Project Construction PDF

The Development of Purpose in the Project Definition Phase of Construction Projects
-
Implications for Project Management
by
Michael Gerard Whelton
B.E. (University College Cork, Ireland) 1996

M.Eng. (University College Cork, Ireland) 1998
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Engineering - Civil & Environmental Engineering
in the
GRADUATE DIVISION
of the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Committee in charge:
Professor Glenn Ballard, Chair

Professor Iris Tommelein
Professor Sara Beckman
Professor Judith Innes
Spring 2004
-
Copyright 2004
by

Abstract

-
by
Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering – Civil & Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Professor Glenn Ballard, Chair
This dissertation explores the development of purpose in the project definition phase of
construction projects. Project definition is the project phase that identifies the needs and
values of project stakeholders, and develops appropriate design solutions to satisfy them.
Project purposes are constructed through the interconnected relationships of stakeholder
needs and values, and the project constraints. Projects comprise diverse stakeholders
whose needs and values often conflict given that environments have limited project
resources to fulfill all stakeholder interests. While researchers have developed
methodologies to systematically process needs into project requirements through
structured means, this research focuses on the role of project managers and how they
facilitate the collaborative development of purpose. The research adopts the perspective
that project definition is a learning process that requires the shared understanding of
stakeholder needs and values, in order to resolve them into a collective statement of
project purpose.
This study is carried out in two distinct phases of research exploration. The first phase
examines three building construction projects at a public educational institution. The
1
research focuses on the primary events in the project definition that shape the outcomes
of project purpose. Together these studies show that purpose is conditioned by the
process of framing needs and values of diverse project stakeholders. The guidance of
project managers is instrumental in developing a collaborative process to support the
shared understanding of conflicting interests among the stakeholder groups. The project
manager’s choice of problem-solving methodology to develop project purpose is an
important consideration in process design.
The second phase of research examines a workplace planning system. This system is
used to identify facility user needs and values and then accommodate those needs within
the project constraints (primarily financial resource constraints). The study describes the
management phases and the problem-solving strategies used by the workplace planner to
engage the facility owner groups in participative project definition. A set of project case
studies is documented to show how the project definition process evolves, and how
satisfactory outcomes are achieved. This study demonstrates a set of management
characteristics that engage multiple stakeholders in collaboration. This collaboration
shows evidence of resolving the purpose of projects, often in environments where
collaboration was not evident before. The outcomes from the workplace planning
process reveal innovative changes to the operational functions of the facility groups,
along with innovations in the workplaces they require.
This study contributes to knowledge by testing the proposition that project definition
is a complex adaptive process, through which project purposes emerge from group
collaboration and learning.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………... 1
1.1 Background…………………………………………………………….. 2
1.1.1 Significance of Project and Facility Management……………2
1.1.2 Significance of Project Definition............................................. 3
1.2 Managing the Project Definition Process ……………………………... 9
1.3 Purpose Development and this Research………………………………. 12
1.4 Research Questions…………………………………………………….. 14
1.5 Research Approach…………………………………………………….. 15
1.6 The Structure of the Dissertation..…………………………………….. 17
2 Purpose Development in Project Definition – A Review of the Literature…. 18
2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 18
2.2 Purpose Development in Project Definition…………………………… 19
2.2.1 Working Definition……………………………………………19
2.2.2 Purpose Development and Customer Value…………………. 20
2.2.2.1 Dominance of Economic-based value……………… 21
2.2.2.2 Purpose-based Value………………………………. 22
2.2.3 Purpose Development and Needs……………………………. 23
2.3 Developing Needs into Project Requirements…………………………. 25
2.3.1 Requirements………………………………………………….25
2.3.2 Systematic Requirements Processing………………………… 25
2.3.3 Limitations of Systematic Requirements Processing………… 27
2.4 Importance of Design in Purpose Development……………………….. 29
i
2.4.1 Design as a Problem Solving Process……………………….. 29
2.4.2 Design and Wicked Problems………………………………... 30
2.5 Project Definition Process Management……………………………….. 33
2.5.1 Process Protocols for Project Definition…………………….. 33
2.5.2 Project Performance Indicators……………………………... 35
2.5.3 Architectural Programming………………………………….. 36
2.5.4 Common Organizational Barriers in Project Definition…….. 37
2.5.5 Leadership Roles in Project Definition……………………….38
2.6 Conclusions…………………………………………………………….. 40
3 Purpose Development Through Collaboration and Learning……………….. 42
3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 42
3.2 Characterizing Project Groups as Complex Systems………………….. 43
3.2.1 The Project Environment…………………………………….. 43
3.2.2 Detailed Complexity…………………………………………. 44
3.2.3 Stakeholder Interaction………………………………………. 45
3.2.4 Impediments to Learning in Complex Systems………………. 46
3.3 Purpose Development through Collaboration………………………….. 48
3.3.1 Collaborative Process………………………………………... 48
3.3.2 Directive versus Adaptive Management……………………... 49
3.3.3 Learning……………………………………………………… 50
3.4 Facilitating the Emergence of Project Purpose………………………… 53
3.4.1 Purpose as an Emergent Product of Group Development…... 53
3.4.2 Fostering Shared Understanding…………………………….. 55
ii
4.5.4 Case Study Selection……………………………………......... 74
4.5.5 Case Study Context…………………………………………... 75
4.5.6 Research Methods……………………………………………. 78
5 Initial Phase of Exploration:
University of California, Berkeley Case Studies……………………………… 81
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 81
5.1.1 The Client Background………………………………………. 81
5.1.1.1 Facilities Services...................................................... 81
5.1.1.2 The University Capital Project Approval Process… 83
5.1.2 Introduction to the Case Studies……………………………... 85
5.2 The Hearst Memorial Mining Building Project………………………... 87
5.2.1 Project Initiation…………………………………………….. 87
5.2.2 The Preliminary Plans Phase…………………………………92
5.2.3 Redesign Stage……………………………………………….. 96
5.2.4 Discussion of Case Study Findings…………………………... 98
5.2.4.1 Process Evolution………………………………….. 98
5.2.4.2 Learning about Purposes…………………………... 99
5.2.4.3 Creating Learning Dialogue about Constraints…… 99
5.2.4.4 Expression of User Needs………………………….. 100
5.2.4.5 The Search for Alternatives to Satisfy Client Needs.. 102
5.2.5 Conclusions…………………………………………………... 103
5.3 The Clark Kerr Campus Building Facility Renewal Study……………. 106
iv
5.3.2 Facility Condition Analysis (FCA)………………………....... 108
5.3.2.1 Facility Condition Assessment Report……………... 108
5.3.3 Project Review Meeting……………………………………… 110
5.3.4 Analysis of the Planning Process…………………………….. 111
5.3.4.1 Realization of Project issues ………………………. 111
5.3.4.2 Impacts of Information Flow………………………. 113
5.3.4.3 The Voice of the User………………………………. 114
5.3.5 Case Study Conclusions……………………………………… 115
5.4 Underhill Housing Development - Green Design Process…………….. 117
5.4.2 Green Design Process Development………………………… 118
5.4.3 Analysis of Green Design Process…………………………… 120
5.4.3.1 The use of the Green Design Methodology………… 122
5.4.3.2 Facility Operator Concerns………………………... 122
5.4.3.3 Managing the Process Impacts…………………….. 123
5.4.4 Case Study Conclusions……………………………………… 124
5.4.4.1 Articulating Green Design Purpose Issues………… 124
5.4.4.2 Promoting Facilitation……………………………...125
5.4.4.3 LEED as a Group Learning Instrument…………… 125
5.5 Conclusions to this Exploratory Phase………………………………… 127
6 Second Phase of Exploration - Haahtela Workplace Planning System…….. 131
6.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………. 131
6.2 Background to Case Study Organization………………………………. 131
v
6.3 Haahtela Workplace Planning System…………………………………. 134
6.3.1 Background…………………………………………………... 134
6.3.2 Quantification of Space.............................................................135
