regulations (Othman et al., 2004) is gathered, processed and analysed in order to reach decisions (Yu et
al., 2006; Kelly et al., 2005) regarding the construction.
The plethora of definitions above help to give an idea of what briefing in construction project
management is, but there is an important distinction that should be drawn at this point. To better
11
understand briefing one should know whether the briefing is a stage of the whole project and thus static or
it is a process that is dynamic and changes during the construction.
2.2.3. Static briefing
According to this approach, the brief is formed at the beginning of a project and it is supposed to
have finished before the construction starts (Ormerod and Newton, 2005). Othman et. al. (2004) state that
brief is independent of the other processes and after sometime it should be locked, just like a phase of a
project that has passed. Similarly, the ‘process protocol’ school of thought shows that project brief is an
early completed case. Consequently, the most demanding issues and basic choices are set on that same
early phase (Othman et al., 2004). The process protocol is more elastic than the RIBA plan of work in that
it gives some space for making changes during the construction process.
The static briefing is opposite to the dynamic briefing in that static is a fixed document while
dynamic is by nature a continuous changing process.
2.2.4. Dynamic briefing
According to this approach, researchers support that the briefing process is dynamic and does not
stop until the project ends. Barret and Stanley (Ormerod and Newton, 2005) underline that briefing is a
dynamic process since clients’ needs are ‘progressively captured and translated into effect’. Othman et al.
(2004) underline the evolving nature of briefing, in other words they highlight the fact that it never stops
throughout the project and changes according to the needs of the project and the clients. This approach
seems closer to reality than static, since changes during projects are unavoidable. It is a great challenge to
manage changes successfully and adjust them to the briefing process.
Some approaches have been developed to help make changes more palatable. The Netherlands
approach empowers this dimension by seeing the brief evolving through construction phases in
coordination with technical details (Othman et al., 2004) while underscoring the critical role of the client
and the importance of communication.
While the middle approach has also been suggested as an alternative to the static and dynamic
ones, this will not be further analysed as it strays from the main purpose of this essay (Prins, Koolwijk,
Volker, Wamelink, 2006).
Despite the above contradictions of static and dynamic briefing, the common thing is that in both
approaches participants will firstly formulate a strategic plan and then proceed with the implementation of
the strategy. Therefore, at this point Strategic and Project briefing are introduced, respectively.
2.2.5. Strategic briefing
It is important to know that briefing is separated in two basic sections, the strategic briefing and
the project briefing.
12
Strategic briefing concerns the strategic decision to be made and is less practical than the project
briefing. Such strategic decisions include the kind of the project, such as renovation, change of use, a new
building, the scope of the project, the time planning and the budget planning (Yu et. al. 2006). Kelly et
al. (2005) claim that in strategic briefing the client’s position and requirements should be clearly
understood, before working groups are formulated (Blyth and Worthington, 2000) while in project
briefing technical details matter more.
2.2.6. Project briefing
The Project briefing is more practical in relation to the strategic briefing, in that it translates the
decided strategy into action.
As a process, it deals with client needs and requirements in terms of technical applications (Yu et.
al., 2006) and emphasizes on constructing the building by implementing the instructions in detail (Kelly
et al., 2005). More specifically, the project brief recapitulates what has been described in strategic brief
and participants finalise their decisions on issues concerning the time, the budget, the performance and
the team members (Blyth and Worthington, 2000).
All in all, strategic briefing concerns the initial concepts and decisions that will help to formulate
the project briefing which is going to indicate and define specific actions. To achieve the success of both
strategic and project briefing several factors that contribute to its success need to be analysed.
2.3. The CSFs
The CSFs emerged as a tool indicating to managers the factors and ‘information needs’ that
contributed to the success of a project or a business (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006a: 3434).
The use of CSFs became essential, since many authors adopted them in their fields of interest, and
can be summarized as follows: ‘knowledge management’, ‘strategic planning’, ‘business strategy’, ‘total
quality management’ and ‘new product development’ (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006a: 3434).
There is a great variety of CSFs in construction project briefing. In Yu et al. (2006) they are
divided in categories and classified. The categories, as seen in the table 1, are project-related factors,
human-related factors, process-related factors, input-related factors and output-related factors. It is very
tantalizing to see that some groups of CSFs affecting the project success are the same as those affecting
the briefing success. Table 1 below is a combination of the literature of (Yu et al., 2006; Yin et al., 2011)
and presents the briefing success factors in parallel with project success factors. The common ones are the
human-related factors category and the project-related factors (Chan, Scott, Chan, 2004). Some
parallelism is drawn between the output-related factors of briefing success and the external environment
of project success, in that they both deal with documents and parties that affect the project but do not
emerge from the inner environment of the project. Moreover, a similarity can be drawn between the
input-related factors and the project management actions in that they are both responsible for the proper
13
execution and implementation of actions and processes. At last, there is a correlation between the
procurement method from the category of project procedures and the selection of briefing team factor
from the input-related factors category in the briefing success table. At last, the external environment of
project success is in parallel with the output –related factors as they both concern third parties.
The similarity between the two groups of success factors is presented in table 1. This is a case in
point as to show how important the briefing is for the whole construction project. Such relation is
reinforced if one takes into account that a ‘faulty’ briefing may lead to inaccurate project (Zwikael and
Globerson, 2006b: 689). At this point, it should be mentioned that the major and mostly discussed project
success factors (Thi and Swierczek, 2010: 569; Wateridge, 1998: 59; Haponava and Al-Jibouri, 2010:
855), (Chan, Scott, Lam, 2002: 121) are the so –called ‘Iron Triangle’ or ‘eternal triangle’ (Newcombe,
2000: 191) of cost time and quality (Atkinson, 1999), but they are not discussed in this research because
of the restricted width of the dissertation and the attention that has already been drawn to them. What is
more, other project success factors include ‘project manager and team members’, ‘organization’, ‘the
project’, ‘strategic factors and tactical’, ‘project mission’, ‘client acceptance’, ‘client consultation’,
‘monitoring and feedback’, other ‘performance relevant factors’ (Thi and Swierczek, 2010: 570-1).
Table 1. Juxtaposition of briefing success factors and project success factors
Briefing Success
Factors
paralleled with the
Project Success
Factors
Project-related factors
Project-related factors
Human-related factors
Human –related factors
Project Management actions
Process-related factors
-Control mechanism and sub-
-Control process
contractors’ works
-Development of a framework
-Developing an appropriate
agreed upon by the key parties
organization structure
-Adequate time for briefing
-planning effort, communication
system
Project procedures
Input-related factors
-procurement method
-selection of the briefing team
Output-related factors
Project procedures
-clear and precise
-tendering method
briefing documents
Output-related factors
External environment
14
However, in this research, the interest is placed on the CSFs that are related to the construction
project briefing. Researchers have found a great variety of CSFs that contribute to construction project
briefing.
Many CSFs contribute to the construction project briefing. The variety of success factors for
construction briefing should not, however, be neglected. The following factors still exist, while they are
not presently investigated in this research. Many scholars (Yu et al., 2006; Ahmad et al., 2011; Blyth and
Worthington, 2000) make reference to a wide range of factors including the time schedule and budget
planning of the project, the monitoring and developing of brief, the general quality requirements and
reliability concerning the establishment of relations among participants as well as the impact of changes
on the industry (Blyth and Worthington, 2000).
The selected CSFs for this study are communication among participants, clear objectives, clarity
of roles, information sharing and design efficiency. Many of these factors were included in the groups
above. In the following part there is an attempt to show how these CSFs are related to the existing
literature.
2.4. The CSFs to be investigated
The study emphasizes on the CSFs of the project briefing in order to investigate to what extent
they improve the performance and achieve briefing success. Next each of the 5 CSFs are investigated
individually before being implemented to address the research questions.
2.4.1. Communication among participants
The communication factor is intriguing, because it is powerful enough to render a situation either
simple or confusing. In the construction industry, communication ensures the coordination of working
groups as it concerns the design, the plan of the building and the strategy. The brief alone, is a means of
communication (Bogers et al., 2008). During briefing, the seriousness of a potential communication
breakdown is reflected on the discrepancy between what is expected to be built and what is finally built,
which is a very serious case (London et al., 2005).
Daft (2006) underlines its importance towards achieving information exchange. In this assignment
this factor focuses on the communication among participants.
A deeper overview of the literature of briefing, indicates that architects need their clients to be
clear on what they desire in order for the former ones to design something that corresponds to the latter
ones expectations (Bogers et al., 2008). Lest participants communicate effectively with each other, their
goals and objectives in the briefing process may be jeopardized.
A common problem that may spring up in communication is that while members speak the same
language, their words may have different meanings. This frequent problem has its roots in the variety of
15
cultures, levels of education, gender, experience and ways of thinking (London et al., 2005), but this is
something that will not be investigated in this research due to its width and relevance with other sciences.
To this direction, Blyth and Worthington (2000) argue that designers do not speak the business language
that their clients speak and suggest they should start doing so, in order to communicate both their needs to
each other. A simple way to minimize possible misunderstandings is the direct, live, face-to-face
communication as is emphasized in Bogers et al. (2008), as many more unspoken messages need to be
transmitted.
2.4.2. Clear objectives
The factor of clear objectives is studied in other researches as well. Communication fails when
objectives are not transparent (Wilkinson, 2001) and the participants’ intentions are not specified.
Alternatively, the term appears as ‘Trusting relationship’ (Yu et al., 2006: 1179) in literature. This
factor seems to be close to the clear objectives factor because trust is cultivated in a field that everyone is
clear on what they aim to achieve. Also Blyth (2008) underlines the emphasis of clear objectives
combined with trust and participants’ eagerness to share responsibility.
Participants should clearly state their objectives and also listen to others’ objectives in order to
gain an understanding of each other and establish trust (Blyth and Worthington, 2000). Similarly, the term
arises as ‘clear and agreed upon objectives’ in literature (Yu et al., 2006: 1179) and corresponds to the
project-related factor category.
Another reason pinpointing the importance of having clear objectives is that a project involves
numerous people who need to know what the aim of the project is (Bogers et al., 2008), what is going to
be done and what each person is to do.
Adding the presence of inexperienced or simple-minded customers, who find it hard to express
their goals to the rest of the briefing team consequently minimizing the gathering of precise information
makes the need for the contribution of clarity of roles, which is investigated next, pivotal.
2.4.3. Clarity of roles
Projects are complex and involve a variety of specialists. Each professional has a specific task
(Georg and Tryggestad, 2009) to do according to their specialization and the agreed plan. In order for the
project briefing to be effective all participants need to have effective communication and cooperate
successfully. In the case that there are plenty of professionals, roles are more easily defined as they are
distributed according to the specialization of each profession. The problem that may emerge in the
presence of many professionals is that all participants have an opinion over others’ work and this may
trigger problems regarding reaching a consensus.
16
The variety of cultures and nationalities is a factor that cannot be pre-determined (Georg and
Tryggestad, 2009). It concerns intangible factors which are powerful enough to formulate opinions, or
disorientate a plan.
Interestingly, a study by Georg and Tryggestad (2009) concerning the roles, supports that roles are
not pre-set but they are set according to the interactions among people and the ‘technical artefacts’ (Georg
and Tryggestad, 2009: 969). That is based on the actor network theory, where interactions among people
and things occur. An explanation for this is that at the inception phase of a briefing, each participant holds
a different agenda which is negotiated among other stakeholders before the final goals are formulated.
Additionally, an advantage of clearly setting the roles is that when an emergent or a special case
appears that necessitates a solution, the right person in the right position is there to respond properly
(London et al., 2005).
In Blyth and Worthington (2000) a major setback is highlighted in the absence of properly
distributed roles, which is the risk that someone will take advantage of a problem that may arise in order
to serve their interests.
Inspired by Blyth and Worthington (2000) what is to be searched is how each participant in
briefing conceives other player’s activities and what the expectations they have are. The clarity of roles
factor is necessary as to avoid phenomena of tasks passed over by one to another (Matar, Georgy,
Ibrahim, 2008).
2.4.4. Information sharing
The factor of information sharing deals with the way information is diffused in relation with the
software systems used to share information with project participants.
In a very interesting interview of Deamer with Chris Hall (2010) it is revealed that two obstacles
to successful information sharing are, on the one hand, lack of software awareness by participants and, on
the other hand, the varying degree of technological development (Deamer, 2010). Another difficulty
concerning this factor is mentioned in (Chan, Choy, Chan, 2006) and concerns the fact that while
software programs and internet applications are well developed, users and companies are not confident to
utilise them. In some other cases, applications are not compatible with all users’ devices (Chan, et al.,
2006).
The need to fill that gap is satisfied by BIM. It gives the advantage of planning a more precise
schedule, promising to make briefing more accurate (Willis, 2010). What makes it even more attractive is
the fact that it is a parametric program and, in general, it provides adequate information (Choi and Kim,
2008) to enable all participants to make their technical designs and modifications, as well as an economic
plan, a time schedule and a manpower schedule all leading towards a successful briefing. After all, as
Arayici, Coates, Koskela, Kagioglou, Usher, O'Reilly (2011) put it, BIM is managing to make
17
participants use technology in order to deal with changes, to minimize obstacles and maximize eveyone’s
potential to give their best performance.
