Cross-Industry Learning: The development of a Generic Design and Construction

Process Based on Stage/Gate New Product Development Processes Found in the

Manufacturing Industry

Michail Kagioglou1, Rachel Cooper1, Ghassan Aouad2, Martin Sexton2, John Hinks3, Darryl
Sheath4

1
Research Centre for Design, Manufacture & Marketing, University of Salford, UK
2
Department of Surveying, University of Salford, UK
3
Department of Building Engineering and Surveying, Heriot-Watt University, UK
4
Agile Construction Initiative, University of Bath, UK

ABSTRACT

The Manufacturing industry has been striving, for a number of years, for improvements in the
way new products are developed. The industry has adopted a ‘process view’ in order to
organise and manage their new product development (NPD) activities effectively and
efficiently. Other industries have, of late, tried to adopt such a ‘process’ and ‘whole project’
view. The construction industry in particular, is one of those industries that could potentially
achieve this knowledge and philosophy transfer from the manufacturing industry.
This paper briefly presents the potential applicability of stage-gate processes in the
construction industry.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Manufacturing industry is continuously striving for improvements in the way new
products are developed. The traditional ‘over the wall’ approach has been largely improved to
accommodate teamwork and effective communications. The industry has also adopted a
‘process view’ in order to organise and manage their operations effectively. Attention has
been given in the way certain activities are performed, considering a ‘whole project’ view,
namely new product development or lifecycle management.
Other industries have, of late, tried to adopt such a ‘process’ and ‘whole project’ view.
Many parallels can be drawn between the construction industry and medium to large
manufacturing organisations. Characterised by fragmented, multi disciplinary parties
construction works are often poorly co-ordinated resulting in cost and time over runs as well
as dissatisfied clients.
The University of Salford funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC) under the Innovative Manufacturing Initiative (IMI) has undertaken a
project aiming to develop a Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol (GDCPP).
Transferring proven new product development practices from the manufacturing industry the
team has adopted a stage-gate or phase review methodology.
This paper presents the potential applicability of stage-gate processes in the construction
industry based on an industrial perspective provided by the seven industrial partners to the
project which include: BT, Alfred McAlpine Construction (Special Projects), Engineering
Technology, BAA plc, EDM Architects, Waterman partnership and Boulton & Paul Ltd.

2. METHODOLOGY

The research team used a number of research approaches and research techniques in fulfilling
the objectives of the research programme.
• Research Approaches
• Case Study: A traditional case study approach was used, with researchers entering
industrial partners’ organisations openly in the role of investigators, for the express
purpose of learning more about their activities with respect to the design and
construction processes being practised. There were three main case studies both from
the manufacturing and construction sector.
• Action Research: In as much as to not only generate new knowledge or understanding
but also provide structured frameworks for carrying out organisational change within
the boundaries of the industrial partner research team members.
• Research Techniques
• Questionnaires: Collecting predominantly qualitative data, aiming in generating
factual and attitudinal information and understanding
• Interviews: Semi-structured in nature to allow the interview to have an overall
purpose, but be sufficiently flexible to explore issues as they arose during the
discussion.
• Workshops: In effect, the workshop configuration created a boundary-spanning team
which could tackle complex process issues by bringing together, and harnessing a
diverse range of expertise in a structured way.
• Literature reviews: Using primary, secondary and tertiary sources for both the
manufacturing and construction industries.

3. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIES

A number of lessons can be learned from the manufacturing sector with regards to the
implementation and practical use of a ‘process view’ within the construction industry.
The area within the manufacturing sector that relates closely to construction and building
works is new product development. It concentrates in the development of an idea, need or
client requirement to the final commercialisation of the product e.g. a building or a car. A
number of similarities can be found between the two industries with regards to the activities
used for developing new products. For example they include:
• The start of a project can be initiated internally or by direct and/or indirect contact with
the customers
• The development of the product requires the participation of a number of specialists and
functions such as: designers, surveyors, marketing, stress analysts etc.
• The successful construction or manufacturing of a building or product can only be
achieved if all external (suppliers and consultants) and internal resources are utilised and
co-ordinated effectively
• The building or product is handed over to the customer/client and provisions are made for
future support.
However there are a number of distinct differences, the most important of which is that in
the manufacturing industry all NPD activities are co-ordinated, managed and controlled based
on a common framework which is the NPD process. The construction industry mainly, uses
ad-hoc methods for achieving the latter and therefore reducing repeatability of process
execution, resulting in the same mistakes occurring time after time.
This shift into the establishment of a consistent process for the construction industry
requires a new way of thinking entailing a change of culture and working practices.
Furthermore, it requires:
• a good understanding of current practices and future trends
• effective communication mechanisms of such processes, such as modelling
• agreement of participating parties

4. STAGE/GATE PROCESSES

It is widely accepted that in order to move a new product idea through to production and final
launch into the market, a number of activities need to be performed (1). Initiated by the
identification of the need or the adoption of an idea, a number of technical, financial and
business preliminary evaluations are curried out. Further detailed technical development
follow, and finally the finished product, after a series of company and market tests, is
launched into the market (2).
Depending on the number and nature of activities of an NPD process adopted by individual
firms, they can be arranged in various ways to represent the sequence of implementation and
the interactions between them. The way in which they are presented forms the NPD model for
the company, and all efforts concentrate on performing activities in a certain manner and
sequence.
NASA’s PPP (phased project planning) process, which is often referred to as phase-review
process (3), had a number of disadvantages. Milton & Rosenau (4) suggested that when the
phase-review process is executed by Cross-Functional Teams (CFTs), offers a number of
benefits such as reducing risk, easing the task of setting goals toward completing each phase,
and improves focus on a particular phase. One such process gaining wide acceptance (5) is
known generically as Stage-Gate, and it is illustrated in figure 1 (6).

Figure 1 A typical stage-gate process

 Stage-gate processes have been found to reduce development time, produce marketable
products, and optimise internal resources by eliminating projects which are not promising
(7,8,9).

5. THE PRINCIPLES FOR A GENERIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

PROTOCOL

The development of the Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol was based on a
number of interrelated principles.

5.1 Whole project view

Any contemporary attempt to define or create a ‘design and construction process’ will have to
cover the whole ‘life’ of a project from recognition of a need to the operation of the finished
facility. This approach ensures that all issues are considered from both a business and a
technical point of view. It also focuses at the ‘front-end’ activities whereby attention is paid to
the identification, definition and evaluation of client requirements in order to identify suitable
solutions. Also, it forces a number of project issues to be considered earlier than is
traditionally the case.

5.2 A consistent process

The development of the generic Process Protocol provides the potential to establish its
consistent application. Through consistency of use the scope for ambiguity should reduce.
This, together with the adoption of a standard approach to performance measurement,
evaluation and control, should facilitate a process of continual improvement in design and
construction.

5.3 Progressive design fixity

The ‘stage-gate’ approach applies a consistent planning and review procedure throughout the
Process.
Phase Reviews are conducted at the end of each Phase with the aim of reviewing the work
executed in the Phase, approving progress to the next Phase, and planning the resourcing and
execution of the next Phase. This philosophy is translated in the development of the
Protocol’s phase gates. Phase gates are classed as either soft or hard, with the ‘soft gates’
allowing the potential for concurrency in the process, whilst ensuring that the key decision
points in the process are respected.