6.4 Steering the Project Definition Group…………………………………. 137
6.5 The Workplace Management Process………………………………….. 140
6.5.1 Principal Process Stages…………………………………….. 140
6.5.2 Description of Process Stages……………………………….. 143
6.5.2.1 Facility Owner Identifies Need…………………….. 143
6.5.2.2 Defining the Initial State of Facility Needs…………144
6.5.2.3 Resource Use Measurement....................................... 145
6.5.2.4 Internal Owner Dialogues…………………………. 147
6.5.2.5 Owner & Workspace Planner Dialogues………….. 148
6.5.2.6 Owner Directives, Solution Finding,
Owner Consensus and Approval…………………….149
6.6 Classification of Group Dialogue……………………………………… 152
6.6.1 Group Dialogues: Present State Definition………………….. 152
6.6.1.1 Breakdown of Speech Actions & Driving Rationale.. 153
6.6.2 Group Dialogues: Future State Definition…………………... 155
6.6.2.1 Breakdown of Speech Actions & Driving Rationale.. 155
6.7 Conclusions on the Workplace Planning Process……………………… 157
7 Haahtela Project Case Studies…………………………………………………. 158
7.1 Introduction to the Case Studies……………………………………….. 158
7.1.1 Stadia Polytechnic…………………………………………… 158
vi
7.1.2 Vantaa Police Station………………………………………... 159
7.1.3 Cygnaeus High School……………………………………….. 159
7.1.4 Arcada Polytechnic................................................................... 160
7.1.5 Synapsia Rehabilitation Centre................................................ 161
7.2 Stadia Polytechnic Helsinki……………………………………………. 162
7.2.1 General Background…………………………………………. 162
7.2.2 Triggering Actions for Needs Assessment…………………….163
7.2.3 Haahtela Brief………………………………………………... 163
7.2.3.1 Workplace Planning Process………………………. 164
7.2.3.2 Facility Walkthrough………………………………. 166
7.2.4 Case Study Analysis………………………………………….. 166
7.3 Vantaa Police Station Workplace Planning Strategy…………………... 169
7.3.1 General Background.………………………………………… 169
7.3.2 Triggering Actions for Needs Assessment.................................170
7.3.3 Haahtela Brief………………………………………………... 170
7.3.4 Workplace Planning Process………………………………… 171
7.3.5 Strategic Client Meeting……………………………………... 172
7.3.5.1 Meeting Dialogues and Resulting Actions…………. 172
7.3.5.2 Meeting Directives: Next stage Action……………... 176
7.4 Cygnaeus High school Jyväskylä……………………………………….178
7.4.2 The Cygnaeus High School Project Definition Process........... 179
vii
7.4.3 Employing The Haahtela Workspace Planning Process…….. 182
7.4.3.1 Information Gathering……………………………... 182
7.4.3.2 Strategic Project Meeting………………………….. 183
7.4.4 Final Operations Workshop...................................................... 184
7.4.5.1 The Original Program Planning Process………….. 188
7.4.5.2 The Haahtela Workplace Planning Process.............. 191
7.4.6 Key Features of the Case Study……………………………… 194
7.5 Arcada Polytechnic Helsinki……………………………………………195
7.5.1 General Background ………………………………………… 195
7.5.2 The Haahtela Process………………………………………... 195
7.5.3 Strategic Client Meeting........................................................... 196
7.5.4 Implementing Operational Changes…………………………. 197
7.5.5 Emerging Group Events……………………………………… 198
7.5.6 Milestone Decisions………………………………………….. 200
7.5.7 Facilitating Outstanding Program Needs……………………. 200
7.5.8 Case Study Analysis…………………………………………. 201
7.5.8.1 Viewpoints of the Arcada Real Estate Manager…… 201
7.5.8.2 Facilitation of Innovation…………………………. 203
7.5.8.3 Viewpoints of the Arcada & Practicum Architect…. 206
7.6 Synapsia Rehabilitation Centre………………………………………… 209
viii
7.6.2 The Haahtela Process……………………………………....... 210
7.6.3 Organizational Drivers for the Project……………………… 210
7.6.4 Third Phase of workplace planning………………………….. 211
7.6.5.1 Client Perspective - Managing doctor……………... 212
7.6.5.2 Developing Core Values for the Project…………… 212
7.6.5.3 Collaboration with Outside Organizations………… 213
7.7 Case Studies in the Context of this Research…………………………...214
8 Interpretation of the Haahtela Management System………………………… 215
8.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 215
8.2 Clients as Complex Environments……………………………………... 218
8.2.1 Varying Levels of Collaboration in Complex Environments… 218
8.2.2 Managing Self Organizing Strategies………………………... 219
8.3 Features of the Management Process………………………………….. 221
8.3.1 The Creation and Maintenance of a
Shared Problem-Solving Forum……………………………... 221
8.3.2 Access to Organizations and Standardized
Workplace Information……………………………………….. 222
8.3.3 A Common Workplace Planning Language………………….. 224
8.4 Management Facilitation………………………………………………. 226
8.4.1 Use of Appropriate Information………………………………226
8.4.2 Importance of Participative Stakeholder Methods…………... 227
ix
8.4.3 Facilitating New and Emerging Purposes………………….... 228
8.5 Problem Seeking Capability…………………………………………… 229
8.5.1 Feasibility of System Wide Constraints……………………… 229
8.5.2 Problem Seeking in the Workplace Model and in
User Functions………………………………………………... 230
8.5.3 Steering the Problem………………………………………….233
8.5.4 Problem Seeking and Solving Patterns……………………….239
8.6 Concluding Remarks on the Haahtela Process………………………… 240
9 Summary and Conclusion ……………………………………………………... 242
9.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 242
9.2 Research Summary…………………………………………………….. 243
9.2.1 The Exploratory Case Studies………………………………... 243
9.2.2 The Haahtela Workplace Planning System…………………...244
9.3 Contributions to Knowledge…………………………………………… 245
9.3.1 Summary of Contributions…………………………………… 245
9.3.2 Implications for Project Management……………………….. 249
9.4 Further Research in Process Management……………………………... 250
9.4.1 Industrial Research……………………………………………250
9.4.2 Education in Collaborative Process…………………………. 251
9.4.3 Learning about Process Management
through Group Experiments…………………………………. 252
References…………………………………………………………………………. 254
Appendices ………………………………………………………………………... 266
x
Appendix A Haahtela Project Cases - Interview Questions……………….. 266
Appendix B - Analysis of Management Steering in Group Dialogues……..270
B1. Introduction……………………………………………………..271
B1.1 Context of Workplace Planning Dialogue …………… 271
B2. Research Method………………………………………………. 272
B2.1 Codifying the Communicative Speech Acts…………... 273
B2.2 Action Analysis ………………………………………. 275
B3. Results ………………………………………………………….275
B3.1 Frequency of communicative acts……………………. 276
B3.2 Problem Solving Pattern……………………………... 276
B3.3 Clustering of Communicative Acts…………………… 279
Appendix C - Speech Act Analysis…………………………………………284
Appendix D - Project Definition Process Learning Modules ………………309
D.1 Choosing Appropriate Problem Seeking
& Solving Methods………………………………….310
D.2 Conscious Group Process Design and Facilitation……310
D.3 Promoting Organizational Transparency…………….. 310
D.4 Formalizing the Definition and
Quantification of Purpose……………………………… 311
D.5 Understanding Stakeholder Frames…………………... 311
D.6 Managing Purpose Emergence and Change.................. 311
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Project Definition Stakeholder Groups………………………………… 10
Figure 2.1 Project Definition Delivery Model……………………………………... 19
Figure 3.1 Project Definition Stakeholder Groups ………………………………... 43
Figure 3.2 Hierarchical Structures in Project Definition Environments…………… 44
Figure 3.3 Impediments to Learning about Project Purpose………………………..47
Figure 3.4 Project Management Styles and Complexity…………………………... 49
Figure 3.5 Single and Double Loop Learning……………………………………... 51
Figure 3.6 Project Definition Learning Model…………………………………….. 52
Figure 4.1 Project Definition Activity System…………………………………….. 63
Figure 4.2 Research Timeline……………………………………………………… 66
Figure 5.1 Facilities Services and University Stakeholder Entities……………….. 82
Figure 5.2 Hearst Memorial Mining Building Project Stakeholders………………. 88
Figure 5.3 Project Study Phase…………………………………………………….. 91
Figure 5.4 Group Dialogues on Accessibility Issues………………………………. 112
Figure 5.5 Green Design Process Influence Diagram……………………………… 121
Figure 6.1 Evolution of the Haahtela Firm – Services and Products………………. 134
Figure 6.2 Closed Loop Control for Workplace Management…………………….. 138
Figure 6.3 Network Diagram: Workspace Planning Process Stages………………. 141
Figure 6.4 Network Diagram: Stage 1 Facility Owner Identifies Need…………… 144
Figure 6.5 Network Diagram: Stage 2 Defining the Initial State of facility Needs.. 145
Figure 6.6 Network Diagram: Stage 3 Resource Use Measurement………………. 146
Figure 6.7 Network Diagram: Stage 4 Internal Owner Dialogues………………… 147
xii
Figure 6.8 Network Diagram: Stage 5 Owner & Workspace Planner Dialogues…. 148
Figure 6.9 Network Diagram: Stages 6, 7, 8, & 9 Owner Directives,
Solution Finding, Owner Consensus and Approval…………………….. 150
Figure 6.10 Shared Problem-Solving Forum……………………………………..... 151
Figure 6.11 Group Dialogue Map………………………………………………….. 152
Figure 6.12 Micro-level Dialogues:
