IMPLEMENTING STANDARDISATION IN
MEDIUM-SIZED CONSTRUCTION FIRMS:
FACILITATING SITE MANAGERS’ FEELING OF
FREEDOMTHROUGH A BOTTOM-UP
APPROACH
Pim Polesie1, Mikael Frödell2 and Per-Erik Josephson3
ABSTRACT
Construction project are often referred to as unique and construction processes often
described as inefficient. The amount of waste in projects is claimed to be in the range
of 10-80% depending on the definitions of waste and the methods used to study them.
There is a general understanding that the proclaimed uniqueness of construction
projects is a reason for the claimed inefficiency and it is suggested that the processes
in construction should be more standardised to increase the efficiency and reduce
waste in accordance with the lean principles.
Another characteristic of construction projects is that site managers are usually
given the authority to run a project as if it were their own firm, effectively running a
company within a company. They value the freedom to run projects their own way
and e develop ways of working with which they are comfortable and do not always
consider their colleagues’ experiences.
Construction firms must accordingly struggle with finding efficient ways to
standardise in order to avoid the perception of dealing with unique projects while
simultaneously retaining what makes the organisation special and provides them with
a competitive edge. This can result in construction firms implementing modern
management principles that site managers are expected to accept without considering
their need for individuality.
This paper discusses the challenges faced by construction firms’ need for
standardised activities and processes to reduce waste and increase efficiency, while
simultaneously emancipating site managers so that they continue to find freedom,
value and motivation in their work.
Based on interviews with eight site managers in three medium-sized Swedish
construction firms, the indications are that processes should be developed slowly with
a bottom-up approach.
KEY WORDS
Lean principles, standardisation, construction projects, management, processes,
freedom.
1
Construction Management. Department of civil and environmental engineering, built environment,
Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg, Phone +46317721960 [email protected]
2
Construction Management. Department of civil and environmental engineering, built environment,
Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg,
3
Construction Management. Department of civil and environmental engineering, built environment,
Chalmers University of technology Göteborg,
317
Pim Polesie, Mikael Frödell and Per-Erik Josephson
INTRODUCTION
It is generally accepted that construction projects include uncertainty that is not only
related to the product but also to the processes and the organisational structure. The
number of specialists, customer-supplier relations, components not fitting each other,
new regulations, variable weather conditions, and ambiguous views and values of top
management are only a few of the uncertainties that site managers have to manage
during projects. These uncertainties lead to variations in project processes and
ultimately reduced customer value and satisfaction (Santos et al., 2002). One strategy
for increasing customer value and satisfaction in construction projects is to reduce the
uncertainty and increase the reliability and continuity of the construction process
(Gadde and Håkansson, 2001; Samuelsson, 2006).
To increase reliability it has been suggested that greater standardisation of
products, processes, and project organisation is required (Santos et al., 2002;
Josephson and Samuelsson, 2009). Site managers, who view increased standardisation
as a further erosion of their freedom to run projects their own way, however often
perceive standardisation negatively. They consider that the construction process is
already sufficiently standardised by having designated roles for project personnel,
standard forms of contract, governmental rules and regulations, standard procurement
methods, and, to some extent, standard work processes.
When implementing lean principles in construction organisations it is important to
balance standardisation of activities with site managers’ motivation. In order to
increase the understanding of what processes should be standardised without
negatively influencing the site manager’s feelings of individually choosing how to
manage projects, interviews were conducted with site managers in three Swedish
construction companies based in the Gothenburg area. Companies with a turnover
between SEK 200 and 600 million were chosen based on their interest in the subject.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the need for firms to balance the call for
standardisation of activities and processes to reduce waste and increase efficiency,
while simultaneously considering site managers’ desire for freedom to find value and
motivation in their work. For the purposes of this paper, standardisation is considered
to be the structured planning and operational sequence of activities that have been
learnt from experience as being the most effective processes for reducing waste and
increasing customer value.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
A construction project is a temporary organisation comprising different contractors
and subcontractors, which aims to accomplish specific tasks, such as the production
of houses, industrial buildings, highways, or office block, in order to fulfil a need.