The research of Yin, et al. (2011) contains a questionnaire that among others testifies that
information sharing is a crucial factor regarding design cooperation. Authors presume that this lies in the
fact that participants of a project are not very experienced at information seeking, remembering
information, identifying and deciding from numerous measures what should be done. In addition, through
information sharing among a variety of professions a talent pool is created where specializations
complement each other towards the success of briefing (Yin et al., 2011).
Information sharing is related to the ‘Provision of the essential information at each stage of the
project’ (Yu et al., 2006: 1179). The efficacy of information sharing is also defined by the speed and the
ability to diffuse information across all agencies and stakeholders (Contestabile, 2011). As it appears, the
information flow is an ongoing process during the construction.
2.4.5. Design efficiency
The design efficiency factor contributes to the success of the briefing by upgrading the quality of
design and eliminating costs and time (Yu et al., 2006).
The interpretation of the clients’ needs and how this corresponds with their actual needs is a factor
that greatly influences design efficiency. The more the design reflects the client’s desires, the more
efficient the design becomes. As a result, briefing becomes more specific and accurate (London et al.,
2005). A case in point is the virtual 3-D models, CAD, BIM which according to Deamer (2010: 70-71)
enable designers to ‘extract’ the appropriate pieces of information from a bulky body of details and at the
same time trace problems and implement changes in a ‘parametric’ environment Deamer (2010: 71).
Additionally, Yin et al., (2011) support that the design efficiency factor gives companies a competitive
advantage as they can reduce costs while delivering high quality products timely and cost efficiently. An
example of this is using local materials (Othman et al., 2004) to making the project more customised.
Notwithstanding the admittedly multiple advantages of virtual design models, one should not fail
to mention the hurdles that arise relating to their implementation, namely the high cost of purchase, the
time required for feeding in the data, the compatibility with existing software, the training costs and the
extent of the employee adaptability to the program (Li, Lu, Huang, 2009). Despite the fact that the
aforementioned disadvantages may act as setbacks to the implementation of the virtual design models, the
importance of the latter lies in its dynamic nature as it allows constant feedback and redefinition of goals
in the course of the briefing process (Othman et al., 2004).
A major issue is that design efficiency is integrated through all the success factors mentioned
above. Designers who are properly informed about the objectives of the project, the time schedules, the
plans and details have a better picture of what are client’s needs (Bruce, Cooper, Vazquez, 1999). The
help of CAD, BIM and shop drawings is invaluable so as to make changes or modifications. BIM stands
18
out from the rest in that information in it is saved, can be accessed by all participants, can be distributed
to every one involved and all can make changes or modifications (Sebastian, 2011) in real time before
errors occur. In that way, everyone is involved so as to make design more efficient and forecast errors
during which process roles may be reformulated (Sebastian, 2011).
All in all, design can be efficient when a designer has enough information which is achieved
through clear communication of those who have clearly defined their roles and objectives.
2.5. Conclusions of literature review
The study is looking deeper in the construction project briefing through five CSFs.
On the one hand, roots of briefing can be traced in the new schema that construction industry
introduced, which was a two-way need of users and the industry for the former to participate in the
construction planning and programming. The clients became more demanding (Blyth, 2008) and PMs
realised that clients’ participation would improve the understanding of the latter ones’ needs and
satisfaction (Ryd, 2004; Smith, Love, Wyatt, 2000). The literature is rich in definitions to help readers
gain an understanding of what briefing is such as an ‘architectural program’ (Yu, et al., 2006:1178, 1179;
Shen, et al., 2004:213) or ‘program of requirements’ (Bogers, et al., 2008: 109), a ‘formal document’
(Othman et al., 2004: 250), or a design (Ormerod and Newton, 2005). On the other hand, briefing authors
are divided in those who support the fact that it is dynamic and those who claim that it is static. A
reference is made to the strategic and project briefing so as to emphasize its importance and its evolution
(Yu et al., 2006; Kelly et al., 2005; Blyth and Worthington, 2000), these two being the main types of
brief. The set of CSFs to be researched are linked with briefing as they are often met in academic
references and they predict, in a way, the project’s success (Chan et al., 2004). The CSFs, similarly to the
project success, are categorised in project-related, human-related, process-related, input-related, and
output-related factors (Yu et al., 2006). Briefing is crucial to the construction success as many factors are
common for the success of both briefing and construction. Due to the limitations of the dissertation other
success factors of construction project and briefing project will not be examined, but many of these have
been mentioned. The CSFs selected for the study were studied one by one and as a set as well. They were
also very often met in the existing literature and were interrelated with the other factors too.
The communications factor is very crucial and authors (Bogers et al., 2008) simply stated that
briefing is a means of communication. A major gap is spotted by Bogers et al. (2008) in that the variety of
players’ cultures and roles is a hurdle to understanding one another even when they speak the same
language. In Blyth (2008) a deep view of clear objectives focuses on the importance trust plays and in
defining responsibilities. What is more, in Georg and Tryggestad (2009) it is stated that roles are not
always pre-defined but they are allocated in relevance with the interactions participants have with one
another. As for the information sharing it is greatly connected with the clear communication factor. An
important setback to the success in information sharing is the ease with which players use software
19
systems (Chan et al., 2006). Several programs like BIM have emerged so as to offer the chance to prepare
3-D views of the project, make changes and modifications, arrange time schedules and budget planning
(Choi and Kim, 2008). The fifth CSF is design efficiency which helps briefing become more specific
(London et al., 2005). Platforms such as BIM, enable companies to take a competitive advantage as they
can forecast errors, they are faster, and more accurate to their planning and thus to briefing (Yin et al.,
2011).
Theories in briefing vary and there is ongoing evolution in how participants understand, formulate
and implement briefing in construction projects. In addition, every project is unique (Graham, 1999) and
this causes alterations to the number of criteria that render it successful.
All in all, briefing has the tendency to vary according to the project and the participants. A deeper
understanding of how briefing is conceived by companies in Greece is attempted along with trying to give
a definition of briefing in the Greek context. The questions that arose from the CSFs in question were
how these are formulated and how the CSFs are met within the construction companies.
20
3. Methodology
3.1. Introduction
An in-depth look at this subject will be given by viewing how the 5 CSFs are formulated in
briefing. The current research is a small scale survey. Surveys allow for the ‘collection of data, their
systematic analysis and interpretation’ (Verma and Mallick, 2004: 166) with the aim to describing the
present situation through data collected from a specific sample at a specific point of time (Mertens, 1998).
The primary research was divided in the qualitative approach, which was conducted through
interviews, and the quantitative, which was carried out through the use of questionnaires. The secondary
research included the reviewing of the existing literature. The literature review posed the key questions of
the research, which were answered via the questionnaires and the interviews.
Major factors contributing to the implementation of such a combination of methods were the time
limits, the chances of access to professionals in this field and the width of the subject. Moreover, no
fieldwork or deskwork could be done, as the first is time consuming and expensive, and not the most
appropriate research for this subject (Blaxter, Hughes, Tight, 2001) and the other is very limited by its
nature for the specific assignment.
The focus groups technique while offering the advantage of gaining more answers to the question
it still posed a risk that could be affected by dominant people’s answers not ignoring the fact that it would
be hard to coordinate and gather a group of people at a specific day and time (Blaxter et.al., 2001). On the
contrary, an advantage of a personal interview versus that of a focus group is that the individual is not
under other people’s criticism and the answers given are more qualitative and personal. The technique of
the ‘case study’ was not selected because it focuses on specific factors of a single or more cases.
Therefore, this would maximize the risk of diverting from the subject of this assignment. Observation
alone is a very demanding task for an inexperienced and sole researcher. Other limitations of the
observation that acted as a deterrent to selecting it, are the artificiality of the environment and the
complication that would cause because of the variety of people involved in it (Blaxter et al., 2001).
In this chapter, the researcher will address the secondary research, the questionnaire and interview
design processes, data collection and analysis and the ethical issues raised.
3.2. Secondary research
Secondary data are other researchers’ studies that enlighten new researches. Material was
collected from search engines such as Emerald, EBSCO host, Wiley, Science direct from the library web
page of Leicester University. Literature came from both fields of management and construction.
The literature on this subject is not very wide (Ahmad et al., 2011; Wilkinson, 2001; Smith,
Wyatt, Jackson 2003; Yu et al., 2006; Bogers et al., 2008; Barrett, Hudson, Stanley, 1999), but valuable
articles and books were found written by academics such as Barret, Stanley, Othman, Kelly, Hunter,
21
Smith, Wyatt, Shen, Blyth, Worthington. In the Greek context even less is written on this subject, a fact
which served as a motivating factor that intrigued the author to study the specific subject. Through the
literature review the writer of this assignment developed the key questions (Deamer, 2010) of the study,
which were addressed in the questionnaires and the interviews.
3.3. Research questions
The research questions that arose through the study of the literature review are:
1) What is construction project briefing,
2) How construction companies conceive briefing in Greece,
3) How the CSFs are formulated in construction briefing in Greece,
4) How the criteria are met within the construction management companies.
3.4. Primary research
3.4.1. Data collection techniques
The present research had to be as accurate as possible in order to produce reliable answers to the
above research questions.
Drawing from the quantitative techniques the use of the questionnaire proved essential whereas
from the qualitative techniques interviews were chosen (Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill, 2009). Both
questionnaires and interviews posed the same questions, but the answers in the interviews were more indepth and detailed as the interviewees oral speech had the chance to justify their answers and clarify some
of the points they raised in oral speech (O’Donnell and Duffy, 2002).
Open-ended questions served the same purpose in the questionnaires (O’Donnell and Duffy,
2002). Numerical data was collected from questionnaires through the posing of a wide array of questions.
Questionnaires offered the advantage of being distributed to a larger sample giving people a chance to
overview their answers.
A combination of these tools was preferred through the triangulation as to reinforce the validity
and reliability of the research (Denscombe, 2010). The process of triangulation that was used helped to
cross-check where, if and how what was said agreed with what was written (Denscombe, 2010).
3.4.2. Sample selection
The sample consisted of five companies in Greece involved in the construction industry and their
associates which were selected on the basis of the high number and the wide range of the projects
undertaken.
The non-probability sampling was used for this survey as it was more practical for this kind of
assignment and because samples were selected based on the author’s ‘subjective judgement’ and
conviction that they would be able to better answer the research questions (Saunders et al., 2009: 233,
22
237). The next step involved deciding on the size of the sample (Saunders et al., 2009). At this stage, it
was decided that the distribution of 40 questionnaires and the conducting of six interviews would be
sufficient in order to get a picture of the perceptions of employees in the company concerning briefing,
taking into consideration the requirements for the execution of a small scale survey (Saunders et al.,
2009).
The purposive or judgemental sampling was used as the samples were small (Saunders et al.,
2009). The sample consisted of a diverse group of people working in companies for many years in a wide
array of projects in the construction field. The gathering of data deriving from a heterogeneous group of
participants added to the strength of this sampling method as it allowed for differences to emerge
(Saunders et al., 2009). Furthermore, snowball sampling was helpful too in the case of three interviews.
The issue that came up is that due to the nature of the construction sector and the need to keep
information to themselves, most professionals refused to be interviewed because they were not familiar
with the author (Saunders et. al., 2009).
3.4.3. Sample composition
The sample of the population consisted of 21,21% female and 78,79% male respondents. The
companies comprised three groups the PMs and CMs, the Architects and the Design Teams, which were
engineers, structural engineers, mechanical engineers topographic engineers and experienced members of
the construction group of a company. As seen in Pie 1, of them 27,27% were architects, 30,30% were
PM-CM and 42,42% were the Design Team members. As of their ages, 54,4% were between the ages of
31-40, 21,2% were between 41 and 50, 15,2% between 51 and 60 and 9,1% were from 61 to 70 years old.
Concerning their level of education, 45,5% of the respondents held a master’s degree an equal percentage
to those holding a bachelors degree. The 6,1% had graduated from a Technological Educational Institute
(T.E.I.) and 3 % had graduated from high school.
Pie 1. Division of sample according to professions
23
3.4.4. Questionnaire administration
Forty questionnaires were distributed to five construction companies in Greece. Five were given
out to the first two smaller companies respectively and ten to each of the other three.
Construction companies are composed of architects, engineers, CMs, PMs, on site employees,
design teams who have experience in construction field, therefore all employees were invited to answer
them. The distribution was made via e-mail and fax.
3.4.5. Questionnaire design
The distributed questionnaire comprised 31 subject related questions, and 4 demographic ones.
The group of the 31 questions consisted of 25 five-point Likert scale, 3 open-ended and 3 five-rating
ranking questions. The Likert scale questions were in a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 stood for strongly agree, 2
agree, 3 neither agree nor disagree, 4 disagree and 5 strongly agree. The questions were syntaxed as
statements (Saunders et al., 2009) in order to make the respondents feel that they were not asked
something difficult and time-consuming. In addition, the respondents were asked in 3 questions to rank
the 5 CSFs in order of importance so as to get the picture of how important these 5 examined factors were
in relevance with one another (Saunders et al., 2009). The open-ended questions were added to the
questionnaire so as to gain 3 qualitative answers to critical questions for the research.