Business Driver Metrics and Resource Measurement ………………... 153
Figure 6.13 Future State Planning Dialogues:
Between Planner & Operations Management…………………………. 156
Figure 7.1 Stadia Workplace Planning Client Organizational Chart………………. 162
Figure 7.2 Vantaa Police Station Workplace Planning:
Organization and Relationships………………………………………… 169
Figure 7.3 Cygnaeus High School Project Event Timeline………………………... 181
Figure 8.1 Managing Multiple interests at Cygnaeus High School………………... 220
Figure 8.2 Arcada Therapy Health Service Stakeholder Needs & Values………… 228
Figure 8.3 Problem Solving Cycle for Workplace Planning………………………. 232
Figure 8.4 Cygnaeus High School Space Developments…………………………...235
Figure 8.5 Arcada Campus Space Developments………………………………….. 237
Figure B.1 Frequencies of Communicative Acts…………………………………... 277
Figure B.2 Problem-Solving Pattern……………………………………………….. 278
xiii
Figure B.3a Cluster Analysis………………………………………………………. 280
Figure B.3b Cluster Analysis of Dialogues………………………………………... 281
Figure B.4 Planner Steering Points………………………………………………… 282
Figure B.5 Transitions of Action Cycles…………………………………………... 283
Figure D.1 Elements of the Project Definition Process Learning Modules………... 313
xiv
3.4.3 Managing Multiple Stakeholder Frames ……………………. 56
3.4.4 Shared Understanding through Dialogue……………………. 57
3.5 Direction for this Research...................................................................... 59
3.5.1 Summary of Research Issues…………………………………. 59
3.5.2 Context for this Research…………………………………….. 59
4 Research Methods ……………………………………………………………… 61
4.1 Introduction to the Overall Strategy …………………………………... 61
4.1.1 Research Approach ………………………………………….. 62
4.2 The Research Units of Analysis............................................................... 63
4.2.1 Definition of Research Variables ……………………………. 63
4.3 Research Phases ……………………………………………………….. 65
4.4 Initial Phase of Exploration …………………………………………… 67
4.4.1 Case Study Design ………………………………………….. 67
4.4.2 Research Propositions……………………………………….. 67
4.4.3 Specific Objectives…………………………………………… 68
4.4.4 Case Study Selection…………………………………………. 68
4.4.5 Case Research………………………………………………... 70
4.4.5.1 Evolving Research Focus…………………………... 70
4.4.6 Research Methods……………………………………………. 71
4. 5 Secondary Phase of Exploration………………………………………. 72
4.5.1 Case Study Design…………………………………………… 72
4.5.2 Research Propositions............................................................... 73
4.5.3 Specific Objectives…………………………………………… 74
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Project Definition Research Disciplines and Primary Approaches……... 6
Table 2.1 Levels of Organizational Needs………………………………………… 23
Table 2.2 Design Activity Models…………………………………………………. 32
Table 2.3 Outline of Salford Process Protocol……………………………………...34
Table 4.1 Initial Phase - Exploratory Case Studies…………………………………69
Table 4.2 Haahtela Case Studies…………………………………………………… 77
Table 5.1 Project Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives…………………………. 94
Table 5.2 Performance of Design Concepts – Summary…………………………... 95
Table 5.3 Project Stakeholders…………………………………………………….. 108
Table 5.4 Case Study Summary……………………………………………………. 127
Table 6.1 Space Quantification Example…………………………………………...137
Table 6.2 Workplace Planning Inquiry Methods…………………………………... 157
Table 7.1 Worksheet Sample………………………………………………………. 166
Table 7.2 Vantaa Police - Total Net Area Needed………………………………….171
Table 7.3 Existing Building Space Profile…………………………………………. 171
Table 7.4 Cygnaeus High School Appraisal Study Information……………………182
Table 7.5 Arcada Activity (select) Utilization Results…………………………….. 196
Table 7.6 Synapsia Project Drivers………………………………………………… 210
Table 7.7 Synapsia Planning Iterations…………………………………………….. 211
Table 8.1 Summary of Collaborative Capabilities…………………………………. 216
Table 8.2 Cygnaeus High School Workplace Program Changes………………….. 236
Table 8.3 Arcada Polytechnic Workplace Program Changes……………………… 238
xv
Table B.1 Codification of Speech Acts……………………………………………..274
Table C.1 Discourse Analyses Codification Scheme ……………………………... 285
Table C.2 Discourse Analysis……………………………………………………… 286
xvi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Professor Ballard for guiding this research. I found immense value from our
one-to-one research meetings. The reflective nature of dialogue that bounded those
sessions provided me with many new ideas to consider. The freedom and encouragement
to develop my own research problem was initially daunted, but in hindsight is the true
value of this experience. His initial development on the project definition process
provided me with a useful platform to develop and build upon. His teaching emphasis on
client value and identifying waste within project delivery processes has given me an
invaluable set of inquiry skills. Professor Ballard’s and Professor Tommelein’s lean
research group is a fantastic incubator where students learn and mature over time. The
weekly meetings were a great forum for debate, and so often I walked away with more
questions than answers. Long may the group continue to thrive.
I have been fortunate to have a great committee that underpins the bodies of
knowledge pivotal to this research work. Professor Tommelein’s research background in
knowledge engineering and her interests in design management were very useful in this
work. I also acknowledge her support in the early stages to allow me to join the program
and continue my study in the lean research group. Outside of the construction field,
Professor Beckman of Haas Business School, whose interest in product development
gave this research a knowledgebase to compare related issues when experimenting with
product development teams in the construction industry. Her dynamic classroom and
product development subject matter was a great experience. Professor Innes of City and
Regional Planning, whose work on collaborative theory is central to understanding group
process performance. Her supportive guidance on writing about the social process was
xvii
very helpful. I would also like to acknowledge the teaching and guidance of Professor
Yehuda Kalay at the Department of Architecture whose graduate courses on collaborative
design methods were very useful. I continuously reflect back to this knowledge base for
support.
I would like to thank the Lean Construction Institute for their financial support.
Within industry practice, I would like to thank Mr. Rob Gayle, Assistant Vice Chancellor
- Project Management, Facilities Services, at UC Berkeley. His facilitation of the early
stage of research, and his one-to-one meetings provided me with a richer understanding
of the industry environment. Rob’s facilitation of a research internship enabled me to get
an invaluable insight into how a complex client environment operates. This internship
thought me about many aspects of organizational life. I appreciated the opportunity to
explore somewhat freely into their methods of work, particularly when I look back to
what was a “fledging” maturity of my research development. I also learnt how to conduct
fieldwork and how to communicate with people and gain their trust. I learnt that it is not
easy to offer your organization up for research purposes particularly when there are many
other demands in daily work life. The financial support from this internship was
gratefully acknowledged. Thanks to the project management staff at the Hearst Memorial
Mining Building Project office, whose friendliness and support is very much
remembered.
The second phase of research took me to Finland to work with Haahtela Oy. I am
grateful to Yrjänä Haahtela for the financial support. Within the organization, I am
grateful to their staff for their support while I was there. Particularly I want to thank to
Ari Pennanen who supported my work. I acknowledge his openness to allow me access to
xviii
his own research work. Ari’s strong feeling about being able to manage complexity and
not just to understand it, was a truly valuable insight. I felt the essence of collaboration in
our work together. I learnt in many ways.
There were many intellectuals and interesting characters encountered on this
academic journey, either in the classroom or in social settings, and each sharing their
unique backgrounds and experience. In time I feel this will be the outstanding memory of
Berkeley. While too many to mention, I would like to thank my student colleagues within
the engineering and project management program, particularly my fellow students in the
lean construction research group. I would like to mention Jan Elfving, whose similar path
brought with it the sharing of many parallel stories of PhD graduate life. On reflection we
are sure to glorify our days at Berkeley and create tall tales of how we conquered great
academic barriers and noble challenges.