During a construction project it is common for the project organisation to change with
many of the organisations involved at the beginning of the project not participating all
the way to the end. Different firms within the project have different fields of expertise,
relevant at various stages of the project life cycle. According to Dubois and Gadde
(2002), a construction firm’s prevailing organisational interdependencies are a result
of needing only a few areas of expertise at any given time.
The reliance upon suppliers in construction projects has made construction firms
dependent on the resources of other organisations. There are often many different
subcontractors with different or similar skills, working simultaneously on a project.
Proceedings for the 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
318
Implementing Standardisation in Medium-Sized Construction Firms: Facilitating Site Managers’ Feeling
of Freedomthrough a Bottom-Up Approach
This suggests that operations on the supplier’s side have a greater effect on
contractor’s organisational costs than the actual price paid to the suppliers (Gadde and
Håkansson, 2001).
Site managers are often individually in charge of construction projects and run
them as if they were their own firms. Since they have different backgrounds and
experiences, site managers manage projects differently. This lack of standardised
approaches to similar projects may cause confusion among workers and
subcontractors and thus increase waste (Womack and Jones, 2003; Liker, 2004). What
might be acceptable for a subcontractor or worker to do on one project might be
unacceptable in another. This differentiation hinders both ‘know-how’ and ‘know-
why’ (Knauseder, 2007) and underlines the effect that site managers can have on the
final product and hence their impact on value for the costumer. Josephson (1994)
suggested that this differentiation could hinder development of standardised processes
in the construction industry.
Information flow throughout the organisation as part of knowledge building is an
important subject that is also related to lean principles (Liker, 2004). To increase
knowledge within organisations, standardised methods of problem solving should be
created (Nonaka et al, 1998). However, individualism and ‘own firm’ thinking
together with the presumption of uniqueness built into contemporary construction
projects does not encourage information flow (Santos et al., 2002; Knauseder, 2007).
Shorter time spans for projects and new technical solutions have increased the
complexity of construction projects (Gadde and Håkansson, 2001). As projects
become more complex, the traditional focus on optimisation of single transactions in
projects where cost and price, not value, are the major means of measuring success
must change (Dubois and Gadde, 2000; Samuelsson, 2006; Knauseder, 2007; Simu,
2009).
STANDARDISATION
The lack of standardisation can be viewed as one of the reasons for the inefficiency of
the construction sector (Santos et al., 2002). Womack and Jones (2003) suggested that
standardisation of processes can be a means of reducing costs and saving time. Santos
et al. (2002) suggested that standardisation should be viewed as an approach aimed at
waste reduction by the critical disentanglement of processes to reduce their variability.
Ungan (2006) maintained that reduced process variability also contributes to
decreased uncertainty in complex construction projects. Information flow can be
increased by using processes as instruments to encourage homogeneous practices
through knowledge sharing regarding the end product and new, more efficient ways
of controlling processes within the project can be performed regarding both quality
and safety (Santos et al., 2002). It is further suggested that by introducing increased
standardisation in construction projects root causes of production problems can be
identified and routines can be established that lead to more consistent operations,
increased efficiency and hence easier process control for site managers (Ungan, 2006).
It is however important not to neglect the literature that expresses scepticism of
increased standardisation in construction. It is often suggested that standardisation
hinders or prevents innovative influences (Kondo, 2000; Gudmundsson, 2004).
Increased standardisation of processes on construction projects may reduce the feeling
of freedom that site managers appreciate.
Theory
319
Pim Polesie, Mikael Frödell and Per-Erik Josephson
The definition of standardisation and especially standardisation of processes is not
viewed as forcing individuals to standardise exact actions, routines or wear cloths in
specific sizes. Some room for variations in basic processes is identified as essential to
allow individual differences. Josephson (1994) suggested that two working processes
never can be performed in exactly the same way and that this automatically leads to
different results. However, the value for the costumer should be in the idea that the
quality of a project will be independent of the site manager, subcontractors or
suppliers active in the project or process.