3.4.6. Questionnaire pre-test
The pre-test was very helpful for the author in order for the latter to formulate it in a way that
would be more practical for the participants to fill out. This was a critical phase as well, since many
questions were revisited and reviewed adding to the reliability of the questionnaire (Webb, 2000).
3.4.7. Description of the questionnaire
The distributed questionnaire had 3 major parts. The first part was the cover letter, the second was
the demographic questions and the third part consisted of the research questions section.
The first part concerned the cover letter that introduced the author, the targets of the assignment,
the subject and the purpose of the questionnaire to the respondent (Saunders et al., 2009) and provided
guarantees for the safeguarding of discreetness and anonymity of the data collected. Questionnaires were
sent via e-mail, fax and some through mail including an enclosed envelope.
The next part of the questionnaire consisted of the demographic questions such as sex, age, level
of studies and their main business activity.
The main part of the questionnaire consisted of four sections each corresponding to the four key
questions of the research. The first part asked the participants to answer 6 questions so as to see the extent
to which respondents agree with static and dynamic briefing, the project briefing and the strategic briefing
mentioned in the literature review chapter. The second section focused on how construction companies
24
conceived briefing in Greece through 7 questions. The next section contained 9 questions 2 of which
requested the ranking of the CSFs, one was open –ended and the rest 6 search answers for the 3rd key
question. The 4th and last section comprised 9 questions, one of which was open-ended and a ranking one
as well. The last ranking question attempted to research how the criteria were met within the construction
management companies, by asking respondents to rank in order of importance the CSFs they would wish
to see improved in their partners.
3.4.8. Interview
The interview was planned by making a phone call to the interviewees to inform them about the
research, ask for their e-mails and invite them to answer a few questions. This was followed by an e-mail
presenting them with the subject anew and the arrangement of the appointment details when they had
given their consent to an interview.
On arriving to the appointment, the interviewees were asked for permission to be recorded on an
mp3 voice recorder. Three of them refused it and the author did not insist because the recording would
stress them to answer questions and ‘reveal confidential information’ (Blaxter et al. 2001: 173). The
answers were carefully written down on a paper and after finishing the interview, the interviewees were
kindly asked to check what was written in order to ensure that their answers were representative of the
oral answers. The interviews were semi-structured in that they involved a pre-defined set of questions
based on the topics to be covered but more were added or some were omitted according to the flow of the
conversation and the disposition of the interviewees, as some were more talkative and explicative than
others who were in need of further motivation as to explicitly convey their messages (Saunders et al.,
2009).
The interview consisted of 2 parts. The first was a simple recording of what the respondents did
for a job, their studies and years of experience. The next part which was the main questions was
organized according to the literature review and the key questions of the dissertation. These questions
were carefully syntaxed in order to get a deeper understanding of the questionnaire’s questions.
Moreover, a flash card game was prepared. Each critical success factor was written in a card and the
interviewees were asked to put them in order of importance (Rowley, 2012). By looking at them it was
easier to establish a continuous flow of conversation as the interviewees were more committed to
answering the questions (Rowley, 2012).
People who were interviewed were six from various age width, time experience and study
background as to ensure reliability coming from a wide pool of interviewees (Rowley, 2012).
3.5. Data analysis
Forty questionnaires were distributed and the return rate amounted to 82,5% with 33
questionnaires received. The data were analysed with the help of the SPSS statistics program.
25
The first research question that respondents were addressed with was whether briefing is dynamic
or not and if these two approaches were related according to construction companies and according to the
business activity. The Spearman Rank correlation was applied to check whether two variables were
related to each other when they are in terms of ranks (http://www.experiment-resources.com/spearmanrank-correlation-coefficient.html,
http://www.harding.edu/sbreezeel/460%20Files/Statbook/CHAPTER14.pdf); (Chikkodi and Satyaprasad,
2010).
The mean values were calculated to understand how the CSFs were ranked and how briefing was
formulated, conceived and finally met.
The Kruskal-Wallis analysis was utilized to show if there were any significant differences
between the CSFs. (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/grahamh/RM1web/KruskalWallis%20Handoout2011.pdf). As data did not follow the normal distribution, Kruskal-Wallis analysis
was needed (http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/virtualfc/Stats/kruskal.html). The Kruskal –Wallis analysis was
utilized for the last two parts and specifically for the three questions where respondents were asked to
rank the factors in order of importance.
3.6. Reliability and validity
Reliability was a critical matter that had to be achieved through the researcher’s ability to be
convenient in transferring exactly what respondents conveyed by avoiding any bias (Saunders et al.,
2009). In order to handle data from the questionnaires properly, the use of software program SPSS was
the most appropriate. The three out of six interviews were recorded in mp3 format, so the interviewer had
the chance to observe exhibitions of emotions, make adjustments to the flow of the interview, as to be
sure that the conversation ran smoothly and that participants felt constantly at ease.
Validity refers to the potential of the researcher to treat the data collected as accurate and
appropriate as possible (Denscombe, 2010). Validity was achieved through the method of triangulation.
3.7. Limitations
The specific study covered a limited range of people questioned and interviewed in relevance to
the whole population working in this industry. The limited time schedule, the word limit of the
dissertation and the financial requirements, such research demands and the recession period, minimized
the chances for a wider research.
Another important limitation focusing on the data quality was what is known as the interviewer
effect (Saunders et al., 2009). The attitude of the interviewer, the voice changes or facial expressions and
gestures of the interviewer may have affected the respondent’s answer, who might have felt inclined to
align themselves to the expectations of the interviewer (Denscombe, 2010).
26
3.8. Ethical questions
In both questionnaires and interviews the ethical issues were respected devoutly.
Respondents’ anonymity and confidentiality (Saunders et al., 2009) were safeguarded since trust
and discretion are of primary concern when cooperating with individuals. Each and every answer of the
questionnaire and interview were strictly confidential and were used only for the purpose of this study.
Access to respondents was a very crucial issue, since permission was needed from the company
the author works for. Approaching participants, meant that sincerity, clarity of objectives, formality and
respect of the time limits of participants were all exhibited by the researcher (Blaxter et al., 2001).
At last, all phases of the dissertation were accompanied by ethical issues (Saunders et al., 2009) so
integrity and sensitivity to any action of respondents and at any stage of the dissertation was a permanent
advisor to the author.
27
4. Data analysis and results
4.1. Introduction
The main part of the statistics analysis comprises three subparts. In the first one an investigation
of the presence or absence of any correlation between static and dynamic to project briefing is attempted
followed by the investigation of the correlation among the former ones and the business activity of the
three key stakeholders of any construction company, i.e. PM-CM, the architects and the design team.
In view of the fact that the survey was carried out on a total number of 33 people comprising the
three aforementioned categories, each of which comprising 10, 14, 9 people respectively, the KruskalWallis non-parametric analysis was implemented. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis is utilized when two
conditions are met: 1) when the data do not follow the ‘Normal Distribution’
(http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/virtualfc/Stats/kruskal.html)
and 2) when the sample size is relatively small i.e. n<30.
The second part looks into the level of importance of the five CSFs from the data collected from
the entire sample by examining their mean values based on the last three parts of the questionnaire
The last part of the analysis is set to figure out any discrepancies among the three business
categories concerning their perception of project briefing through the five CSFs.
The analysis will be done by using as drivers the four research questions.
4.2. Data analysis and results
4.2.1.What is construction project briefing
The following part of the analysis investigates whether static and dynamic are related positively or
negatively in relevance with the whole sample and then with the different professions of the sample.
Through the examination of the sample in general, static and dynamic are not related (r = 0.008,
p>0.05) as seen in Table 2.
Table 2. Relevance of static and dynamic regarding the whole sample
Through the examination of the sample concerning static and dynamic taking into account the
business activity of the participants, the correlation coefficient is -0.189, table 3. The negative correlation,
28
however, is not statistically important so as to draw the conclusion that these two approaches counteract
one another (r=-0.189, p>0.05).
Table 3. Relevance of static and dynamic according to business activity
The interviews offered an understanding on whether briefing is static or dynamic or something in
the middle. The fact that briefing is dynamic prevailed, but some respondents expressed their appreciation
of the stability of the static briefing.
The two PMs-CMs interviewed, pinpointed that the ideal thing would be that briefing be static but
they admitted and recognized its dynamic nature. In order to control the dynamic nature of briefing they
suggested that information should be distributed only to the appropriate professionals and clients who
ought to be informed about the possible delays and costs that may come up before they proceed with any
changes. Specifically they said:
CM-PM D ‘There is always a particular framework but briefing is a living organism subjected to
constant changes and, therefore, dynamic in nature…..It requires prior agreement and decision in unison,
signing of the terms and conditions before the project commences. … I believe what is necessary in
briefing is the answers to the questions of ‘who’, ‘what’, and ‘where’. Briefing ought to be a disciplined,
well delineated process…’.
and respondent CM-PM F in more diplomatic and less austere way stated:
‘…It depends on the project. You cannot always foresee everything. It requires flexibility as to
incorporate the changes which ought to relate to real and practical needs and objectives. It generally needs
not to be something that constantly changes unless the client wishes so, after being informed about the
additional costs and time delays that such an action will involve’.
What was thought of by CM-PM D about briefing as a form of contract is in line with Jensen and
Pedersen (2009) concerning the contractual form that follows the architects’ demands. The fact that he
suggested no interventions and the signing of terms and conditions before the start of the project agrees
with static claiming that briefing ‘should be frozen after a critical period’ (Othman et al., 2004: 250).
29
What CM-PM F says about not being able to foresee everything agrees with Jensen and Pedersen
(2009:175); Jensen, Alexander, Fronczek-Munter (2011:7) stating that ‘future needs cannot be forecasted
with confidence, hence the need for a dynamic briefing process’. CM-PM F claimed that client should be
informed about the drawbacks that changes would bring about in the course of the briefing development
drawing covertly the distinction between brief as a document and brief as a process as mentioned by Prins
et al. in Jensen and Pedersen (2009: 175).
The member of the design team, the construction engineer and architect E agreed that briefing is
‘definitely dynamic’. The construction engineer C, appreciated that having clear targets minimizes the
scale of changes and reduces them only to the details. Architect E acknowledged what was eloquently
versed as ‘future conflicts’ by Prins et al. (Jensen and Pedersen, 2009: 175) arising from changes to the
initial contract, despite subscribing to the view of the dynamic process of brief.
Respondents B, C and E undoubtedly define it as dynamic by stating:
Design Team Member B:
‘It is definitely subject to changes as the survey incorporates inapplicable points that may require
revising. For instance changes might take place as a result of a change of mind on the part of the client,
changes to the laws of the market, or changes that appear mandatory as to comply with the standards set
by the ‘budget planning’.
Construction Engineer C:
‘Brief is certainly a continuous process. It is dynamic but you need to clearly state your targets in
order to give/get an idea of what is going to be done. If you are clear with your targets you will still have
changes but only as it concerns details. You do not work alone. Your professions are interrelated’
Architect E:
‘…it is definitely dynamic as it constantly needs to correspond to emerging needs, even though I
can understand that this might pose some difficulties to those who see their organized plan constantly
being modified’.
What the construction engineer says about clear targets subscribes to the view presented in Bogers
et al. (2008:113) claiming that architects ‘expect from their clients to have done their ‘homework’ before
they start designing’. Thus, one can understand that the briefing’s success is connected with the factor of
clear objectives which facilitates briefing in that it limits the changes that will need to be made. The
construction engineer also purports that professions are interrelated, meaning that the interaction of
people affects the project briefing and this connects with the clarity of roles factor. When roles and targets
are clear briefing becomes more defined, complexities are minimized and difficulties can be more
predictable and thus manageable.
Each player from their defined position needs to express their requirements, needs, targets, plans
and these processes agree with Zwikael and Globerson (2006a) which refers to the nature of project
planning, which is to dictate how things can be done.
30
Finally, architect A introduced her own alternative definition stating that it ‘needs to be flexible’.
She supports that client’s needs appear on the spot, briefing is a step by step procedure so it needs to be
flexible. For her, the existence of alternatives could prevent time delays.
Characteristically she states:
‘… I believe it needs to be flexible. As the client sees the realization of the plan only then does
he/she realize what their needs are. Things change in the process. It is imperative that alternative choices
exist so that delays can be prevented.’
Placing emphasis on fathoming out the needs of a client is an essential part of the briefing design
as presented in Bogers et al. (2008) where ‘clients actually need the architect's sketches and drawings to
find out what their accommodation needs really are’ (5).
In the open-ended question regarding which partner would be more appropriate to prepare the
briefing 16 respondents suggested the PM, 12 the architect, 2 the CM, 2 the construction engineer and 1
suggested all of them each one from their position. The preference to the PM shows that briefing is a
more managerial process. The idea also appears in (Sommerville,*Craig,*Hendry,*2010) where it is
advocated that the PM is responsible for leading and managing a project to the finish line and that PMs
are those who undertake many roles within a project (Sommerville et al., 2010).