In my personal life, I want to thank my family. My parents: Michael and Eileen
whose love was always there, even though I could not always reach out to touch it. To
my brother Brian, thank you for your support and of course the contributions towards
transatlantic flights. To my sister Theresa, your presence felt somewhat closer, even
though you are in Kentucky! I thank you for your phone calls – feels like you were
always “oer the road”. To aunts, uncles and relations whose inquiry on my academic
progress was well received. Least not I forget my lifelong friends in West Cork, Ireland. I
hope I served you well as an ambassador while studying and living abroad.
xix
1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this research is to understand how project definition processes can be
effectively managed in construction projects. Project definition is the process of defining
the project’s purpose and the development of alternative means to satisfy it. The process
occurs in early stage planning and design for physical facility projects requiring capital
investment.
The project definition process consists of three stages: determining project purposes,
translating those purposes into criteria for assessing alternative designs or solutions, and
generating alternative design concepts. This research deals with the first process stage:
developing a project’s purpose. Project purposes are developed by key project
stakeholders who have individual needs and values. Without proper and early
understanding of those stakeholder needs and values, design solutions generated and
chosen later in the process are not likely to meet those stakeholder requirements.
This research explores the management of purpose creation and change in complex
projects. Currently there is little research on the dynamics of purpose development in the
construction industry, and development of purpose has rarely, if ever been,
conceptualized as an act of development rather than one of discovery.
This research conceptualizes the development of project purpose through group
dialogue with active participation by the project stakeholders. Specifically this research
addresses how best to structure, shape, facilitate and manage such group dialogues.
1
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.1.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT
I approach this research from the primary perspective of project management with a
specific focus on building facility projects. The project management institute (1996)
defines a project as “a temporary endeavor to create a unique product or service”. Project
management is considered to be the primary means to implement organizational strategy
(Grundy 1998, Kenny, 2003). Organizations function through the disciplines of strategy,
structure, processes, and projects, all of which influence and depend on each other to
perform (Van Der Merwe 2002). Projects are acknowledged as unique units of work that
implement the policies and strategies of an organization. The role of the project manager
is therefore becoming increasingly important in developing and executing organizational
strategies through project delivery.
Construction projects are directly linked with the strategic vision and mission of the
organization. As far as owners or operators of physical facilities are concerned,
construction projects are the means of supporting their organizational goals.
Organizations are constantly faced with new demands on their physical facilities. Owners
of facilities are continually re-shaping the way they design and organize their work
practices, which in turn directly impacts the performance of their physical facilities.
Horgen et al. (1999) and Lambert et al. (2000) highlight the importance of workplace
strategy. Until recently real estate facilities were viewed in many companies as a by-
product of business strategy that required maintenance and occasional upgrading. Real
estate facility strategies must now align with company-wide directives and business or
service unit objectives. The current focus on the strategic importance of the workplace in
2
business performance focuses on such issues as: workplace cost management, workplace
efficiency, workplace productivity, and user satisfaction with the work environment.
The emerging discipline of Facility Design & Management draws on existing theories
of engineering, architecture, design, planning, finance, accounting, management and
behavioral science (Teicholz 2001). This multidisciplinary field is developing to create
knowledge about how best to support the organizational strategy through the design and
management of physical facilities.
1.1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT DEFINITION
Project definition is known to the construction industry as strategic facility planning,
client briefing, needs assessment, requirements processing, and project programming as
traditionally practiced by architects and planners. In the UK the project definition process
is referred to as client briefing. There the briefing problem is the process of turning the
client’s desire for a built product into a clear brief for the project development team to
implement (Winch et al. 1998).
Project definition is also seen as the process prior to final investment decision making
(Kähkönen 1999). The US-based Construction Industry Institute (CII) (1995) defines
project definition as the process of developing sufficient strategic information for facility
owners to address risk, and deciding to commit resources to maximize the chances of a
successful project. The facility owner typically carries out various specialist studies to
establish the project objectives and to test their feasibility. Feasibility tests determine
whether or not the project objectives can be met with the available resources, and within
the constraints of the operating environment.
3
The strategic and tactical decisions made in the early stages of project development
significantly influence the overall outcomes of the project development process,
particularly as they determine the boundaries of the project. Downstream project changes
become increasingly difficult to incorporate into the development process without
increased resource investment and rework.
Project definition is the process that understands and formalizes the relationships
between the purpose of the organization and the purpose of the physical facility project.
The facility needs of the construction client are tightly coupled with the clients’ business
case. For example, with respect to building facilities, the purpose of an education
institution is to provide students and educators with a learning environment to support the
education mission. The purpose of a healthcare organization is to provide patients and
healthcare professionals with an environment to support the healthcare mission.
In large multi-faceted organizations, ambiguity and uncertainty exist when attempting
to realize the true purpose and expectations of project stakeholders, and it is difficult to
distinguish real needs from wants or desires. Furthermore, stakeholders may not agree as
a need for one may simply be a want for another. Therefore it is difficult for project
managers to set shared priorities for the project.
It is imperative that this project phase identifies what does each stakeholder really
wants and needs. Secondly it is necessary to define the differences and dependencies
between the wants and needs of various stakeholders, so as to develop a shared
understanding of the problem, and to subsequently develop alternative project solutions.
The ability to share individual needs can allow project groups to have an increased
4
awareness of each other’s interests and this in turn can increase the likelihood that a
common purpose can be developed.
There has been a growing acknowledgement of the significance of project definition
by researchers and industry practitioners. Researchers (e.g., Kelly et al. 1992, Smith et al.
1998, CII 1999, Green 1994, 1999, and MacMillan et al. 2001) have highlighted the
importance of early phase project planning and design. Initiatives for understanding the
project definition process exist in various disciplines: process re-engineering, client
requirements processing & briefing, strategic management, design methodology, value
methodology, architectural theory and programming, collaborative planning theory,
rational problem solving, behavioral decision making, and more recently innovation
studies (A detailed view of this literature is offered later in the dissertation).
Management initiatives to improve the project definition process include re-
engineering processes, creating systematic requirements processing, creating systematic
decision support methods, improving stakeholder coordination, increasing transparency
and improving collaborative relations. Table 1.1 summarizes the relevant research on
these initiatives.
5
Table 1.1 Project Definition Research Disciplines and Primary Approaches
Research Notable General Approach & Contributions

Discipline Contributors
Strategic Teicholz (2001) Proposes a range of strategic issues that real estate and facility management pursue to
Facility support client organizational strategy.
Planning and Lambert et al. Develops workplace strategies that include: workplace cost reduction, workplace
Workplace (2000) efficiency improvement, workplace productivity improvement, and employee satisfaction
Design and retention within the work environment.
Horgen et al. Highlights the importance of workplace design in organizational performance.
(1999) Collaborative process model of workplace design consists of integrating space,
organization, technology and finance.
Stakeholder Woodhead (1999) Identifies the range of paradigms and perspectives owners use for decision making in the
Paradigms & pre-design phases of capital projects including: the capital investment paradigm; the cost–
Perspectives benefit analysis paradigm; the financial paradigm; the strategic paradigm; the marketing
paradigm; organizational perspectives; management perspectives; the property
development paradigm; the planning permission paradigm; and the preliminary design
paradigm.
Project Scope Construction Shows that the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) can be effectively used to improve
Management Industry Institute the predictability of project performance. The PDRI tool allows the project team to
(1999) quantify, rate, and assess the level of scope development on projects prior to beginning
development of construction documents.
Client Briefing Barrett et al. (1999) Critiques process issues in client briefing activity. Proposes key solution including: client
empowerment to inform, educate and make decisions; management of project dynamics;
appropriate user involvement; appropriate information and visualization techniques and
appropriate team building.
Green and Simister Uses a social constructivist approach to business process re-engineering in client briefing.
(1999) Investigates the use of soft systems methodology (Checkland & Scholes, 1999) as an aid to
client briefing.
Smith (2000) Develops a methodology for developing strategic needs analysis through group facilitation
and strategy analysis software.
6
Table 1.1 continued
Value Green (1994) Develops a methodology (SMART) to support stakeholder learning workshops and strategic
Management choice.
Barton (2000) Views value management as “a structured, facilitated process..”. Develops insights into soft
value management through facilitated group processes. Concludes that hard value analysis
methods are inappropriate for complex project initiations.