Although good relations between the main contractor and subcontractors is
especially important in construction projects, long time collaborations between
contractors, suppliers and subcontractors are rare (Knauseder, 2007). This can be
related to the traditional heavy focus on price in the construction industry. Womack
and Jones (2003) and Liker (2004) argued that firms have to realise the potential
advantages of closer collaboration, and claimed that reducing indirect costs by
standardising processes and products often requires stronger and longer cooperation
with a few chosen suppliers and subcontractors. It is also important that the whole
construction process be the main focus for all participants in a construction project
and that the interests of individual subcontractors trying to maximise their short-term
profits should be secondary to this focus. This can be exemplified by the sub-
optimisation of subcontractors by site managers when scheduling project activities as
continuous work in the planning charts and not specifying the dates that subcontractor
services are really required.
STRUCTURE OF THE INTERVIEWS
The interviews were conducted with employees at the level of production manager
within three firms. The respondents were site managers in medium sized Swedish
construction companies based in Gothenburg. The interviews were explorative and
semi-structured with a phenomenographic approach of a qualitative nature in
accordance with Holme and Solvang (1997); Yin (2003); Chen and Partington (2006)
and Åkerlind (2005). A phenomenographical approach is beneficial when the
perspectives on specific phenomenon are sought from individuals in a certain area.
The interviews were open-ended and based on principal and follow-up questions to
encourage interviewees to further articulate their thoughts on the subject. The aim was
to conduct each interview within a time-span of two hours, however in the event they
varied from 100 to 130 minutes. The qualitative phenomenographic approach was
undertaken to make sure that the interviewers affected the interviewees as little as
possible and to get a holistic view of the phenomenon (Holme and Solvang, 1997;
Åkerling, 2005). The focus of the interviews was on the respondents’ perspective and
understanding of the phenomenon of standardisation and their perception of the
related issues surrounding it, rather than limiting answers to them interviewers
understanding of how standardisation can be used in construction projects. According
to Åkerlind (2005) this is important in the phenomenographical approach since the
goal is to gather categories of descriptions to differentiate between empirically
interpreted views from the hypothetical experiences of the interviewees.
In order to get as much information from the interviews as possible they were all
recorded. At least two interviewers were present during the interviews and all took
notes during and after the interviews. Directly after the interviews, the interviewers
discussed their thoughts and ideas amongst themselves.
Proceedings for the 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
320
Implementing Standardisation in Medium-Sized Construction Firms: Facilitating Site Managers’ Feeling
of Freedomthrough a Bottom-Up Approach
During the interviews, interviewers deliberately avoided using the words
‘standardisation’ and ‘lean’ as much as possible in order not to subconsciously create
biased answers from the interviewees, although a few respondents used the terms of
their own volition.
Data analysis was undertaken using a non-hypothetical explorative approach
emphasising the respondents’ perceived understanding of phenomenon regarding
standardisation in construction. This approach is viewed as effective if individual
views are of interest in accordance with the reasoning of Yin, 1994 and Silverman,
2004. The process of analysing the data was highly iterative, and there was
acceptance of new aspects and viewpoints throughout the writing-up process.
Different focuses and perspectives were utilised to maintain a holistic approach to the
different perspectives on standardisation presented during the interviews.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
The interviews produced a number of issues relating to standardisation, the four most
common of which are discussed below.
The perceived uniqueness of the construction projects: It was apparent from the
interviews that neither the concept of lean construction nor the concept of
standardisation has been particularly well received at the site manager level.
Respondents who used these terms expressed suspicion of them, which was explained
by the uniqueness of the projects and the unique characteristics of the industry. One
site manager stated “If you only have one try at a product, old tried out methods are
to be preferred.” All respondents claimed that projects are generally planned,
organised and performed differently and much depends on the site manager’s
individual thinking of how the project should be managed. Consequently, it was
perceived that site managers had different ways of working, since every project is
considered unique.