The fact that the architect is deemed as the second most appropriate person for the design of
briefing means that briefing is a matter of technical coordination as well. This statistical result agrees with
Ahmad et al. (2011) where it is stated that briefing is the designer’s responsibility. This is contrary,
though, to Barret et. al (1999) who introduce the profession of a brief-taker instead of those of architects
and PMs, explaining that a brief-taker is the one who will be trained and educated to do this job. Walking
the same path (Blyth and Worthington, 2000) recommend the existence of a project champion, in charge
of the project and responsible for central decisions separating his/her work from that of the PM.
4.2.2. How construction companies conceive briefing in Greece
The second part of the questionnaire examines how construction companies conceive briefing.
The data is presented in diagram 1 below.
The clear communication factor is the most important for the companies with a mean value of
4,76, while the second most important factor is the information sharing having a 3,85 mean value. That
means that an organized briefing sets the foundation for more effective communication and cooperation
among partners in the project briefing and this seems to be of high importance for the majority of the
population. Information sharing takes the second place as the participants in the survey feel that
communicating one’s demands and ideas in connection with the use of the appropriate software systems
is also important to the success of the briefing project. Almost of the same importance are the factors of
design efficiency (3,7) and clear objectives (3,64). Design efficiency and clear objectives share almost the
same rate of importance as the participants seem to agree with the view that briefing renders the building
31
process more specific as it provides a systemic and analytic account of the tasks to be undertaken. The
least important of all five CSFs is perceived to be the clarity of roles with a mean value of 2,18. The
clarity of roles was placed quite low as the majority of the participants seem to take it for granted that a
certain task is assigned to each associate.
Diagram 1. Importance of factors on how construction companies conceive briefing
Mean value and 95% confidence intervals
Concerning the Kruskal-Wallis research for the second part of the questionnaire what was
investigated was the perceptions of all three categories of participants constituting construction
companies concerning ‘briefing’. As observed from table 4 there is no statistically significant difference
in the way all three categories of people view briefing, as all p-value rates are higher than the preset
significance level at a=5%.
Table 4. Kruskal –Wallis on how construction companies conceive briefing
More specifically, all participants align with the idea that each partner undertakes a specific task
in the briefing process (chi=0,560, p>0,05). What is more, all participants seem to share the opinion that
briefing contributes to the building process by making the latter more specific and clear and that it is a
way to ensure that the whole project runs smoothly (chi= 5,768, p>0,05). In parallel, as it concerns the
32
criterion of clear communication, there seems to be no significant difference among the three categories
regarding the view that a properly organized briefing is bound to promote a climate of cooperation
among participants (chi=0,219, p>0,05). As it regards clear objectives, there is no significant difference
among participants relating to the fact that the existence of briefing precludes the undertaking of actions
that are not clearly delineated in it (chi= 2,999, p>0,05). Ultimately, as far as information sharing is
concerned there is no statistical difference among participants who seem to be of the opinion that briefing
as a tool allows the exposure of personal interests and the organisation’s data (chi=1,396, p>0,05).
The answers of interviewees are not very different from the questionnaires. Architect A, Architect
E, Design Team member B, Construction Engineer C and PM-CM F said that they communicate with
client so as to share information about their requirements, define clients’ and participants’ demands,
exchange information about the time schedules and budget as well as about the size and the aspects of the
project. The understanding of demands makes companies feel like ‘profilers’ who have to analyse and
translate what clients mean with the words they use, and what they imagine for the project, as well, so as
to be able to set realisable goals and objectives. Architect E said that he preferred to communicate with
his clients through his efficient design, as he shows more trust in his drawings as a means of
communication and information sharing. PM-CM F took a slightly different stance as he claimed he
preferred to meet in person with the client alone and in another separate meeting to meet the rest of the
participants. They characteristically said:
Architect A:
‘the nature of the first meeting with the client is exploratory as what needs to be defined is the
needs and desires of the clients. It is usually hard for the latter ones to fathom out how their daily routines
are translated into ‘space’. During this time we need to delve into the clients’ needs and demands and
understand how they lead their lives and the needs that emerge from them.’
Design Team member B:
It is primarily a plan that consists of time and budget planning to determine the cost involved and
the tasks that are to be undertaken. The client requests that his/her demands be taken into consideration
and that the deadlines be met.
Construction Engineer C:
Briefing is the meeting of all participants. They all gather to set the requirements of the project
and exchange the information related to the building to be built. They also state in brief the costs of
equipment and material in order to give a general idea to the client.
PM-CM F:
I initially make contacts with the client depending on the ‘size’ of the project. I consecutively call
on meetings with the rest of the participants. We discuss the aims of the project, the way of collaboration,
the nature and size of the project, the distribution of responsibilities and tasks and potentially the budget.’
Architect Ε specifically stated:
33
‘I show my client a range of designs to approximate their preferences. The design speaks louder
than words, therefore, I feel that this is the safest way to discover the clients’ needs.’
Blyth (2008) agrees with the respondents and the questionnaire that briefing is mainly about
communicating expectations of all project participants and then combining these expectations as to
achieve the information sharing and understanding of requirements and demands. They also underline the
critical issue of using a common language which will safeguard the expression of the clear objectives of
the briefing. Architect’s E statement corroborates with the idea presented in the same source of literature
especially where it highlights the fact designers speak their own language which is the drawings and plans
instead of the business language. The effectiveness of communication and information sharing are
emphasized in Ahmad et al. (2011) as factors that contribute to achieving economic and time planning.
This explains that the success factors of the ‘Iron Triangle’, are clear communication and information
sharing. In addition, briefing requires that objectives be clearly set and responsibilities allocated to the
appropriate person at the beginning of the project (Newcombe, 2000).
It is worth underlying that PM-CM F sustained that a briefing should take place once between the
PM-CM and the client and once between the PM-CM with the participants as he particularly tends to act
as a coordinator who concentrates the information, demands and requirements of clients because he
understands the ‘size’ of the project and can better translate it to the rest of participants.
4.2.3. How the CSFs are formulated in construction briefing in Greece
The third part of the questionnaire attempts to investigate how the 5 CSFs were formulated in
construction project in Greece through the analysis of three different employments categories. It is shown
in diagram 2, that the first factor formulated is the setting of clear objectives (3,576) and the second one is
the design efficiency (3,333). This finding hints at the fact that the majority of the participants feel that
the outlining of specific and clear objectives, along with the existence of a plan B at hand whenever
things do not turn out the way set to, are of particular importance for the success of the briefing. A good
quality of the design is acting proactively and with foresight with the use of the appropriate software
programs. Somewhere in the middle are situated the factors of clarity of roles (2,97) and clear
communication (2,848). Most of the participants neither agree or disagree with the fact that their partners
are involved in other fields of work without being asked to, or volunteer to stand in for somebody else.
The factor with the smallest mean value is information sharing (2,394). As for information sharing, the
participants seem to disagree with the fact that information is adequately shared among participants. The
mean values of all five factors are set in a range with the extreme ends being 3,576 and 2,394. Therefore,
one can understand that there is almost an equal contribution of them as to how they are formulated in
construction project in Greece.
34
Diagram 2. Importance of factors on how the 5 CSFs are formulated in construction briefing
Mean value and 95% confidence intervals
Remaining in the third part of the questionnaire, participants were asked to rank the 5 CSFs as
emerging from the briefing technique they had recently implemented in an order of importance (diagram
3). The clear objectives factor was their first choice (3,848) and very closely to it the design efficiency
(3,485). The third factor was the clarity of roles (3,061). In the fourth and fifth position stand the
information sharing (2,273) and very close to it the clear communication (2,242).
Diagram 3. The mean values of the 5 CSFs as emerging from the recent implementation of
briefing
Mean value and 95% confidence intervals
35
The statistical analysis of data (Appendix A) shows no significant variation among the views and
perceptions of all three categories of participants, concerning how briefing is formulated in Greece, as the
p-value rates are higher than the preset significance level of a=5%. (Design efficiency: chi=3,484, p>0,05,
Clear Objectives: chi=0,268, p>0,05, Information Sharing: chi= 5,894, p>0,05, Clarity of Roles: chi=
0,257, p> 0,05, Clear Communication: chi= 0,219, p>0,05).
The interviewees’ answers agree with the statistic results that the clear objectives factor is the
most important factor when it comes to formulating briefing. The respondents before communicating with
participants, they clearly set their objectives and then they communicate through meetings and drawings,
so as to make sure their targets are clearly set. One of the participants mentioned that note taking during
meetings and tracking of changes helps him maintain clear objectives. Design efficiency was formulated
either through designing on grids, templates or through the use of programs such as CAD. The
respondents also underscored the need for constant feedback. The clarity of roles was established through
working with teams that they had worked before, because they had developed unique codes of
understanding each other and they felt secure that what was said was clearly understood and done. An
advantage to working with groups that they knew, was that roles were already clear and the way
information sharing was done was also familiar. PM-CM F in particular stated that he is a proponent of
delegating the roles after discussion with participants for the project, because he sees that every project is
unique. A differentiation lies within the way the different participants establish communication among
them. More specifically architect E views briefing as a drawing, a picture or a design, the Design Team
Member B prefers to implement note-taking to assist him in understanding the objectives and PM F
prefers to hold separate discussions with clients and the rest of the construction participants until he
understands what the size of the project is.
Design Team Member B:
‘I usually keep a personal informal record containing all details of the project plan. I effectuate an
accurate description of the details of all tasks to be undertaken along with a daily report of the minutes of
the meetings and the tasks carried out on site’.
Construction Engineer C:
‘…to make it successful I cooperate with people I know and I have worked before, whom I trust. I
know how they think and they know and understand me and my job as well. However, in all cases
whether I know my associates or not, I use the grid x, y to keep track of changes and modifications’
Architect E:
‘I set my objectives and I communicate with all participants of the project and I e-mail
drawings/designs in AUTOCAD to everybody so as to ensure that all parties have a clear picture of what
it is to be done. I also prefer to personally give a fast course of basic lessons on architecture to my clients
in order to help them understand my position and my work.’
PM-CM F:
36
‘I try to help the client gradually unfold their deep-rooted needs and desires by establishing a
climate of trust and cooperation. As for the roles, I try to discuss with the stakeholders the constituents of
each role as to see how they can be combined in order to ensure the good operation of the system as each
time the needs of the participants shape a different project.’
Blyth (2008) links the clear objectives with the construction companies’ preference to work with
people they know. Being familiar with other teams means that trust has been established as a common
way of working has been developed and responsibilities are easily distributed. As it also appears in
Barrett (2000), good relations and efficient communication made the controlling programs much less
useful. What is also understood from the interviewees is that communication is done by all means like
note taking, drawings, meetings, e-mails. It is also a matter of sharing information with participants and
expecting their feedback.
Architect E realised that his clients needed some training in design and architecture. Design
efficiency would be benefited from the client’s familiarization with the design and construction field as it
would help the client gain insight into the architect’s work and through it identify his own needs and
desires leading to establishing better relations between clients and designers at the briefing stage (Siva
and London, 2012).
What the PM-CM F says about clarity of roles is that the roles of professionals vary depending on
the project, and are subject to changes and redefinitions during the briefing process according to the needs
of every new project. This is in line with the idea raised in Blyth (2008) according to which identifying
from early on the responsibilities allocated to each individual and their space in decision making affects
the success of briefing. In other words, knowing ‘who’ is responsible for making ‘which’ decisions at
‘which’ phase of the project is pivotal for the success of briefing and it needs to be defined as early on as
possible.
Information sharing is closely related to the communication factors. E-mails, faxes, designs, CAD
archives were used by participants in order to exchange information on any changes or alterations.
Diffusion of information is essential to saving time and money (Ahmad et al., 2011) .
4.2.4. How the criteria are met within the construction management companies
Part four of the questionnaire examined how the CSFs are met in construction companies
(diagram 4). The CSFs are met mainly through the clear communication (4,091) and information sharing
(3,515). These findings point to the fact that constant communication among all partners through all
possible means i.e. phone, fax, e-mail, meetings on site and at the office, as well as consistency in sharing
information concerning the construction project is what maximizes the efficiency of the briefing process.
They also tend to agree with the fact that specifically designed software is likely to be implemented for
the detection of errors. With the setting of clearly delineated objectives (3,212) without too many
37
alterations just before the execution of a plan on condition that roles are clear (3,000) and participants
know who is responsible over what, briefing becomes more successful.
Diagram 4. The mean values of the 5 CSFs on how the latter are met
Mean value and 95% confidence intervals
As it concerns the overall analysis of the questionnaires, as presented below in diagram 5, it is
observed that the people working for construction companies would primarily wish to see an
improvement in the design efficiency techniques (3,545) of the project applied by their associates and
secondly in the setting of the clear objectives (3,455). At the same time but not to the same extent, they
would wish to see more improvement in information sharing (2,788) and the establishment of clear roles
(2,758) for each associate. Finally, not much improvement is sought in the existence of clear
communication (2,455) among the associates.