Process Kagioglou et al. The Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol (GDCPP) specifies a set of stages for
Protocol (1999) project definition activity namely: Pre - project stage: Demonstrating the need, Conception
Development of need, Outline feasibility, Substantive feasibility study and outline financial authority; and
Pre - construction stage: Outline conceptual design, Full conceptual design.
Requirements Kamara et al. Defines client requirements processing as involving the definition, analysis and translation of
Engineering (2000) client requirements into solution neutral design specifications. The model sub-divides into
three main stages: define client requirements, analyze client requirements, and translate
client requirements. These stages sub-divide further into activities and utilize appropriate
information gathering tools, decision support tools and quality assessment tools (e.g.,
Quality Function Deployment) to develop solution neutral specifications. The model is
computerized within a software system called ClientPro.
Eodice (2000) Identifies notable relationships with requirements and needs: “A need is an identified desire
for the product which has been formally expressed and accepted by the group… An advocate
is an individual or group that assumes responsibility for taking whatever action is necessary
to implement a specific need… A requirement may be defined as any pairing of a specific
need with a specific advocate, or a series of advocates, that leads to implementation of the
need”. Claims that the confusion with need and requirement can be avoided if one adopts the
view that when a need becomes constituted into the final product design (or specification),
only then does it become a requirement.
7
Table 1.1 continued
Product Bruce et al. Establishes protocols for capturing front end knowledge.
Development (2000)
Hook and Farry Specifies a requirements management process of Validation and Verification (V&V):
(2001) Validation of need (Is the need necessary?) and Verification of implementation (Can the
need be implemented through a viable solution?).
Ulrich and Promotes empathic methods for user needs analysis along with systematic process guidelines
Eppinger (2000) when transforming needs and values into design requirements. The action of requirements
engineering requires process quality criteria such as clear and timely communication,
accurate and unambiguous written documentation, clarity through language use and writing,
ownership and traceability to stakeholder or agent. Metrics regarding requirement
conformance, correctness, completeness and clarity are central to these approaches.
Thomke and Describes the IDEO product development knowledge creation process. Empathic user
Nimgade (2000) methods, rapid prototyping and iterative group learning are central themes of the
development process.
Design Macmillan et al. Approaches the process of project definition through understanding design methodology in
Methodology (2001) the conceptual design phase. Develops and verifies a structured framework to support
interdisciplinary design. Proposes a generic model based on processes, tasks, and activities.
Argues that after preliminary evaluation that the tool can lead to improved integration of
interdisciplinary design, improved collaboration and improved process understanding.
Architectural Cherry (1999) Provides problem solving methods and approaches to architectural programming for design.
Programming Peña and Parshall Develops a programming method to establish client and project values to allow designers to
(2001) respond with alternative solutions to defined problems. Defines programming as a process of
five steps: 1) Establish goals; 2) Collect and analyze facts; 3) Uncover and test concepts; 4)
Determine needs; and 5) State the problem.
Hansen and Advocates the automation of the programming process through the use of information
Vanegas (2003) technology support. Develops a web-based application to capture project definition
information.
8
1.2 MANAGING THE PROJECT DEFINITION PROCESS
In the construction industry the project definition process is subject to conditions of
continuous change and uncertainty. The facility owner has to manage physical facilities
to support changing business (product and services) processes and organizational
structures. Various stakeholder perspectives must be integrated to understand these
changing and uncertain conditions. The perspectives primarily recognized by facility
owners in project definition include (Woodhead, 1999): owner strategy, organization,
management, marketing, finance, capital investment, cost–benefit analysis, property
development, planning permission, and preliminary design. The process of developing
the project’s purpose is complex as there are multiple perspectives to manage.
Project management is responsible for bringing construction stakeholders together to
achieve a common purpose; i.e., the development of a constructed facility. The project
definition team consists of multiple and distributed stakeholder groups. Figure 1.1
illustrates the primary stakeholders that may be involved in project definition activity for
building facilities. These include: the project manager, the facility owner groups, design
specialists and regulatory agencies.
The facility owner groups can include end users of the facility, specialists that define
the owner’s functions, the financiers of the facility project, owner personnel that approve
the project and internal owner groups that have a vested interest in the facility operations.
Design specialists provide construction knowledge about the facility. Regulatory agencies
provide knowledge about environmental development issues and technical code
compliance issues. Public interest groups may also participate in the project.
9
Facility Owners
Facility Facility Users
Financiers
Facility Owner Facility Owner Facility

Interest Groups Group Function
Specialists
Project
Environmental Manager Architectural
Planning Designers
Regulatory Design
Agencies Specialists
Public Interest Building Code Construction Engineering

Groups Agencies Specialists Specialists
Figure 1.1 Project Definition Stakeholder Groups
Barrett (1999), and Kamara and Anumba (2001) highlight the management problems
associated with project definition They identify common industry barriers to effective
project definition processes which include: inadequate involvement of all the relevant
parties, insufficient time allocated to project definition, inadequate consideration of the
owner perspectives by the project team, poor communication among the parties, and
inadequate management of changes in project requirements. These management issues
often result in the misrepresentation of collective project needs and values, group
indecision, bounded rationality, and lost opportunities to innovate and create value for the
facility owners and project stakeholders.
In project definition project management is tasked with identifying the means or
processes by which decisions about the project purpose can be collectively made by these
10
stakeholder groups. Where multiple stakeholder interests are not yet reconciled, the
process can appear ill-structured and project purpose remains ill-defined. Simon (1984)
defines an ill-structured problem as a problem whose structure lacks definition in some
respect. The problem has unknowns associated with the ends (project purpose) and means
(set of process actions and decision rules) of the solution at the outset of the problem
solving process.
The difficulties in managing an effective project definition process arise from the
complex nature of the problem to be solved: defining the purpose of a building facility.
Rittel and Webber’s (1972) seminal work illuminates the complexity of design and
planning processes describing many design problems as so ill-defined and complex that
they can only be called “wicked problems”. These types of problems are prevalent in
construction projects that have multiple stakeholders with diverse and competing
interests.
Multiple paradigms and perspectives interrelate and compete with each other in
project purpose development. Multi-faceted client and stakeholder groups perceive
“purpose” based on their individual viewpoints. Stakeholder groups operate based on
their own self interests. They rely on strategies, methods and tools that are specific to that
stakeholder background, knowledge and experience. The process of managing these
perspectives can be problematic as stakeholder interests can be in conflict with one
another. Project management is challenged to manage a common group process that is
inclusive of diverse stakeholder interests. These stakeholder interests must be shared
among the project group and understood in order to define the purpose of the project.
11
Project managers need to better understand the paradigms by which stakeholders
establish project needs and values. These influences set up or determine the main project
purposes and constraints used in project definition. Rittel and Webber (1972) suggest that
wicked problems are best resolved through group interaction and argumentation. Project
management has the job of managing the collective group process in a way that facilitates
the voicing of interests, which can ultimately lead to shared understanding on the project
purpose and the means to satisfy it.
1.3 PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT AND THIS RESEARCH
As a point of departure for this research, I assume that project definition is a social
activity requiring the collaboration of multiple stakeholders. The process cannot be
undertaken by an analyst in isolation. Project definition occurs through dialogue and
group learning. March (1983) lists terms that describe purpose: “values”, “needs”,
“wants”, “goods”, “tastes”, “preferences”, “utility”, “objectives”, “goals”, “aspirations”,
and “drives”. Dialogue is the medium through which stakeholders express needs, desires,
wants and intentions, and also reveal differences and conflicts of interest. The
consequences of these expressions of interest can lead to shared understanding and to the
development of new and ultimately shared purposes. The research is directed towards
understanding the management of dialogues by which stakeholders frame their interests
and how learning occurs in the process.
The development of project purpose and project definition in general can be
understood as a complex adaptive process. In project definition, purpose emerges from
the interaction of the project stakeholders. Purpose is ultimately constructed through the
interconnected relationships of needs, stakeholder values and project constraints.
12
Purposes can change as project constraints and issues are defined and their relationships
understood. Purpose may transition through many states of definition and levels of
commitment or advocacy by the project stakeholder groups.
In order to develop a sense of how teams develop shared understanding of project
definition problems and solutions, it is necessary to understand the “frames” by which the
various team members structure their interests. Beach (1997) defines a frame as a “mental
construct consisting of elements, and the relationships between them, that are associated
with a situation of interest”. Organizational stakeholders may frame their interests within
constructs of their own expertise or experience (Beach 1997). Frame analysis is the study
of the ways in which project stakeholders frame their problems and roles, and it can aid
in allowing stakeholders to become more aware of and criticize their roles (Schon 1983).