No demand for standardised processes was expressed by any of the interviewees
and the different approaches of site managers were neither viewed as an area that
required improvement or change. Rather, individual methods were considered to be
beneficial when dealing with different people, subcontractors and types of project. In
spite of this view, all three firms have implemented a number of solutions related to
the product, the process and the organisation that to some extent increased
standardisation.
Two of the organisations have created suggestions for standardised project
processes including organisation of the site and form filling procedures. According to
the interviewees, these suggestions have not been seen as means of getting site
managers to work in a more standardised manner but rather to make the sites look
more organised, often in order to create a favourable impression to clients.
Furthermore, the suggestions are perceived as tools or guidelines to ease the burden
on site managers, which according to the literature is a significant part of the
standardisation concept and lean principles.
As an example of product standardisation, one site manager explained that he was
working with fewer product choices in his current project since the types of inner
walls he could choose from had been reduced from eight to three. “I get an architect’s
drawing with a list of wall types and soundproofing then I try to arrange them into as
few a groups as possible. Everyone benefits from this, because it is less messy.” He
Theory
321
Pim Polesie, Mikael Frödell and Per-Erik Josephson
further claimed that even if some of the walls get a little bit more soundproofing than
specified, which implies more expensive, it minimizes the risk of human errors. He
said: “Setting out the different walls is one thing, but we are not more than humans.
When working on the site with music in the ears, the risk that it is going to go wrong
is far less when there are fewer wall types.”
Some examples of implemented standardisation are a standard arrangement for
materials storage on site, and a standard document detailing the stages of the project
at which papers need to be signed and to whom they should be sent. If dividing the
projects into individual project processes, the processes themselves are not viewed as
unique by the interviewees. Even when site managers discover effective methods to
perform certain processes, the perceived uniqueness of the industry and of each
project does not encourage them to share their experiences.
The short-term focus on profitability: A majority of the respondents mentioned
consequences of having a short-term perspective. They claimed that “the bottom line
is the only thing that matters for top management” when referring to financial issues.
It was also claimed that no attention was given to projects that delivered “black
numbers” (those projects that make a profit). The only question asked from top
managers was “what went wrong” never “what went right.” The prevailing culture in
construction was described as not giving a pat on the shoulder or words of
encouragement when everything goes according to plan or exceeds expectations, but
blaming individuals for faulty decisions if red numbers appear on the balance sheet.
This short-term focus suggests that touchable costs, such as the price of gypsum board,
are focused upon to save money for the projects instead of focusing on untouchable
costs, such as wasted resources on contractual agreements, to save money for the
entire organisation. This could be one reason why there is so little collaboration
between contractors and suppliers, even though the lean literature suggests that
collaboration between organisations can reduce organisational costs and imply long-
term benefits, collaboration between organisations is suggested as a way to reduce the
waste of resources and thus reduce costs.
Personal preferences versus organisational guidelines: Although there was
awareness amongst respondents of organisational strategies, goals and visions, the
idea of what they actually mean in a practical sense varied. The interviewees saw
them as either voluntary guidelines or as mandatory procedures. These differences are
exemplified by supplier agreements that all three of the contractors that the
respondents worked for had signed with specific suppliers but that not all the site
managers chose to honour. The site managers considered it more convenient to use
the closest located supplier, the one who they perceived delivered the best service, or
simply the one that they used before the agreement with the new supplier was signed.
One of the respondents told how surprised he was when he came to his current site
with the ambition to follow the management’s guidelines only to be told that no one
followed them. “The only ones using the new agreement are the ones who used the
supplier prior to the agreement being signed” he stated and opined that this is an issue
for the management to handle. “In my opinion the management is too weak, they
surrender,” he concluded.