Diagram 5. The mean values of the 5 CSFs requiring improvement
Mean value and 95% confidence intervals
38
As follows, the statistics analysis attempts to investigate the perceptions of the 3 employment
categories as to the improvement they would seek in the work of their collaborators.
According to the findings of the Kruskal-Wallis analysis, all the people working in construction
companies do not show any significant variation as it concerns the criteria under question (Appendix B).
(Design efficiency: chi=0,473, p>0,05, Clear Objectives: chi= 2,053, p>0,05, Information Sharing: chi=
4,744, p>0,05, Clarity of Roles: chi= 0,643, p> 0,05, Clear Communication: chi= 0,267, p>0,05).
The qualitative data, however, brought more factors to light. Some said that the factors can be met
if the professionals involved are experienced, some others suggested that professionals should be aware
of time and budget limits and they should try to be proactive and another point concerned the prerequisite
of stability in laws and regulations that affect construction conditions.
As concerns the criteria of the study, some respondents answered that the requirements that ensure
the success of clarity of goals are economico-political stability and cost. Another one said that design
efficiency would be better achieved by effective communication and cooperation of all participants. The
information sharing can be ensured by the use of technologies, where changes in designs, regulations and
opinions are diffused to all participants through the software programs or platforms. To achieve clear
communication the participants mentioned paying regular visits on site and supervising the process. The
interviewees seemed satisfied with the fact that roles today are better defined and cooperation among
participants is achieved.
Architect A:
‘…. to my mind what is required is the appropriate simulation of the situation that will be
encountered at the first steps of the design. Foreseeing the potential problems and being clairvoyant
concerning the future obstacles as well as taking down accurate details during the planning process is
what makes briefing successful. It is also necessary to take into consideration the legal or urban design
requirements by conducting a thorough research of the variables that contribute to the design of the
briefing.
In the past in Greece people used to believe that the construction was a linear process where each
person would undertake a particular task at their turn and there was little room for cooperation.
Nowadays, cooperation is deemed as an essential part not only of the briefing design but of the
construction process too’.
Design Team Member B:
‘Briefing cannot be rigid and unbent till the end. It all depends on the quality of the ‘research’
carried out and the clarity of the goals set by the client. What may also affect it is the conditions in the
market and the presence or absence of economico-political stability.’
39
‘… What makes briefing successful is the high level of experience of all members involved in the
process of its design. Transparent communication is essential among all stakeholders. Information sharing
might not be of primary importance. It all depends on the form, place and size of the project.'
Construction Engineer C:
‘Time is always the problem, small or large changes trigger delays. Regulations are also a big
drawback. It is great success if you can choose partners that you feel safe with and you all do your best.
It is also the accurate and thorough technical description, the accurate pricing before you send it
to the client. It is also important that time schedule in cooperation with manpower schedule and the
equipment schedule be aligned’.
‘Briefing is successful through the continuous conversations with your client in a step by step
process.’
PM-CM D:
‘I suppose it is implemented but not in the way it was primarily conceived and agreed upon, due
to the factors concerning the geomorphology, topography, architectural findings, flora, fauna of protected
species which induce changes to the design of the project and the budget. I personally prefer to be on site,
to supervise each process and make any changes on the spot.'
Architect E:
‘What usually happens in Greece is that people do not consult the designs and drawings and do
not strictly adhere to them. As a result, alterations are made without equally informing all stakeholders
which leads to a communication breakdown.
What is needed is proactiveness and constant updating of all stakeholders on new developments.
Another drawback is the rare use of new technologies. '
I feel that roles are already distinct especially when working with the same team for years what
would be essential is the upgrading of the already existing systems based on new technologies and in
particular the ‘BIM’ technology.
PM-CM F:
‘The goals need to be a result of a profound cooperation mainly between the client and the PM. In
order to do that, both sides must understand the priorities, the criteria and the motives. Clear
communication is essential as without it things get confusing. If regular visits are not paid on the
construction site, everything crumbles. The design efficiency constitutes the time planning, the budget,
the subcontractors, the materials, and order.’…….‘Last but not least, information sharing should ensure
the right amount of information flow to the right people’…..‘All participants should contribute to the
solving of the problems that crop up and collaborate effectively with the best of intentions.’
Architect E, similarly to Sebastian (2011), believes that technologies and specifically the BIM will
increase the accuracy of the project process and the briefing process. It will solve communication
breakdown among members, by visualizing the designs, gathering information and participants’
40
requirements, showing in detail where engineers’, hydraulics’, architect’s designs come to a conflict and
should be modified. Architect A and E, desiring more accuracy at the briefing stage are in line with what
Peat and West (2005:137) sustain concerning the value of ‘standardisation of the information’ for the
briefing.
PM-CM F is a proponent of what arises in Contestabile (2011) concerning the fact that
information should flow the right time, to the absolutely relevant people in order to avoid
misunderstandings or communication breakdown and keep roles in their initial balance.
All participants concerning the design efficiency factor underlined the need to have a
‘standardized’ plan in contrast with the idea raised by architects in Koutamanis (2005) concerning the
fact that specific requirements in a computerized environment limit the designers’ ‘plasticity’.
Bertelsen and Emmitt (2005) support the priority set by the PM-CM F to understand the client,
cultivate a relationship of trust as to realize which the client’s needs are and finally which the project’s
needs are. After all, objectives, as all participants said, are the client’s demands and these formulate the
briefing and predict the success of the project. The fact that all sides have to be satisfied as far as the
objectives and priorities are concerned appears in Zwikael and Globerson (2006a). On the antipode of
this, lies the idea that briefing is formulated as a result of the cooperation between the client and the
designer, instead PM as is mentioned by PM-CM F (Paton and Dorst, 2011).
As it concerns the clarity of roles, one architect E stated that there is no complexity or
misunderstanding as far as the roles are concerned. The roles are clear and they are even clearer when
teams have worked together for years.
Participants in the questionnaire’s open question, agreed that they would like to build on the
experience of previous projects, and that having the feedback of past projects would help them avoid
mistakes of the past. This is in contrast with (Blaxter et al., 2001) that sees the nature of projects as
temporary and the strategies on projects difficult to develop since the project ‘exists’ (Schindler and
Eppler, 2003: 221) until it is completed. Not only is each project different from the other, but also groups
of CSFs vary from project to project according to Thi and Swierczek (2010).
The respondents also wanted a more cooperative climate among various specialized professionals.
Indeed according to Smith et al. (2000) the presence of many professionals working together may lead to
problems being solved more easily and more effectively.
41
5. Conclusions and recommendations
5.1. Introduction
Findings collected from questionnaires and interviews answering the research questions of:
1) What is construction project briefing,
2) How construction companies conceive briefing in Greece,
3) How the CSFs are formulated in construction briefing in Greece,
4) How the criteria are met within the construction management companies.
are summarised in the following chapter of this dissertation.
5.2. Conclusions
5.2.1. 1st Research question
The first research question concerned the perceptions of construction companies on what
construction project briefing is. The implementation of the Spearman Rho statistic control showed no
correlation between static and dynamic briefing. The results from the interviews revealed the dominant
belief that briefing is a dynamic process subject to changes in correspondence with the needs of all
stakeholders, government laws or market regulations. It requires the setting of clear objectives that will
allow the incorporation of possible changes reduced to mere details of the project. Taking into account all
stakeholders’ needs is based on the fact that all professions are interrelated when it comes to
accomplishing a task that requires the collaboration among many participants.
Its dynamic nature does not, however, preclude certain delineations as it concerns the setting of
goals, and distribution of tasks to the most appropriate experts, when brief is seen as a document so that
additional costs and delays can be avoided by allowing for constant changes. Any necessary changes can
alternatively be dealt with through the existence of alternative options to the initial plans in an effort to
act proactively.
To the question of ‘who is more appropriate’ for the briefing design most answers pointed to the
PM and secondly to the architect. This finding alludes to the fact that briefing is both a managerial
process requiring a leader to take the project to the finish line (Sommerville et al., 2010) and to the fact
that it is a matter of technical coordination drawn up by the actual designer.
5.2.2. 2nd Research question
The second research question concerned how construction companies conceive briefing in Greece.
The examination of what the most important factor is perceived to be amid the entire population revealed
the factor of clear communication to be the most important one followed by information sharing, design
efficiency and clear objectives and finally that of clarity of roles. It seems that effective communication
among participants is deemed important for the success of briefing as it prepares the ground for an
42
effective cooperation. Information sharing through the use of the appropriate software systems seems to
be essential in communicating ideas and individuals’ needs. Design efficiency and clear objectives are
equally important in that the delineation of the tasks and the goals to be achieved in analytic and
systematic way helps render briefing successful. The factor of clarity of roles was understated as all
participants seemed to take it for granted that each associate is assigned a specific task.
To the examination of the three categories of business activities of the population in connection
with the five CSFs no differences arose. All participants claimed that companies act as ‘profilers’ in
identifying and defining client’s needs either through the use of drawings or through separate face-to-face
interaction with clients and stakeholders, while at the same time they try to take into consideration the
time and budget requirements as well as the needs of all players in order to draw up a framework for
cooperation. Effective communication and sharing of information emerged as factors that primarily
contributed to achieving economic and time planning. Working up a way of communicating by allocating
responsibilities and tasks to the appropriate people from an early point seemed to greatly contribute to a
successful briefing.
5.2.3. 3rd Research question
To the question of how briefing is formulated by construction companies in Greece the results
showed a rather inverse picture to the one that appeared in the previous section. The two factors that
depicted the reality of the participants’ work were the setting of clear objectives and design efficiency.
The clarity of roles along with clear communication underline the fact that unrequested involvement in
other people’s field of work does not really depict reality as probably the setting of clear objectives
encompasses clear delineation of roles. The participants also estimated that information is not adequately
shared among them at work.
To the request made to the participants to rank the five CSFs in order of importance according to
the work they had recently been involved in the results placed the factors in the following order: 1) clear
objectives, 2) design efficiency, 3) clarity of roles, 4) information sharing and 5) clear communication.
Additionally, no statistical significance appeared among the 3 business activities and their perceptions of
the five CSFs.
Clear objectives concerned the setting of goals from each side of the participants in an explicit
way before communicating them in group meetings. Note taking as well as using templates, grids and
design software such as CAD and shop drawings were also referred to as important elements of recording
details of the objectives and the tracking of changes. Familiarisation of clients with basic design and
construction principles was thought to add an advantage to identifying the needs and desires of the clients
and to establishing good relations based on mutual understanding.
The clarity of roles was ensured after working with teams the participants had cooperated with in
the past as a unique code of communication was shared, the roles were already strictly delineated and
43
information sharing followed already known paths. Due to the uniqueness of every new project the roles
of the participants are redefined every time from an early stage of briefing, so that every player’s
responsibilities and their ‘room’ for decision-making can be established. The differentiation that appeared
among the answers of the respondents concerned the communication factor and, in particular, the way in
which they achieve it. The responses included the exchange of drawings, pictures or designs, note taking
as to keep track of the proceedings of meetings as well as the separate face-to-face meetings firstly
between the client and the PM and secondly the PM and the construction participants. Feedback was
considered necessary in all ways of communicating as to ensure that the idea conveyed were clearly
understood.
5.2.4. 4th Research question
The fourth research question concerned the conditions that would ensure a successful briefing
through the meeting of the five CSFs.
Information sharing and design efficiency can be met through constant communication among all
participants through the use of technology and face-to-face interactions, during which, information
concerning the project is shared. The setting of clear objectives with the absence of frequent alterations
just before the execution of a plan as well as knowing ‘who’ is responsible over ‘what’ renders briefing
successful.
Concerning what the people working in the companies would wish to see improved in their
colleagues’ work, the results ranked the design efficiency techniques first, followed closely by clear
objectives. To a lesser degree they would wish to see some improvement in information sharing, clarity of
roles and finally clear communication. The examination of the employment categories regarding the
improvement they sought in their partners’ work showed no statistical significance among them.
What was of significant importance, though, were the factors that emerged through the interviews.
Participants made reference to the condition of the existence of experienced professionals with foresight
and skills and to the consideration of factors of time and budget limits and of the existence of stability in
the legislation system creating the framework for construction at different times. To the existing factor of
clear objectives they added the dimension of politico-economical stability and the costs. To the
achievement of design efficiency, along with the use of new technologies, they referred to the existence
of effective communication and cooperation among the participants for the solution of emerging
problems. The participants converged to the idea that a ‘standardised’ plan from previous projects would
help to making briefing more successful, by avoiding mistakes of the past. Cooperation was mainly seen
in two forms, i.e. between the PM and client and among all the participants. Emphasis was placed on the
existence of more cooperation among participants as it was thought inadequate in Greece. Information
sharing, apart from the element of building trust, diffusing information to all players and thus
encouraging cooperation, it also incorporated the use of software programmes and platforms. Clear
44
communication was defined through regular on-site visits and the element of supervision. As regards the
clarity of roles, no additions were reported apart from the fact that working in teams for many years
contributed to it but it was not necessarily a prerequisite for its existence.