Project managers must facilitate the sharing of the perspectives of multiple
stakeholders who often have conflicting needs and values. Understanding stakeholder
interests requires project management to query the assumptions that lie behind
stakeholder expressions of interest. Interactive and adaptive management methods are
needed to support the group learning process.
Adaptive management refers to the actions of project managers and how they steer
the group process based on emergent realization of new issues occurring within the
group. Adaptive management encompasses actions such as facilitation of stakeholder
perspectives, appropriate inquiry and questioning of stakeholder assumptions. Facilitation
by project managers is key to effective group learning. An adaptive process can lead a
group to reflect on the underlying assumptions with respect to the project purpose. It may
13
also lead to the more innovative thinking and creative development of alternative
solutions to satisfy individual and collective interests.
Project Managers require supporting methodologies to develop purpose in complex
projects. They need to understand how project purposes emerge from the collaborative
group. Once the patterns of emergence of purpose in this interaction can be understood,
project managers are in a better position to manage and facilitate the process. This study
seeks to identify the adaptive techniques that effectively steer purpose creation.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This research asks the following questions with respect to effectively managing purpose
development.
a. In complex construction projects, what are the challenges that project managers face
in effectively developing project purpose?
b. Can management design and facilitate the project definition process to efficiently and
effectively support the creation of shared understanding about purpose among
stakeholders?
c. What are the effective management steering principles:
i. To promote an extensive definition of purpose and an effective choice of
solution options?
ii. To avoid premature decisions that narrow framing of the project purpose
and thus inhibit opportunity to create new innovations?
iii. To effectively manage changing purposes over the course of project
definition?
14
1.5 RESEARCH APPROACH
To answer these questions, I have developed a qualitative research study based on the
following objectives:
1. To characterize the complexity of developing project purpose and identify the
challenges that managers face in the development process;
2. To characterize a management system that demonstrates collaborative
capabilities to effectively develop project purposes.
This study was done in two distinct phases of exploration. The first phase examines three
case studies based in a public educational institution, the University of California,
Berkeley. Collectively these three case studies reveal the complexity of managing project
definition. The case studies are:
• The Hearst Memorial Mining Building project which was a seismic retrofit and
program improvements project. The project definition process was complex and
required several process iterations to finally resolve stakeholder interests prior
to project development. This descriptive study reconstructs the project
definition process and highlights the primary stakeholder issues that impacted
the process.
• The Clark Kerr Campus Renewal study which was a more focused examination
of how a planning study was managed. The project definition process was
executed through a facilities condition assessment. The study examines the
perspectives of the stakeholders who defined the project purpose, and reveals
how a dominant framing of the problem may preclude other stakeholder
perspectives from being considered thoroughly. The case study raises issues for
15
management to challenge a particular problem-seeking methodology and
maintain a holistic approach to the project purpose.
• The Underhill green design process which was an examination of how a
particular problem solving tool (sustainable green design) conditions the
outcome of purpose. The process offered an opportunity for the facility owners
to learn and understand about their sustainability needs and values, and then
establish an explicit purpose for green design. The case study reveals that a
range of stakeholder perspectives exists as to what the purpose may be.
The second phase of exploration focuses on the project definition services of a project
management firm. The case study organization is Haahtela Oy, located in Helsinki,
Finland. Haahtela Oy provide project definition services through a workplace planning
system. This management system is designed to develop and manage spatial needs and
resource allocation for building facility owners and operators. These facility owners are
public institutions such as education and healthcare organizations. The workplace
planning methods are designed to steer project stakeholders operating in conditions of
organizational change and limited resources.
In this study phase, I describe the principal phases in the workplace planning process
and the project definition processes for a set of case studies. These cases include a high
school project, two educational institution (third-level) projects, a police facility project,
and a healthcare facility project. All project definitions were developed using the
Haahtela workplace planning methodology. The management process shows evidence of
effective group collaboration that support the development of project purpose. I describe
the characteristics of these collaborative capabilities.
16
1.6 THE STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION
Chapter Two explores the theoretical background of project definition. It identifies the
main research developments with respect to process management. Chapter Three
positions this research in the realm of social collaboration and learning theory. Chapter
Four presents the research methods used in this study. Chapter Five presents the case
studies from the first phase of case study exploration and an analysis of the findings.
Chapters Six, Seven and Eight present descriptive findings from the second phase of
exploration. Chapter Six develops the social and historical background to the
development of the Haahtela workplace planning system. The management processes and
generic stakeholder dialogues are described. Chapter Seven presents a set of project cases
that used the workplace planning system to develop their spatial planning programs. I
describe the main process events, outcomes and stakeholder perspectives. Chapter Eight
presents an analysis of the management system and a set of management characteristics
that support effective stakeholder collaboration.
Chapter Nine summarizes the research findings, and discusses the implications for
project management theory. I then propose future research to support project managers in
the meta-planning of the project definition process. Finally future research directions are
outlined.
17
2
PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT IN PROJECT DEFINITION
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
My research focuses on how project management action supports the effective
development of project purpose. To understand more fully how project management can
help define project purpose we must examine the current theory of purpose development.
The following review of the literature places particular focus on the process-based
aspects of project definition.
In this chapter, I describe a working definition for project definition as it relates to
project management theory and I clarify the concept of purpose. I then examine the
research that advocates project definition as a value generating process. I identify the
benefits and limitations of value management as it relates to purpose development.
I then examine the issues associated with using systematic requirements processing
methodologies to develop purpose. I argue on the necessity for design process integration
that some of these methodologies ignore. I then incorporate the thinking of design theory
as it relates to the complexity of developing project purpose.
I examine the recent process-based research developments that seek to improve the
transparency of the project definition process. I highlight the benefits of using
construction project performance indicators to promote the management of stakeholder
needs and values in project definition. I raise the importance of understanding
organizational barriers that inhibit effective project definition and finally I establish the
need for understanding project definition as a collaborative learning process.
18
2.2 PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT IN PROJECT DEFINITION
2.2.1 WORKING DEFINITION
This research adopts the project definition model from the Lean Project Delivery System.
Ballard and Zabelle (2000) define project definition as “the first phase in project delivery
consisting of three modules (Figure 2.1):
1. Determining purposes (stakeholder needs and values);
2. Translating those purposes into criteria for both product and process design; and
3. Generating design concepts against which requirements and criteria can be tested
and developed”.
PURPOSES CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT
CRITERIA
Figure 2.1 Project Definition Delivery Model (Ballard and Zabelle 2000)
This project definition model shows the interconnectedness of purpose, criteria and
solution concepts. Purposes transform into criteria. These criteria act as a translation for
designers to generate concepts. Criteria represent the purpose of the stakeholder in the
language of a designer who is responsible for developing concept solutions. The test for
solution concepts is whether or not they fulfill the project purpose as defined in the
project criteria. From the customer (facility owner) organization’s perspective, purpose is
19
what drives the project criteria and concept solutions and eventual project delivery.
Project purposes enable organizational strategy to be analyzed and implemented. From
the project stakeholder or provider perspective, purpose is what determines the final
delivery of project value. To understand how purpose is developed it is necessary to
establish how purpose originates from the perspective of the facility stakeholder.
2.2.2 PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT AND CUSTOMER VALUE
Project management research has approached project definition and purpose development
by understanding customer value. Womack and Jones (1996) state that value can only be
defined by the ultimate customer and it (value) is only meaningful when expressed in
terms of a product or service, or both. Murman and Allen (2002) perceive value creation
as consisting of three phases: value identification, value proposition and value delivery.
The framework is based on the premise that value should be delivered only after
identifying value and constructing robust value propositions.
The first phase, value identification, involves identifying stakeholders and their
values and needs, also understood by negotiation researchers (Fisher et al. 1991) as
‘interests’. Project stakeholders include anyone who has a stake in the project. They can
include both customers and producers along with other interest groups. Stakeholder
values and their value judgments are the dominant influence on how purpose transitions
from needs to project requirements.
Once initial needs and values are identified by project management, the process
moves to the proposition phase where the needs of stakeholders come together. The
proposition phase specifies the collective purpose for the project. It identifies
dependencies and differences between the stakeholders. Latent needs and hidden
20
stakeholders may also be identified by the project group. This phase ultimately seeks to
create stakeholder alignment and collective commitment for the project.
The supplier/provider role is partly defined in terms of delivery of value to customers.