The respondents discussed the possible effects of neglecting management’s
guidelines. As one of the major concerns, trust from the suppliers was mentioned:
“Not following the agreements will kick back on us when we eventually decide to
Proceedings for the 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
322
Implementing Standardisation in Medium-Sized Construction Firms: Facilitating Site Managers’ Feeling
of Freedomthrough a Bottom-Up Approach
follow the agreements. Then, the suppliers will not give us any benefits at all since
they know that we are not using agreements anyway.”
The failure of existing feedback systems: When discussing communication and
feedback most respondents admitted knowing about the various formal systems of
knowledge transfer that existed in their firm. These formal systems were, however,
generally viewed as too difficult or too time consuming to be useful. In this respect,
the awareness and ease of access to other site managers’ previous experiences was
viewed as beneficial among the interviewees. Another reaction to formal systems of
knowledge transfer within firms was that they are unnecessary since the firm deals
with unique projects and therefore knowledge transfer between projects is not value
adding.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Learning is one of the key focuses from a lean construction perspective as it can help
to discover standardisations that do not challenge site managers’ need for freedom to
run projects their own way. For information interchange to be successfully
implemented and assessed in organisations, it is imperative that site managers accept
and use it. The competition built into the site manager’s role as described by Simu
(2009), with a culture of hiding experiences instead of sharing them, is unhelpful in
this aspect. Even though rivalry between site managers was not one of the issues
raised by the interviewees, the interviewers noticed a certain feeling of competition.
As an example, one on the interviewees suggested that it would be interesting to
compare site managers’ performance to see how big the differences actually are. This
indicates a desire to show top management that there are differences between
individual site managers.
The blame for an unprofitable project is usually transferred down to the
responsible site manager who then needs to defend his/her decisions to the top
management and to other project managers (Simu, 2009); some might argue that this
blame culture is due to the uniqueness of the industry.
If rivalry and not learning is encouraged by the organisation culture, finding the
most beneficial standardisations is close to impossible. Furthermore, Womack and
Jones (2003) and Liker (2004) suggested that if workers are not encouraged to express
their opinion over improvements to work processes it will be difficult to find better
ways of working.
Liker (2004) stated that different ways of undertaking projects need to be
reviewed to find the most efficient way to achieve results. As explained earlier, site
managers tend to do things their way not always considering the rules decided by top
management. This behaviour has also been identified by Santos et al. (2002) who
claimed that construction companies often fail to implement and maintain
standardised practises due to a lack of teamwork between top management and site
management. The requirements regarding freedom presented in the interviews can be
seen as another example of how different organisational cultures encourage project
teams to work. Opinions over collaboration between production management and top
management vary from claims of a lack of governance from top management to too
much governance. However, it was clearly implied by the respondents that top
management should only get involved when issues are referred to them by the site
manager.
Theory
323
Pim Polesie, Mikael Frödell and Per-Erik Josephson
The prevailing culture of today encourages site managers to do things ever faster
in traditional ways since top management is satisfied as long as every project makes a
profit. However, Womack and Jones (2003) argued that instead of speeding up
existing processes, the parts of those processes that do not add value for the customer
should be reduced or illuminated, or better still more beneficial alternative processes
should be found. Nevertheless, since a preferable way of implementing
standardisations into organisations is by letting site managers chose and try different
methods to solve similar problems, the short-term gain culture is inhibiting alternative
processes from evolving.
Even though the perceived uniqueness as well as the short-term gain culture is
inhibiting major standardisations, examples in this paper have shown that contractors
have implemented several concepts of standardisation, which do not in any way
decrease the site managers’ feeling of freedom. However, these implementations are
not seen as standardisations as such by the respondents. This is perhaps a sign that the
concept of standardisation is what makes site managers hesitant more than actual
implementation of the concept. Furthermore, the site managers in the three medium-
sized Swedish construction companies have clearly shown that they are not averse to
changes, as long as they have evolved from their own experiences or they are clearly
relevant to issues with which they are concerned. Consequently, in order to deal with
the challenges posed by the need for standardisation and site managers’ need for
freedom, standardisation of processes should be developed slowly with a bottom-up
approach.