5.4 Co-ordination
Co-ordination is one area in which construction traditionally is perceived to perform poorly.
This perception is supported by Banwell (10) and Latham (11), in addition to many other
reviews of the industry. The need for improved co-ordination was also highlighted by the
interviews with senior managers undertaken during the research project.
It is therefore proposed that co-ordination of the Process Protocol is undertaken,
principally, by the Process and Change Management activity zones (see 6.3). Appointed by
the Client, Process Management will be delegated authority to plan and co-ordinate the
participants and activities of each phase, throughout the Process. The actions of Process
Management are supported by Change Management, through which all information related to
the project is passed.
5.5 Stakeholder Involvement & Teamwork
Project success relies upon the right people having the right information of the right time.
Proactive resourcing of Phases through the adoption of a ‘stakeholder’ view should ensure
that appropriate participants are consulted earlier in the Process than is traditionally the case.
A stakeholder is a person, group and/or an organisation who is directly or indirectly affected
by decisions made during the project. For example it can include the project participants
(project team) and the, local council, environmental groups, etc.

5.6 Feedback
The Phase Review Process facilitates a means by which project experiences can be recorded,
throughout the Process, thereby informing later phases and future projects. Competitive
advantage will come from how such experiences are acted upon.
This Process Protocol therefore proposes the creation, maintenance and use of a Legacy
Archive that acts as a central repository, or information-spine (12), for the information
generated through each of the phases of the process.

6. THE MODEL

The development of the model that incorporates the principles of the Process Protocol is
based on existing descriptions of the design and construction process as well as established
NPD models in the manufacturing industry. Furthermore the Process Protocol concentrates at
the ‘front-end’ so that costly and time consuming mistakes at the later stages can be
eliminated. Based on the latter, the design and construction process is divided into four main
stages which cover the ‘whole project’ from conception of the idea or need to the final long
term operation and maintenance of the facilities being constructed (see figure 2).

6.1 Process Protocol stages

6.1 1 Pre-project stage

The Pre-Project Phases relate to the strategic business considerations of any potential project
which aims to address a client’s need. Throughout the Pre-Project Phases the client’s need is
progressively defined and assessed with the aim of:
1. Determining the need for a construction project solution, and
2. Securing outline financial authority to proceed to the Pre-Construction Phases.

6.1.2 Pre-Construction stage

With outline financial approval obtained, the Process progresses through to the Pre-
Construction Phases where the defined client’s need is developed into an appropriate design
solution. Like many conventional models of the design process, the Pre-Construction Phases
develop the design through a logical sequence, with the aim of delivering approved
production information. The Phase Review Process, however, adds the potential for the
progressive fixing of the design, together with it’s concurrent development, within a formal,
co-ordinated framework.

6.1.3 Construction stage

The Construction Phase is solely concerned with the production of the project solution. It is
here that the full benefits of the co-ordination and communication earlier in the Process may
be fully realised. Potentially, any changes in the client’s requirements will be minimal, as the
increased cost of change as the design progresses should be fully understood by the time on-
site construction work begins.

6.1.4 Post-Construction stage

Upon completion of the Construction Phase, the Process Protocol continues into the Post-
Construction Phases which aim to continually monitor and manage the maintenance needs of
the constructed facility. Again, the full involvement of facilities management specialists at the
earlier stages of the process should make the enactment of such activities less problematic.
The need for surveys of the completed property, for example, should be avoided as all records
of the development of the facility should have been recorded by the project’s Legacy Archive.

6.2 Deliverables
Deliverables represent documented project and process information. They can include the
business case, design management reports, health and safety issues, procurement plan, project
brief, project and process execution plans etc. These reports are compiled to form the phase
review report. This report will include all the necessary information that is required to make a
decision at the ‘gate’ which is in turn managed by the client with representatives from the
project team as and when they are needed. The number and nature (i.e. updates, revisions,
finalised) of the deliverables presented at each phase is directly related to the development
stage of the project. For example the business case will become increasingly defined as more
information becomes available to the project team.