However suppliers/providers engage in production in order to accomplish their own
purposes and create value for themselves. Further, their perceptions of customer value
tend to be influenced by their professional and personal backgrounds. The customer
perspective of value and that of project stakeholders are often misunderstood by each
other in the group process. It is therefore important to have an effective process to
manage the needs and values of the project customer, which can be supported by the
providers or goods and services.
2.2.2.1 Dominance of Economic-based value
The opportunity to create customer and stakeholder value has been well recognized in the
practice of value management. According to Green (1994) traditional value engineering
is found to reflect the optimizing paradigm of hard systems thinking. ‘Value engineering’
as developed by Miles (1972) is closely aligned with the economic concept of value.
‘Value’ as an economic concept is based on the notion of finite resources and thus of
choosing between alternatives that are indistinguishable as regards purpose; i.e., they
serve the same purpose equally well. In this context, one thing is said to be more
valuable than another if it costs less to acquire. Consequently, the tendency is not to seek
ways to generate greater value, but rather ways to deliver the same value (realize the
same purposes to the same extent) for less cost. This is a legitimate objective, but should
not be confused with value generation (Ballard 2003).
21
The role and responsibility to generate project value is a collective organizational one.
Yet, given the extreme fragmentation of the construction industry, the potential for
project definition to create value is often undermined by breakdowns and conflicts in the
collaborative process. Frequently value engineering exists as a separate service within
the industry. It is often used as a means for critiquing a previously produced design, as
opposed to being applied consistently in the project definition phase.
The ability to constantly consider value generation in all stages of project definition
activity is a core consideration for effective project management. This is a central issue
for development in this research.
2.2.2.2 Purpose-based Value
Ballard (2003) states “that is valuable which enables realization of purpose”. Solutions
are assessed by stakeholder as being valuable or not depending on how they perceive the
solution to fulfil their purposes. The satisfaction with a design solution is based on
individual values of the stakeholders. These value systems (Liu and Leung (2002), and
Thomson et al. (2003)) influence the way customer and stakeholder needs are construed,
and how preferences are made with respect to selecting solutions to satisfy their purposes.
The discipline of value management focuses on how to elicit and manage client
values. Barton (2000) views value management as “a structured, facilitated process in
which decision-makers, stakeholders, technical specialists and others work
collaboratively to bring about value-based outcomes in systems, processes, products and
services”.
A recent alternative approach offered by value management is based on the learning
paradigm of soft systems thinking as developed by Checkland and Scholes (1999). Green
22
(1999) applies this methodology to facilitate learning about the customer’s (facility
owner’s) needs and values. The soft systems approach is a methodology to support group
learning about a subject of interest. The process emphasizes a systematic procedure that
leads to the identification of relevant issues and learning about issues. The learning
approach is a necessity given that diverse stakeholder perspectives have to be shared and
agreements made on a collective project purpose.
2.2.3 PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT AND NEEDS
Purpose is the “raison d'être” for organizations. Purposes are embedded in the needs and
values of the organization, which may be expressed in ever evolving strategies and
policies. The language terminology that describes purpose can include (March 1983):
“values”, “needs”, “wants”, “goods”, “tastes”, “preferences”, “utility”, “objectives”,
“goals”, “aspirations”, and “drives”. These terms are used synonymously with purpose
and yet have subtle differences in meaning.
Altschuld and Witkin (2000) define a need as “a measurable discrepancy between the
current and desired status for an entity”. Altschuld and Witkin identify the general levels
of need that exist in organizations (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Levels of Organizational Needs (Adapted from Altschuld and Witkin 2000)
Level of Target Groups Organization

Need E.g., A Healthcare Service
1 Direct Recipients of services or Healthcare patients.
products delivered by the customer.
2 Individuals or groups that deliver Service Providers
services or products to level 1. Medical Professionals.
3 Resources and inputs into solutions Services and product systems; e.g., a
to support levels 1 & 2. medical building facility.
In the domain of capital facilities design and construction, understanding the strategic and
operational needs of the facility owner organization creates a basis for understanding
23
project purpose. With a specific organization in mind; a healthcare service, Level 1
addresses the needs of the organization’s primary customers, the patients. Level 2 needs
pertain to the organization’s groups and individuals tasked with providing services to the
Level 1 customers. Level 3 needs are those surrounding resources that support levels 1 &
2. These needs may be facilities and support systems. Level 3 is the needs level within
which construction professionals normally operate.
Green (1996) identifies the dilemma of construction specialists attempting to
understand the facility owner organization. Construction professionals may see their role
as supporting level 3 needs, but levels 1 and 2 are the primary organizational needs that
must be satisfied only. Too often the needs of the client are understood by the
construction professional through their particular professional values and within the
confines of the project. Loss of focus on Levels 1 and 2 can result in poor outcomes from
the project definition process.
The uncertainty associated with needs may be high, especially for large, multi-
faceted, client organizations (Nutt 1993). Needs change over time in dynamic
environments. Interdependency exists not only across levels of need, but also over time.
Needs analysts may find it necessary to look at varying timescales so to identify the
implications of needs and their dynamic changes. Nutt raises the importance of
considering these uncertainties in the facility planning process. For example, a healthcare
organization has many unknowns regarding future needs. Healthcare administrators are
tasked with fulfilling short term needs; i.e., what is needed now, yet in the long term,
healthcare services are expected to change in terms of both the customer (patient)
demographics and the technological service innovations that support medical care.
24
Hospital facilities typically have long development cycles from inception to delivery,
thereby increasing the difficulty of predicting needs over large timescales.
2.3 DEVELOPING NEEDS INTO PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
2.3.1 REQUIREMENTS
In Koskela’s (2000) Transformation-Flow-Value theory of production, value generation
is viewed as a process where value for the customer is created through fulfillment of his
requirements. The term “requirement” has a connotation associated with project control
in that requirements are the basis on which project quality is judged. Frequently project
teams start with requirements as the basis for generating value, often when these
requirements are underdeveloped or assumed and taken for granted. The term
requirement is more suited for adoption in the final purpose statement of the project
definition outcome, as opposed to earlier project definition, when needs and values are
still ill-defined.
Requirements originate with needs. Eodice’s (2000) PhD thesis on a theory of
requirements definition in engineering design identifies notable relationships with
requirements and needs. Eodice claims that the confusion with need and requirement can
be avoided if one adopts the view that when a need becomes constituted into the final
product design (or specification), only then does it become a requirement.
2.3.2 SYSTEMATIC REQUIREMENTS PROCESSING
Kamara et al. (2000) approaches project definition through the process of requirements
engineering. They advocate that client requirements provide the link between clients
(facility owners) and the project stakeholders. Kamara et al. maintain that client
requirements be precisely defined, with as little ambiguity as possible, be reflective of all
25
the perspectives and priorities represented by the client body, and be stated in a format
that is solution-neutral (i.e. not based on any design concept that could serve as a solution
to the client’s problem) that makes it easy to trace and correlate design decisions to the
original intentions of the client.
Kamara et al.’s Client Requirements Processing Model (CRPM) adopts structured
methods to facilitate precise definition of the “voice of the customer” that then translates
into the “voice of the designer”. The model sub-divides into three main stages: define
client requirements, analyze client requirements, and translate client requirements. These
stages sub-divide further into activities and utilize appropriate information gathering
tools, decision support tools and quality assessment tools (e.g., Quality Function
Deployment) to develop solution neutral specifications. CRPM is computerized within a
software system called ClientPro.
The requirements process can provide benefits to project managers in that it improves
clarity and accountability when tracing the origins of requirements later in the project
development. Similarly in product development, Griffin and Hauser (1993) incorporate
customer input into product development whereby the “voice of the customer” links
directly to design attributes.
Bruce et al. (2000) detail protocols for capturing front end knowledge and systematic
methods for requirements engineering. The action of requirements engineering requires
process quality criteria such as clear and timely communication, accurate and
unambiguous written documentation, clarity through language use and writing,
ownership and traceability to stakeholder or agent. Metrics regarding requirement
conformance, correctness, completeness and clarity are central to these approaches.
26
The quality assessment of a requirement by project management is determining that the
requirement is valid and attainable. This notion resonates with Hook and Farry’s (2001)
requirement’s management process: Validation of need (Is the need necessary?) and
Verification of implementation (Can we implement the need through a viable solution?).
First, validation of requirement questions whether the requirement is necessary. If the
requirement is deemed unnecessary, then the process does not go any further.