5.3. Recommendations
5.3.1. 1st Research question
Although findings showed a clear predominance of briefing’s dynamic nature over the static one
there was no complete elimination of the latter. Detailed specifications regarding the ‘static’ elements of
briefing, however, were not given by the participants. The question of which constitute the more ‘solid’
and which the more ‘liable to change’ elements of the process was only faintly hinted at and it would
require a further investigation by means of a large scale research in the Greek context.
5.3.2. 2nd Research question
The findings regarding how construction companies conceive briefing in Greece placed great
emphasis on the importance of effective communication through the use of the appropriate software
systems for the success of briefing. While there is an obvious link between sharing information and
effective communication there was no reference to the extent of information that can be shared as well as
to ‘who’ is the appropriate to share it with. Versed differently, there was no mention made by the
participants as to whether everything should be transparent and everybody should have equal access to the
information in general, or only to the information pertaining to their role in the project. Creating a map
comprising all possible steps in decision-making according to the allocation of responsibilities would
shed more light to which parts of the information would be accessible and by whom.
5.3.3. 3rd Research question
The findings pertaining to the question of how briefing is formulated in Greece brought to light
the preference for cooperation with teams companies had worked with before as to follow already known
patterns in role allocation and information sharing and as to consequently achieve better communication.
Communication was also linked to the familiarization of clients with the basic principles of design and
construction. What was left unanswered, however, was ‘how’ this familiarization would be achieved by
‘whom’, ‘which skills’ would be necessary as to convey these ideas and whether this kind of ‘initiation
ceremony’ of the client would add to the confusion of objectives and roles allowing for a greater degree
of unproductive intervention. Ongoing education of architects and PM-CMs on various software
programs and ‘management’ would probably reduce any misinterpretations, deriving from lack of
education (Peat and West, 2005). More thorough investigation would be required into the perceptions of
professionals on the importance of ongoing professional development in Greece and whether and to what
extent experience makes up for the absence of the former in reality.
45
5.3.4. 4th Research question
The findings concerning the last research question on how the criteria are met within the
construction management companies in Greece, participants mentioned that they would wish to see some
improvement in the use of new technologies applied in briefing, as well as more cooperation among all
participants towards problem-solving.
That would be feasible through ongoing, lifelong learning based on the use of new computer
packages and design software as well as advanced information systems that would maximize and speed
up the process of information sharing and would lead to better communication (Peat and West,
2005:136). Therefore, a future study in Greece could concentrate on investigating the strengths and
limitations of software systems for each category of employee in construction companies towards the
success of briefing to find out whether there is any differentiation among them as regards the perceptions
on the usefulness of these systems.
46
6. Reflections
The journey to the Ithaca of this dissertation was filled with its own difficulties, surprises and
finally experience in education and life.
What was the first and most stressful factor was time which proved to be less than I had
calculated.
Another problem was that access to information sources, as it concerned the interviewees, was
difficult because some who had promised to help did not finally manage to. Finding relevant to the
subject literature in Greece was not easy as the topic has not enjoyed a lot of attention in Greece. Also
interviewees thought that they were evaluated, so I had to act in a more friendly way in an effort to
establish a positive climate of cooperation, discreetness and trust. Concerning data gathering, the
questionnaire elaboration was a demanding task in order to achieve well written, understandable and
targeted questions.
The word limit, the time and budget restrictions and the small sample of respondents affected the
dissertation. More questions would be set if there was enough time and more professionals were willing
to be interviewed for a longer time, as well.
As many success factors were intentionally left out, a lot of attention and responsibility had to be
given to the synthesizing of the dissertation. Many questions were answered and many new need
answering in the future as for example: 1) what the static elements of briefing are and whether people
viewed it as a document or a process, 2) what the role of ongoing professional development is in design
efficiency and communication, or 3) what constitutes client familiarisation with design principles and by
whom it should be administered. The clarity of roles was expected to be more frequently desired while
the findings revealed that in the past it used to be a problem, but now it is clearly set.
It was all a matter of managing time, people relations, word limit and self tendencies.
47
7. REFERENCES
Ahmad, N., Ismail, F., Alwi, S.N.A.S., Abd Rashid, R., 2011. Important Client Attributes That Influence
Project Success: A Focus on the Briefing Process. In: 2011 IEEE Symposium on Business, Engineering
and Industrial Applications (ISBEIA), 25-28 Sept. 2011 Langkawi, Malaysia. IEEE Conference
Publications IEEEXplore,org pp.314-319.
Arayici, Y., Coates, P., Koskela, L., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., O'Reilly, K. (2011). BIM Adoption and
Implementation for Architectural Practices, Structural Survey, Vol. 29, No.1, pp. 7-25.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project Management: Cost, Time and Quality, Two Best Guesses and a
Phenomenon, Its Time to Accept Other Success Criteria, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 337-342.
Baker, M.J. (2000). Writing a Literature Review, The Marketing Review, Vol. 1, Is. 2, pp. 219 -247.
Barrett, P.S., Hudson, J., Stanley, C. (1999). Good Practice in Briefing: The Limits of Rationality,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 8, pp. 633-642.
Barrett, P. (2000). Systems and Relationships for Construction Quality, International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 17, No. 4 /5, pp. 377-392.
Bertelsen, S., Emmit S., 2005. Getting to grips with client complexity. In: Emmit, S. and Prins, M., eds.,
CIB W096 Architectural Management: Designing Value: New Directions in Architectural Management,
2,3 & 4 November 2005 Lyngby, Denmark. Rotterdam: CIB no. 307, pp. 61-68.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., Tight, M. (2001). How to Research, Second Edition, Open University Press:
Buckingham. Philadelphia.
Blyth, A. and Worthington, J. (2000). Managing the Brief for Better Design, Spon Press: London.
Bogers, T., van Meel, J.J., van der Voordt, T.J.M. (2008). Architects About Briefing, Facilities, Vol. 26,
Is. 3/4, pp. 109 – 116.
Bruce, M., Cooper, R. Vasquez D. (1999). Effective Design Management for Small Businesses, Design
Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 297-315.
48
Chan, D.S.K., Choy, K.L., Chan, Y.P. (2006). A Collaborative Information Sharing Platform for Virtual
Manufacturing Analysis Preparation, Engineering Letters, Vol. 13, Is.3, pp282-287.
Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D., Chan A.P.L. (2004). Factors Affecting the Success of a Construction Project,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130, No. 1, pp. 153 – 155.
Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D., Lam, E.W.M. (2002). Framework of Success Criteria for Design/Build Projects,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol.18, No.3, pp. 120-128.
Chikkodi, C.M., Satyaprasad, B.G. (2010). Business Statisstics, Global Media: Mumbai, Ind.
Choi, J., Kim, I. (2008). An Approach to Share Architectural Drawing Information and Document
Information for Automated Code Checking System, Tsinghua Science and Technology, Vol. 13, Is. S1,
pp. 171-178.
Daft, R. L. (2006). The New Era of Management, International Edition, Thomson South-western: China.
Deamer, P. (2010). The Changing Nature of Architectural Work: Interview With Chris Hall, Harvard
Design Magazine, Vol. 33, Is. Fall/ Winter 2010 – 2011, pp. 70 – 75.
Denscombe, M. (2010) The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects (4th ed.).
Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Georg, S., Tryggestad, K. (2009). On the Emergence of Roles in Construction: the Qualqulative Role of
Project Management, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, Is. 10, pp. 969-981.
Graham, R. (1999). Managing the Project Management Process in Aerospace and Construction: A
Comparative Approach, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, No.1, pp. 39-45.
Haponava, T., Al-Jibouri, S. (2010). Influence of Process Performance During the Construction Stage on
Achieving End-Project Goals, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 28, Is. 8, pp.853-869.
Jensen, P.A., Alexander, K., Fronczek-Munter, A., 2011. Towards an Agenda for User Oriented Research
in the Built Environment. In: 6. Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation:
Shaping the Construction/Siciety Nexus. Vol. Executive Summaries-full paper in electronic proceedings.
Horsholm: Danish Building Research Institute, pp. 55-56.
49
Jensen, P. A., Pedersen, E. F. (2009). Chapter Eight. User Involvement and the Role of Briefing in
Architectural Management. In: Emmitt, S., Prins M., den Otte, A., eds. International Research and
Practice. Oxford, UK : Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 172-185.
Kelly, J., Hunter, K., Shen, G., Yu, A. (2005). Briefing from a Facilities Management Perspective,
Facilities, Vol. 23, Is. 7/8, pp. 356 – 367.
Koutamanis, A., 2005. Fuzzy Design Modelling. In: Emmit, S. and Prins, M., eds., CIB W096
Architectural Management: Designing Value: New Directions in Architectural Management, 2,3 & 4
November 2005 Lyngby, Denmark. Rotterdam: CIB no. 307, pp. 295-302.
Li., H., Lu, W., Huang, T. (2009). Rethinking Project Management and Exploring Virtual Design and
Construction as a Potential Solution, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, Is. 4, pp. 363 –
371.
London, K., Chen, J., Bavinton, N. (2005). Adopting Reflexive Capability in International Briefing,
Facilities, Vol. 23, Is. 7/8, pp. 295 – 318.
Matar, M.M., Georgy, M.E., Ibrahim, M.E. (2008). Sustainable Construction Management: Introduction
of the Operational Context Space (OCS), Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26, pp. 261275.
Mertens, D.M. (1998). Research Methods In Education and Psychology. Interpreting Diversity With
Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. California: Sage Publications.
Newcombe, R. (2000). The Anatomy of Two Projects: A Comparative Analysis Approach, International
Journal of Project Management, No. 18, pp. 189-199.
O’Donnell F.J., Duffy, A.H.B. (2002). Modelling Design Development Performance, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 1198-1221.
Ormerod, M.G., Newton R. A. (2005). Briefing for Accessibility in Design. Facilities, Vol.23, No. 7/8,
pp. 285-294.
50
Othman, A.A.E., Hassan, T.M., Pasquire, C.L. (2004). Drivers for Dynamic Brief Development in
Construction, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11, Is. 4, pp. 248 – 258.
Paton, B., Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and Reframing: A Situated Practice, Design Studies, Vol. 32,
November 2011, pp. 573-587.
Peat, M., West, B., 2005. Communicating Detail. In: Emmit, S. and Prins, M., eds., CIB W096
Architectural Management: Designing Value: New Directions in Architectural Management, 2,3 & 4
November 2005 Lyngby, Denmark. Rotterdam: CIB no. 307, pp. 127-139.
Prins, M., Koolwijk, Ir.J., Volker, Ir. L., Wamelink, J.W.F. 2006. Briefing: Static or Dynamic?. In:
Adaptables 2006 International Conference On Adaptable Building Structures, 3-5 July 2006, Eindhoven,
Netherlands. Netherlands: Adaptables2006 TU/e , pp.114-118.
Rowley, J. (2012). Conducting Research Interviews, Management Research Review, Vol. 35, No. 3/ 4,
pp. 260-271.
Ryd, N. (2004). The Design Brief as Carrier of Client Information During the Construction Process,
Design Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 231-249.
Ryd, N. and Fristedt, S. (2007). Transforming Strategic Briefing into Project Briefs: A Case Study About
Client and Contractor Collaboration, Facilities, Vol. 25, No. 5/6, pp. 185-202.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. (5th edition).
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Schindler, M., Eppler, M.J. (2003). Harvesting Project Knowledge: A Review of Project Planning
Methods and Success Factors, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 219-228.
Sebastian, R. (2011). Changing Roles of the Clients, Architects and Contractors Through BIM,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 18, Is. 2, pp. 176-187.
Shen, Q., Li, H., Chung, J., Hui, P.-Y. (2004). A Framework for Identification and Representation of
Client Requirements in the Briefing Process, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22, Is. 2,
pp. 213 - 221.
51
Siva, J., London, K. (2012). Client Learning for Successful Architect-Client Relationships, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 19, No.3, pp.253-268.
Smith, J.M., Kenley, R., Wyatt, R. (1998). Evaluating the Client Briefing Problem: an Exploratory Study,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5, Is. 4, pp. 387 – 398.
Smith, J., Love, P.E.D. and Heywood, C. (2005). A Method for Performance Briefing at the Project
Inception Stage, Facilities, Vol. 23, Is. 7/8, pp. 319 – 329.
Smith, J., Love, P.E.D. and Wyatt, R.G., 2000. The Client Briefing Problem: A Method for Assessing the
Strategic Needs of Project Stakeholders. In: Altmann, G., Lamp, J., Love, P.E.D., Mandal, P., Smith, R.
and Warren M.J., eds., ICSTM2000, International Conference on Systems Thinking in
Management, November 8-10, 2000, Geelong, Australia. Netherlands: CEUR-WS.org, pp. 572-577.
Smith, J., Wyatt, R. and Jackson, N. (2003). A Method for Strategic Client Briefing, Facilities, Vol. 21,
Is. 10, pp. 203 -211.
Sommerville, J., Craig, N., Hendry, J. (2010). The role of the Project Manager: All Things to All People?,
Structural Survey, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 132-141.
Thi C.H., Swierczek, F.W. (2010). Critical Success Factors in Project Management: Implication from
Vietnam, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 16, No.4, pp. 567-589.