6.3 Activity Zones

The participants in the Process Protocol are referred to in terms of their primary
responsibilities, and are represented on the Y-axis of the Process Model (see figure 2). It is
recognised that traditionally, project to project, organisational roles and responsibilities
change, resulting in ambiguity and confusion (13). By basing the enactment of the process
upon the primary responsibility required, the scope for confusion is potentially reduced, and
the potential for effective communication and co-ordination increased. The Process Protocol
groups the participants in any project into ‘Activity Zones’. These zones are not functional
but rather they are multi-functional and they represent structured sets of tasks and processes
which guide and support work towards a common objective (for example to create an
appropriate design solution).
A single person can carry out an activity zone in small projects but in large and complex
projects, it may consist of a complex network of people and between relevant functions and/or
organisations. The membership of the activity zones is determined by the project in-hand. A
number of function may be members of an activity zone at any particular time during the
development of the project.
The majority of the activity zones are self-explanatory. However the role of the Process
and Change management present a significant departure from the conventional view of the
design and construction process. They are essentially the interface between the other project
participants. Process Management, as the title suggests, is concerned with the enactment of
the process rather than the project. Process Management is responsible for facilitating and co-
ordinating the participants needed to produce the necessary deliverables, and has a role
independent of all other activity zones.
Furthermore Change Management has the role of managing the changes which occur
during the duration of the project. It essentially facilitates the holding, review and
dissemination of all information as the project progresses.
Figure 2 The Process Protocol Model
7. CONCLUSIONS

The paper has briefly described the development of a Design and Construction Process
Protocol based on stage/gate new product development processes found in the manufacturing
industry. The resulting model introduces concepts which are new in a traditionally fragmented
and litigation driven construction industry.
In order for any new process to be adopted, experience indicates that the key principles and
underlying structure must be understood and remembered. Any process of this nature will
need to be accompanied by detailed implementation guides to further enhance its validity and
applicability in any construction project. This illustrates the need for further work to be
carried out in defining respective sub-processes to the model using a top-down methodology.
Furthermore, the management of the Process Protocol should be given special attention, as
it requires the collaboration of all parties in a project. This further necessitates a certain
change in the industry culture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank the industrial partners to the project for their time, effort and
commitment in developing the Process Protocol.

REFERENCES

1. Utterback, J M. (1971). “The process of Technological Innovation Within the Firm”. Academy of
Management Journal, March, pp.75-88.
2. Crawford, C M. (1994). “New Products Management”. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Fourth edition.
3. Rosenau, Jr., and Milton, D. (1990). “Faster New Product Development: Getting the Right Product
to Market Quickly”. New York: Amacom.
4. Milton, D, and Rosenau, Jr. (1988). “Phased Approach Speeds Up New Product Development”.
Research & Development, November, pp.52-55.
5. O’Connor, P. (1994). “FROM EXPERIENCE: Implementing a Stage-Gate Process: A Multi-
Company Perspective”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.11, pp.183-200.
6. Cooper, R G. (1990). “Stage-Gate System: A New Tool for Managing New Products”. Business
Horizons, May-June, pp.44-54.
7. LaPlante, A, and Alter, A E. (1994). “Corning, Inc: The Stage-Gate Innovation Process”.
Computerworld, Oct. 31, Vol.28, No.44, p.81.
8. Anderson, R E. (1993). “Can Stage-Gate Systems Deliver the Goods”. Financial Executive, Nov-
Dec., Vol.9, No.6, pp.34-38.
9. Cooper, R G, and Kleinschmidt , E J. (1991). “New Product Processes at Leading Industrial
Firms”. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.20, pp.137-147.
10. Banwell, H. (1964). Report of the “Committee on the Placing and Management of Contracts for
Building and Civil Engineering work”. H.M.S.O.
11. Latham, M. (1994). “Constructing the Team”. H.M.S.O.
12. Sheath, D., Woolley, H., Hinks, J., Cooper, R. & Aouad, G. (1996). The Development of a
Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol for the UK Construction Industry; Proceedings
of InCIT’96, Sydney, Australia.
13. Luck, R. & Newcombe, R. (1996). “The case for the integration of the project participants’
activities within a construction project environment”. The Organization and Management of
Construction: Shaping theory and practice (Volume Two); Langford, D. A. & Retik, A. (eds.); E.
& F. N. Spon.