REFERENCES
Arbnor, I. and Bjerke, B. (1994) Företagsekonomisk metodlära, 2nd edition.
Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
Bergstrand, J. (2003) Ekonomisk styrning, Holmlund i Malmö AB, Sweden.
Byggkommissionen (2002) Skärpning gubbar! Om konkurrensen, kostnaderna,
kvaliteten och kompetensen inom byggsektorn, SOU 2002:115, Stockholm.
Byggkostnadsdelegationen (2000) Från byggsekt till byggsektor, SOU 2000:44,
Stockholm.
Chen, P. and Partington, D. (2006) Three conceptual levels of construction project
management work, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 24,
pp. 412 – 421.
Dubois A. and Gadde L.-E. (2000) Supply strategy and network effects - purchasing
behaviour in the construction industry, European Journal of purchasing and
supply chain management, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 20-215.
Egan, J. (1998). Rethink Construction. The report of the construction task force
London.
Gadde L.-E. and Håkansson H. (2001), Supply Network Strategies, John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, West Sussex.
Gudmundsson, A. Boer, H. and Corso, M. (2004) The implementation processes of
standardisation. Journal of manufacturing technology management, Vol. 15, No. 4,
pp. 335–342.
Holme, I. M. and Solvang, B. K. (1997) Forskningsmetodik – Om kvalitativa och
kvantitativa metoder, 2nd edition, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
Josephson, P.-E. (1994) Orsaker till fel i byggandet: en studie om felorsaker,
felkonsekvenser, samt hinder för inlärning i byggprojekt. PhD-thesis. Department
Proceedings for the 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
324
Implementing Standardisation in Medium-Sized Construction Firms: Facilitating Site Managers’ Feeling
of Freedomthrough a Bottom-Up Approach
of building economics and construction management, Chalmers University of
Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Josephson, P.-E. and Sakkoriipi, L. (2009) 31 rekommendationer för ökad lönsamhet i
byggandet – att minska slöseriet. FoU-Väst Rapport 0904, Swedish Construction
Federation, Stockholm, Sweden.
Knauseder, I. (2007) Organizational Learning Capabilities in Swedish Construction
Projects. PhD-thesis. Building economics and management. Department of civil
and environmental engineering. Chalmers University of Technology. Göteborg
Sweden.
Kondo, Y. (2000) Innovation versus Standardization. The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12,
No. 1, pp. 6–10.
Liker, J. K. (2004) The Toyota Way: Fourteen Management Principles from the
World’s Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill Professional, New York (NY),
USA.
Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (2000) Emergence of “Ba”: A Conceptual Framework
for Continuous and Self-transcending Process of Knowledge Creation Knowledge
Emergence, New York: Oxford University Press.
Samuelsson, P. (2006) Integrated Measurement and the Assessment of Performance
in Large Organizations: The Case of a Swedish Construction Company. PhD-
thesis. Building economics and management. Department of civil and
environmental engineering. Chalmers University of Technology. Göteborg,
Sweden.
Santos, A. Formoso, C. T. and Tookey J. E. (2002) Expanding the meaning of
standardisation within construction processes. The TQM Magazine, Vol.14, No. 1,
pp. 25-33.
Silverman, D. (2004) Doing quantitative research – A practical handbook, Saga
publications, London, Thousand Oak, New Delhi.
Simu, K. (2009) The construction site managers impact on risk management
performance, Department of architecture and infrastructure, Luleå University,
Sweden.
Ungan, M. C. (2006) Standardization through process documentation. Business
process management journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 135–148.
Winch, G. M. (2002) Managing Construction Projects - An Information Processing
Approach, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
Womack and Jones (2003) Lean Thinking, Banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation. UK Ltd: Simon and Schuster.
Yin, R. K. (2004) Case study research – Design and methods – second edition. Sage
publications, London.
Åkerlind, G. S. (2005) Variation commonality in phenomenological research methods.
Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 321-334.
Theory
325
Pim Polesie, Mikael Frödell and Per-Erik Josephson
Proceedings for the 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
326