Verma, G.K., Mallick, K. (2004). Εκπαιδευτική Έρευνα: Θεωρητικές Προσεγγίσεις και Τεχνικές.
(Researching Education: Perspectives and Techniques) (επιµ.) Παπασταµάτης, Α.
(µτφ) Γρίβα,
Ε.Τυπωθήτω: Γιώργος Δάρδανος: Αθήνα.
Wateridge, J. (1998). How can IS/IT Projects be Measured for Success?, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 16, No.1, pp.59-63.
Webb, J. (2000). Questionnaires and their Design, The Marketing Review, Vol.1, Is. 2, pp. 197 - 218.
Wilkinson, S. (2001). An Analysis of the Problems Faced by Project Management Companies Managing
Construction Projects, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 8, Is. 3, pp. 160 –
170.
52
Willis, D. (2010). The Changing Nature of Architectural Work: Interview With Chris Hall, Harvard
Design Magazine, Vol. 33, Is. Fall/ Winter 2010 – 2011, pp. 25–31.
Yin, Y., Qin, S., Holland, R. (2011). Development of a Design Performance Measurement Matrix for
Improving Collaborative Design During a Design Process, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 60, No.2, pp. 152 – 184.
Yu, A.T.W., Shen, Q., Kelly, J., Hunter, K.
(2006a). Investigation of Critical Success Factors in
Construction Project Briefing by Way of Content Analysis, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 132, Is. 11, pp. 1178 – 1186.
Zwikael, O., Globerson, S. (2006a). From Critical Success Factors to Critical Success Processes,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44, No. 17, pp. 3433-3449.
Zwikael, O., Globerson, S. (2006b). Benchmarking of Project Planning and Success in Selected
Industries, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 688-700.
Website
Blyth, A. (2008). NBS Educator: Briefs: An Introduction.
Available
from: http://www.thenbs.com/training/educator/briefs/briefsIntro/briefsIntro00.asp [Accessed 8/7/2012].
Contestabile, J.M. (2011). Concepts of Information Sharing and Interoperability, Johns Hopkins
University/
Applied
Physics
Lab.
Available
from:
http://www.domesticpreparedness.com/userfiles/reports/InformationSharing_Interoperability_Concepts.p
df [Accessed 27/8/2012].
Anon (n.d.) Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. Available from: http://www.experimentresources.com/spearman-rank-correlation-coefficient.html [Accessed 16/7/2012].
Harding University (n.d.) Ordinal Measures Of Correlation: Spearman's Rho And Gamma. Available
from: http://www.harding.edu/sbreezeel/460%20Files/Statbook/CHAPTER14.pdf [Accessed 16/7/2012].
Sussex University (n.d.), Graham Hole Research Skills Kruskal-Wallis handout, version 1.0 .
Available from: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/grahamh/RM1web/Kruskal-Wallis%20Handoout2011.pdf
[Accessed 17/7/12].
53
University of Leicester (n.d.), On-line Statistics, Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric ANOVA . Available
from: http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/virtualfc/Stats/kruskal.html [Accessed 17/7/12].
Appendices
Appendix A
Table A. Kruskal –Wallis PM-CMs’, architects’, design teams’ views on the formulation of
briefing in Greece
Appendix B
Table B. Kruskal –Wallis PM-CMs’, architects’, design teams’ views on the improvement
sought in the CSFs
54
Appendix C
PROPOSAL AGC FORM
School of Management
SECTION 1: STUDENT TO COMPLETE
NAME:
CHATZI GEORGIA
PROGRAMME:
MBA
I.D. No:
ENROLMENT/START DATE :
10/2007
079017301
MODULE:
Proposal
DATE SUBMITTED:
31/03/2011
LOCAL RESOURCE CENTRE
ICON - GREECE
STUDENT DECLARATION: In submitting work to the University you are agreeing to the following statement:
“I declare that this assignment is my own work, that all sources of reference are acknowledged in full and that it has not been submitted for any other course“.
SECTION 2: TUTOR’S COMMENTS
Ability to construct
a project with clear,
coherent and well
defended research
questions/
objectives
Discussion of the
relation between
your proposed
research and
previous research
Discussion and
justification of
proposed methods
Overall Comments:
Second Marker Additional Comments (Optional):
Tutor marking this assignment
Date of marking
55
Mark Awarded (%)
Grade Awarded
School of Management
Dissertation Proposal Pro-Forma
Version 1.4 (October 2010)
Instructions:
This document consists of the Proposal Template.
Students are required to complete the Proposal Template when constructing and submitting
their Proposal.
Before you submit this Proposal please make sure that you have completed all of the following
steps:
1. Read the latest Dissertation Guidelines on Blackboard.
2. Read and considered the Support materials and additional notes on Blackboard.
3. Discussed your ideas with a Dissertation Tutor via Blackboard or the workshops.
4. Completed the online School of Management Research Ethics Form which is located on
Blackboard.
Advice on completing this Proforma:
• Download the word file document to your computer.
• Open the file and save the file with a new name.
• Remove the “instructions” and the “notes” to each section in the Pro-Forma.
• Insert your text within the boxes provided.
• Save and print your document. Retain a copy for your records.
• Submit your proposal.
56
GEORGIA CHATZI, MBA, 079017301, ICON – GREECE, OCTOBER 2007
I have thoroughly discussed this proposal with Dr. Colin Price via the blackboard and I had a meeting in
ICON – Greece, in Athens, with Mr. Mark Burridge.
Title
How Briefing in Construction Project Management is Implemented Through the Positioning of 5 Critical
Success Factors (CSFs): the Example of Greece
1. Abstract
The study aims to look into how the CSFs of communication among participants, clear objectives,
clarity of roles, information sharing, design efficiency, are positioned in the briefing process of a
construction project in the Greek context. How companies regard the concept of project briefing is
elaborated as well as how these CSFs are formulated in briefing. An attempt will be made to investigate
how these criteria are met in the construction companies in Greece. The study will develop with the help
of primary and secondary research. As it is programmed, 40 questionnaires are going to be distributed in
5 companies in Greece. Furthermore, five interviews will complement the research with more qualitative
data. Secondary research will be realised by an extensive literature review from authors and academic
researchers such as Blyth, Worthington, Love, Othman, Smith, Wilkinson, Yu, Shen, Kelly, Li, London,
Chen, Wyatt. The final part of the proposal will consist of the reflections part, the conclusions and a
timetable in the form of Gantt Chart along with the references that contributed to the enrichment of
knowledge.
2. Introduction
2.1. Key Question:
The key research question to be addressed in this assignment is the following: ‘How Briefing in
Construction Project Management is Implemented Through the Positioning of 5 Critical Success Factors
(CSFs): the Example of Greece’.
The Sub questions to be answered are:
I. What is construction project briefing,
II. How construction companies conceive briefing in Greece,
III. How the CSFs are formulated in construction briefing in Greece,
IV. How the criteria are met within the construction management companies.
57
The 5 CSFs are: communication among participants, clear objectives, clarity of roles, information
sharing, design efficiency.
2.2 Why this question is interesting
The construction project management and briefing attracted the interest of the author since it is an
evolving subject in the industry of construction management. Furthermore, the desire to explore this
subject was spawned after realising the connections of management with the briefing in construction
projects. Additionally, what was intriguing about this field was the interrelations among sciences, people
and specialisations in construction projects (Yin, Qin, Holland, 2011). In addition, I have witnessed many
times the need of participants to improve the process of construction and this could be achieved through
proper briefing. This is the industry’s challenge. Briefing provides an opportunity to manage
complexities. It is of utmost importance today in Greece to establish and improve briefing practices in
order to respond to the critical changes of the upcoming era (London, Chen, Bavinton, 2005).
3. Relation to previous research
3.1. Briefing
Researchers have given a variety of definitions regarding briefing in construction project
management. Briefing or else architectural planning (Yu, Shen, Kelly, Hunter, 2006) is the keeping of
records of the detailed performance specification of a project (Kelly, Hunter, Shen, Yu, 2005) (Othman,
Hassan, Pasquire, 2004). In general, Project Briefing is the agreed plan, by participants of a construction
project, on what the client requirements for the project are, the processes to be followed, how much time
and cost is involved in building it.
Briefing is characterised by some complexity (Smith, Kenley, Wyatt, 1998), which is attributed to
the fact that many stakeholders are involved and each of them has their own agenda for the project.
Complex is also the nature of problems that arise during the project, since complexity is an inherent
characteristic of activities in dynamic process (Smith et. al., 1998). Thus, it would be more effective to
start solving the problem from its roots by focusing on how clients, designers and participants conceive
the whole project and design and how they are going to perform it (Deamer, 2010).
Many techniques and methods are used in order to help solve the problems that emerge such as:
smart, expert choice and strategizer (Smith et. al., 1998), Strategic Needs Analysis (Smith, Love,
Heywood, 2005) (Smith, Wyatt, Jackson, 2003), AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process (Smith et. al., 1998),
(Al-Tabtabai and Thomas, 2004), Dynamic Briefing Development (Othman et. al., 2004), RIBA plan of
work (Othman et. al., 2004).
3.2 The CSFs
To improve the performance of project briefing, this study will focus on the CSFs (Yu et. al.,
2006) and more specifically on the following five:
58
1. Communication among participants: It is of primary importance and it should be ‘open and effective’
(Yu et. al., 2006) in order to effectively achieve the information exchange (Daft, 2006). Direct
communication is still necessary (Deamer, 2010), and the way one perceives the construction project is
transmitted through nonverbal messages.
2. Clear objectives: The transparency of intentions of each participant is emphasised. It is viewed (Yu et.
al., 2006) as a project-related factor. The absence of clear objectives is reflected in communication
ineffectiveness (Wilkinson, 2001).
3. Clarity of roles: Participants should be aware, the earliest possible, of who is going to participate
where, and on which phase (Yu et. al., 2006). Clarity of roles improves coordination of collaboration for
the briefing (Blyth and Worthington, 2000).
4. Information sharing: Diffusion of information is crucial as it publishes any intention and need of
participants. It would be important to spare a thought on what kind of information we draw from software
systems (Deamer, 2010), and how useful each system is in a particular situation.
5. Design efficiency: It is a factor that upgrades the project’s briefing quality and proves to be cost and
time saver in a competitive level (Yin et. al., 2011). Virtual design programs assist to the tracking of
errors, and give answers to disputes among members (Li., Lu, Huang, 2009).
The CSFs were chosen on the basis of the frequency of their reference in academic journals and
their importance for the prediction of the success of a project (Chan, Scott, Chan, 2004). What is more,
the CSFs researched in this paper are helpful tools for managers to look deeper (Zwikael and Globerson,
2006) and formulate strategies according to the needs of a project.
4. Proposed Methods
The study will be based on methods comprising the literature review, questionnaire and
interviews. In the following part, each of them will be discussed separately and in comparison with other
methods applied by different authors in the field, such as focus groups (Yin et. al., 2011) (Yu et. al.,
2006) (Li, 2009), case studies (Georg and Tryggestad, 2009) and observation (Blaxter, Hughes, Tight,
2001).
4.1 Literature review
Newton said: ‘If I can see further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants’ (Baker,
2000: 219).
Previous studies offer a variety of useful information and ideas for further research. Access to
books and journals will be ensured through sources as Emerald, EBSCO host, Wiley, Science Direct of
the library web page of Leicester University. Additionally, publications and books will be useful sources
for the review of what has been written so as to focus on critical issues, classify and compare them with
this assignment’s findings (Rowley and Slack, 2004).
59
Based on the literature review as a secondary data, the 5 CSFs of this study were identified and
chosen in order to be analysed. (Blaxter, et. al., 2001).
4.2 Interviews
For a qualitative research, five face-to-face interviews will be conducted and responses will be
taken down by handwriting. Questions will be clearly posed to achieve unbiased answers.
This technique is more preferable to the focus group one because individuals will give unbiased
answers and there would not be a problem of gathering and coordinating a group of people. Using case
studies would narrow the investigation as it would concentrate on specific examples and thus omit some
success factors (Blaxter et. al., 2001). Observation would cause confusion because of the number of
people involved, the active or not participation of the observer, as well as the artificiality of the
environment (Blaxter et. al., 2001).
The aim is to see how these CSFs contribute to briefing success in the Greek context , how people
conceive briefing and how these criteria are met within construction management companies.
4.3. Questionnaires
A number of 40 questionnaires will add to the qualitative research. The questionnaires will be
distributed with the hope of receiving completed the 25 of them. Anonymity and confidentiality are a
priority in an attempt to respect the ethical issues concerned (Blaxter et. al., 2001). Questionnaire
distribution will be completed by e-mail, by post with a reply-paid folder (Blaxter et. al., 2001) and to
some others by a visit to their office, so as to be sure that respondents feel committed to fill it in, return it
and also for the researcher to be able to give clarifications if needed. This method is preferable to others
because participants with different roles will answer the same questionnaire. In order to render the
findings more valid (Webb, 2000) both open and close – end questions will be integrated in the
questionnaire. The open-end ones will give the respondents the freedom to answer more clearly and
sincerely in and share their thoughts (Kotler and Keller, 2006). Close-end ones will prevent the
questionnaire becoming tiring to the participants. The Likert scale and some multiple-choice type of
questions would be useful in the closed-end questions (Kotler et. al., 2006). Questions will be constructed
in such a way to avoid subjectivity, confusion and disorientation (Webb, 2000).
5. Reflections
In the attempt to conduct this study and address the subject as properly as possible, obstacles may
arise ranging from time restrictions, to access to and processing of information. The CSFs that ensure a
successful briefing are complex and interrelate with one another. In the methodology part, the obstacles
concern the formulation of clear and precise questions in both interviews and questionnaires.
Furthermore, as time is restricted, my studying program will have to manage the interruptions (Blaxter et.
al., 2001) and a lot of self – discipline is required to meet the deadline.
In recent researches, there is not a wide range of literature pertaining to the CSFs on project
60
briefing (Yu et. al., 2006). Many success factors have been proposed in the suggested literature, but how
the companies and participants conceive the briefing and the CSFs in Greece has not been fully
investigated. Data elaborated from the questionnaires and the interviews could help in this research.
However, limitations to these data still exist, since participants and interviewees cannot always be
objective as the latter may be tempted to provide an improved version of their professional profile.
What is also important is the role of ethics in this research. Participants of questionnaires and
people interviewed are professionals who wish that their anonymity be safeguarded. Trust and
discreteness are of primary concern when cooperating with the individuals (Blaxter et. al., 2001). It is
within the construction industry’s nature that secrets and information should not be revealed for reasons
of competition, important co-operations and price fluctuations. My position is sensitive since
questionnaires will be sent to associate companies of the company I work for. Lack of time on the part of
the interviewees may further delay data collection.
Last but not least, this subject needs to be researched very carefully, open-mindedly and as
precisely as possible, since not enough has been written about it. This fact constitutes a great
responsibility and an opportunity to gain some insight into how briefing is construed in Greece. Personal
points of view should be refrained in order to avoid subjectivity on the whole assignment and especially
in the interview and data analysis part.
6. Conclusions
In this dissertation the way briefing in construction project management is implemented will be
studied through five CSFs namely, communication, clear objectives, clarity of roles, information sharing
and design efficiency. The methods of investigation and data will be elaborated in the Greek context. The
study stresses on how briefing is conceived by companies, how these CSFs are formulated in the Greek
environment and how these criteria are met.
Briefing in construction project management develops as a success factor of construction. As
construction evolves, complexities arise that need to be administered. So, the briefing goes under the
microscope of researchers who enlighten us through the literature review. Emphasis is generally drawn on
how project participants regard briefing and these 5 CSFs.
On receiving the Leicester University approval, the race for the final dissertation will start. In
anticipation of these results the gathering of information and literature will be done. After this phase, my
work will focus on the critical evaluation of the literature review and the preparation of interviews and
questionnaires. The interesting, but lonely part of processing, comparing, contrasting data and elaborating
on them will be the next step to take.
7. Timetable
61
There is an one page diagram in the Appendix
8. References
Al-Tabtabai, H.M., Thomas, V.P. (2004). Negotiation and Resolution of Conflict Using AHP: an
Application to Project Management, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11,
Is. 2, pp.90 – 100.
Baker, M.J. (2000). Writing a Literature Review, The Marketing Review, Vol. 1, Is. 2, pp. 219 -247.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., Tight, M., (2001). How to Research, Second Edition, Open University Press:
Buckingham. Philadelphia
Blyth, A., Worthington, J., (2000). Managing the Brief for Better Design, Spon Press: London and New
York.
Chan, A. P.C., Scott, D., Chan, A.P.L. (2004). Factors Affecting the Success of a Construction Project,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130, Is. 1, pp. 153 – 155.
Daft, R. L.,(2006). The New Era of Management, International Edition, Thomson South-western: China
Deamer, P. (2010). The Changing Nature of Architectural Work: Interview With Chris Hall, Harvard
Design Magazine, Vol. 33, Is. Fall/ Winter 2010 – 2011, pp. 70 – 75.
Georg, S., Tryggestad, K. (2009). On the Emergence of Roles in Construction: the Qualqulative Role of
Project Management, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, Is. 10, pp. 969-981.
Kelly, J., Hunter, K., Shen, G., Yu, A. (2005). Briefing from a Facilities Management Perspective,
Facilities, Vol. 23, Is. 7/8, pp. 356 – 367.
Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., (2006). Marketing Management, (12), Pearson Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Li., H., Lu, W., Huang, T. (2009). Rethinking Project Management and Exploring Virtual Design and
Construction as a Potential Solution, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, Is. 4, pp. 363 –
371.
London, K., Chen, J., Bavinton, N. (2005). Adopting Reflexive Capability in International Briefing,
Facilities,Vol. 23, Is. 7/8, pp. 295 – 318.
Othman, A.A.E., Hassan, T.M., Pasquire, C.L. (2004). Drivers for Dynamic Brief Development in
Construction, Engineering,Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11, Is. 4, pp. 248 – 258.
Rowley, J., Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a Literature Review, Management Research News, Vol. 27, Is.
6, pp. 31 – 39.
Smith, J.M., Kenley, R., Wyatt, R. (1998). Evaluating the Client Briefing Problem: an Exploratory Study,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5, Is. 4, pp. 387 – 398.
Smith, J., Love, P.E.D., Heywood, C. (2005). A Method for Performance Briefing at the Project Inception
Stage, Facilities, Vol. 23, Is. 7/8, pp. 319 – 329.
62
Smith, J., Wyatt, R., Jackson, N. (2003). A Method for Strategic Client Briefing, Facilities, Vol. 21, Is.
10, pp. 203 -211.
Yin, Y., Qin, S., Holland, R. (2011). Development of a Design Performance Measurement Matrix for
Improving Collaborative Design During a Design Process, International Journal of productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 60, No.2, pp. 152 – 184.
Yu, A.T.W., Shen, Q., Kelly, J., Hunter, K.
(2006). Investigation of Critical Success Factors in
Construction Project Briefing by Way of Content Analysis, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 132, Is. 11, pp. 1178- 1186.
Webb, J. (2000). Questionnaires and their Design, The Marketing Review, Vol.1, Is. 2, pp. 197 – 218.
Wilkinson, S. (2001). An Analysis of the Problems Faced by Project Management Companies Managing
Construction Projects, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 8, Is. 3, pp. 160 –
170.
Zwikael, O., Globerson S. (2006). From Critical Success Factors to Critical Success Processes,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44, Is. 17, pp. 3433 -3449.
9. Appendices
63
TIMETABLE
Months per Week /
Stages
January March
April
1
Proposal
preparation &
submission
Gathering of
Literature
Easter Break
Receiving
Proposal
recommendations
& marking
Methodology
study
Preparation &
Distribution of
Questionnaires &
Conducting
interviews
Summer Vacations
Elaborate data of
research
Writing Literautre
Review
National Holiday /
3 days off
Findings / Data
analysis
Christmas Break
Conclusions /
Recommendations
References/
Appendices,
Introduction
2
3
June
4
1
2
3
July
4
1
2
3
August
4
1
2
3
September
4
1
2
3
October
4
1
2
3
November
4
1
2
3
December
4
1
2
3
January
4
1
2
3
February
4
1
2
3
4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------END OF STUDENT SUBMISSION
THE FORMS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE ONLY USED IN INCIDENTS OF
AND/OR THE AWARD OF A FAIL GRADE FOR THIS PIECE OF WORK. STUDEN
NOT DELETE THESE FORMS.
65
School of Management
PLAGIARISM FORM (Student Assessed Work)
This form should only be completed where a case of plagiarism (inc. ‘poor scholarship’) has been identified. It
should be attached to the student’s submitted work that contains the plagiarised material.
PART 1 – TO BE COMPLETED BY FIRST MARKER
Student Name:
Programme of Study & Year:
Module:
Nature and Extent of Plagiarism (please highlight or underline plagiarised text):
What, if known, is the source of
plagiarism? (e.g. peer plagiarism, single or
multiple texts, websites)
What proportion of the submission is
plagiarised?
Any other comments?
What mark should be awarded?
%
%
st
Name of 1 marker:
Date (dd/mm/yyyy)
PART 2 – TO BE COMPLETED BY SECOND MARKER
Comments (please indicate agreement or
disagreement with the first markers assessment
and recommended action):
Name of 2nd Marker
Date (dd/mm/yyyy)
PART 3 – TO BE COMPLETED BY DEPUTY HEAD OF SCHOOL
Recommendation (following, where
appropriate, a student interview and
consultation with the Director of Postgraduate
Studies and the Director of Undergraduate
Studies)
Resubmission Permitted?
Mark Awarded
Name of Deputy Head of School
Date (dd/mm/yyyy)
Yes/No
%
66
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR FAILING PROPOSALS
Student Name:
Course
Centre
Date of Enrolment
Module/Unit
Your assignment has been subject to a system of second marking. Unfortunately the markers have
concluded that the assignment has not met a satisfactory standard.
You should consider carefully the information provided on the AGC form as well as the reasons for the fail
grade indicated below. Then make sure you follow the advice given under ‘action to take’ when working on
your next assignment.
Please consult your Programme Handbook for details of the resubmission policy for your programme of
study.
REASON(S) FOR THE FAIL GRADE
You have not adequately answered the
question set.
You have not adequately explained what
you have done.
Your answer is too descriptive – it lacks
sufficient analysis to address the
question set.
Your answer is too brief or exceeds the
word limit set for this assignment.
You do not make sufficient use of the
concepts and theories that are relevant
to addressing the assignment question.
You have made use of literature/study
materials without fully acknowledging
the sources.*
You have simply reproduced the
information contained in the module and
other readings. You must use this
material to answer the question in your
own words.*
Your answer is too similar to that of
another student. Rework your answer
using your own words.*
Other: Please specify
ACTION TO TAKE
You need to check carefully that you have understood
the question set. Please discuss your interpretation of
the question with a Tutor on Blackboard and use the
support materials on writing assignments found on
Blackboard.
Please discuss the expectations of the assignment
with the Tutor on Blackboard.
Please refer to the support materials on Blackboard
and in Module 1 of your programme.
For advice on developing an essay please see your
Programme Handbook and Module 1 material.
Please refer to the support material on Blackboard.
Please read the guidance in your programme handbook on
referencing. There is further information on how to avoid
plagiarism on Blackboard.
Please read the guidance in your programme handbook on
referencing. There is further information on how to avoid
plagiarism on Blackboard.
Please read the guidance in your programme handbook on
referencing. There is further information on how to avoid
plagiarism on Blackboard.
Items marked with an * are serious academic offences and amount to plagiarism or cheating. Please see
your programme handbook about the regulations governing plagiarism.
Second Marker
Signature
Date:
67
DISSERTATION AGC FORM
School of Management
SECTION 1: STUDENT TO COMPLETE
NAME:
CHATZI GEORGIA
PROGRAMME:
MBA
I.D. No:
ENROLMENT/START DATE :
10/2007
079017301
MODULE:
Dissertation
DATE SUBMITTED:
31/08/2012
LOCAL RESOURCE CENTRE
ICON - GREECE
STUDENT DECLARATION: In submitting work to the University you are agreeing to the following statement:
“I declare that this assignment is my own work, that all sources of reference are acknowledged in full and that it has not been submitted for any other
course“.
SECTION 2: TUTOR’S COMMENTS
Ability to construct a
project with clear,
coherent and well
defended research
questions/ objectives.
Discussion and
critique of relevant
literature.
Justification of method
and explanation of the
findings that result
from analytical
framework chosen.
Discussion of the
relation between this
research and previous
research.
Additional Comments:
Second Marker Additional Comments (Optional):
SECTION 3: TUTOR’S COMMENTS - Ethical Review Process:
Yes
Comment:
Did this Project have
Ethics Approval?
No
(Delete as appropriate)
Tutor marking this dissertation
Date of marking
68
Mark Awarded
Grade Awarded
School of Management
PLAGIARISM FORM (Student Assessed Work)
This form should only be completed where a case of plagiarism (inc. ‘poor scholarship’) has been identified. It
should be attached to the student’s submitted work that contains the plagiarised material.
PART 1 – TO BE COMPLETED BY FIRST MARKER
Student Name:
Programme of Study & Year:
Module:
Nature and Extent of Plagiarism (please highlight or underline plagiarised text):
What, if known, is the source of
plagiarism? (e.g. peer plagiarism, single or
multiple texts, websites)
What proportion of the submission is
plagiarised?
Any other comments?
%
What mark should be awarded?
%
Name of 1st marker:
Date (dd/mm/yyyy)
PART 2 – TO BE COMPLETED BY SECOND MARKER
Comments (please indicate agreement or
disagreement with the first markers assessment
and recommended action):
Name of 2nd Marker
Date (dd/mm/yyyy)
PART 3 – TO BE COMPLETED BY DEPUTY HEAD OF SCHOOL
Recommendation (following, where
appropriate, a student interview and
consultation with the Director of Postgraduate
Studies and the Director of Undergraduate
Studies)
Resubmission Permitted?
Yes/No
Mark Awarded
%
Name of Deputy Head of School
Date (dd/mm/yyyy)
69