Through requirements verification, the development team tests the requirement
through a process of inspection, analysis, test or demonstration. This verification process
is implemented through criteria transformation and concept generation. When the need is
validated and verified with evidence of being implemented within a solution, only then
does the requirement stand.
2.3.3 LIMITATIONS OF SYSTEMATIC REQUIREMENTS PROCESSING
While the employment of a systematic requirements processing methodology provides
transparency and clarity to the transformation process of client requirements, there are
also some limitations to these methods. First there are implementation issues associated
with employing systematic methods. It may be problematic for project managers to
facilitate such a rigorous process in complex and uncertain environments. Diverse
stakeholders are evident in physical facility development and require training to follow a
specific protocol. It might be necessary to educate the project definition group to follow
systematic methods, which might require extra resources.
Kamara et al.’s research assumes that requirements are the basis from which to begin
the development process. In this research, there is little discussion with respect to needs,
wants, desires and values and their relationship with purpose. I argue that requirements
27
embody project purpose, and are only developed (as an output of project definition) once
the project group has developed a thorough understanding of purpose.
While it is generally agreed by project management that problems should be stated in
solution neutral terms to the extent possible (as proposed by Kamara et al.), full
understanding of purpose and project criteria may only occur through the use of solution
concepts. It is a valid concern of project managers that project stakeholders often locate
the solution to their individual needs in design concepts, and this may lead to pre-mature
choices, often when the global problem is still ill-defined. Project managers are
challenged to keep customers and stakeholders from becoming infatuated with a partial or
incomplete solution.
Advocating the separation of planning from design may avoid this decision behavior,
but I argue that the value of design is to verify project purpose. Consistent with the
complex nature of the design task, designers tend to be solution focused (Cross 2001).
While this may result in premature acceptance of a problem definition, design activity
can also be channeled into sharpening problem definition through exploration of possible
solutions by the project team.
The necessity of complete project definition prior to further project development is
advocated by project management, both within the capital facilities sector, and from other
types of project-based production systems such as product development in the
manufacturing industry. Ulrich and Eppinger (2000), and Thomke and Nimgade (2000)
advocate the development of concept solutions, so project teams can experiment with and
learn from them. Carroll (2001) emphasizes the use of scenario planning in design to
understand the needs and values of the customer. Empathic methods place direct focus on
28
the user and customer. Empathic methods include the use of qualitative research methods
centered about the needs of the customer or user. The role of designer as “expert” is
supplemented with knowledge of the user.
2.4 IMPORTANCE OF DESIGN IN PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT
2.4.1 DESIGN AS A PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS
Many of the approaches to project definition previously presented share the perspective
that the client’s problem can be understood in isolation from alternative solutions and
then provided to architects and engineers to develop adequate solutions. Another group of
thinkers adopt the alternative perspective, one that I endorse, namely, that design is an
integral activity to support the development of project purpose.
Macmillan et al. (2001) approach the process of project definition by understanding
design methodology in the conceptual design phase. Their research develops and verifies
a structured framework to support interdisciplinary design. They proposed a generic
model with framework terminology based on processes, tasks, and activities, which can
support project managers as they manage design groups.
Lawson (1980) perceives design as an iterative process of analysis, synthesis,
evaluation and decision-making. Analysis involves the exploration of relationships,
looking for patterns in the information available, and the classification of objectives.
Analysis is therefore the structuring and organizing of the problem. Synthesis is the
generation of solutions for the problem. Evaluation involves the appraisal of suggested
solutions against the objectives in the analysis phase. A decision is then taken on the state
of the design problem/solution and then the process sequence is advanced. Return loops
can exist for some or all steps in the process sequence. The classification of design
29
activity can support management in understanding the process of design and in
coordinating action.
There is considerable support from researchers for viewing design as a decision
making process (Manning and Mattar 1994, Ganeshan et al. 1994, and Beheshti 1993).
Beheshti describes the role of design management as a process of accounting for: a chain
of known constraints; design constraints that emerge from the interaction of other design
variables, values, priorities or criteria; impacts of unknown design variables introducing
uncertainty; and consequences of alternative courses of actions interacting with known or
unknown decision factors. The realization of constraints by designers means the there are
often multiple and competing performance criteria to satisfy.
Kalay (1999) suggests the use of a performance based design paradigm to assess how
design is carried out. Quality can only be achieved by determining a multi-criteria
performance evaluation objective, which comprises a sum of satisfaction/behavior
functions and subsequent trade-offs in design solution selection. Performance-based
design is interrelated with form, function and context of the design situation, which
determines the behavior of the proposed solution.
2.4.2 DESIGN AND WICKED PROBLEMS
There is reason to question whether systematic perspectives as proposed by (Kamara et
al. 2000) are appropriate in project definition. Rowe (1987) reviews the research on
procedural aspects of design problems. The world of design problems makes a distinction
between well-defined and ill-structured (or ill-defined) problems. Well defined problems
are those for which the end or goal is already prescribed or apparent, and their solution
requires the provision of appropriate means.
30
Simon (1984) defines an ill-structured problem as a problem whose structure lacks
definition in some respect. The problem has unknowns associated with the ends (set of
project goals) and means (set of process actions and decision rules) of the solution, at the
outset of the problem solving process. Many design problems are so ill-defined and
complex that they can only be called “wicked problems”, as first coined by Rittel and
Webber’s (1972) seminal work on the complexity of planning and design processes. The
concept of a wicked problem is very relevant to the subject of purpose development.
Locating the purpose of a project is a difficult challenge for management to address,
particularly in open societal systems. Take for example; the purpose of a facility may
originate from changes in any level of need in shown in Table 2.1. Project managers are
tasked with locating the purpose along with providing a solution. The difficulty arises in
how the purpose is formulated by the project stakeholders and how the solution is
designed to satisfy it. The information needed to understand a wicked problem depends
upon one’s idea for solving it. In order to advance the understanding of the problem, one
needs to reason with its resolution; i.e., the means to solve the problem. The exploration
of the problem in parallel with the solution can bring new issues to light, which may
validate or discount earlier perceptions of what the problem might have been.
The project manager is faced with issues such as how to formulate the problem; i.e.,
how to express the purpose of individuals and then how to reconcile conflicting interests
among multiple stakeholders. The project manager is restricted by having limited time
and resources to develop purpose, which limits the search for purposes and appropriate
solutions. The project manager is also bounded by what can be predicted in the future;
e.g., the users of a facility, the supporting organizational structures and services, and the
31
facility technology, each have associated uncertainties in terms of how their needs will
change over time. The project manager is often limited in its capacity to predict these
changes.
To deal with wicked problems, Rittel and Webber advocate an argumentative process
in the course of which an understanding of the problem and solution emerges gradually
from the participants. Table 2.2 identifies the principal approaches towards analyzing
design activity.
Table 2.2 Design Activity Models (adapted from Stumpf and McDonnell 2002)
Description Rational Problem- Social Argumentative Learning

solving Process Experiential Process
Model of Information-processor Participant in Individual
Designer in an objective reality argumentation practitioner
(Simon). (Rittel). (Schon).
Macro-level Decomposition of Wicked, too complex for Unique, uncertain
problem from being ill- one individual, Move value-laden problem,
structured and ill- towards consensus. constructed by
defined into well- individual –
structured and well- Converge towards
defined problems, then ‘fitness’.
solve.
Micro-level Search Cycle: Analyze- Support/deny an issue by Enter a construction
generate-test-evaluate. arguments. cycle: frame-name-
move-reflect.
Design Formalization of sub- Negotiation & Consensus Learn-by-doing –
Methods and processes and control making, Rationales which openness to talkback.
Techniques mechanisms. show argumentative
structure.
As an alternative to Simon’s rational problem solving approach, both Rittel and Schon
advocate the sharing of different perspectives or realities upon which to create meaning.
Rittel (1984) suggests investigating: “designing as an argumentative process; where to
begin to develop settings, rules and procedures for the open-ending of such an
argumentative process; how to understand design as a counter-play of raising issues and
32
dealing with them, which in turn raises new issues”. Structuring appropriate settings and
procedures for learning at individual, group and organizational levels is necessary to
understand process impacts. Schon’s (1983) notion of reflection allows a group “to
surface and criticize the tacit understandings that have grown up around a repetitive
experience of the group, and make new sense of situations of uncertainty or uniqueness”.
Other researchers also support the notion that problem solving should include the
perceptions of those tasked with solving the problem. Schon (1983), Checkland and
Scholes (1999), and Rosenhead and Mingers (2001) address the limitations of hard
optimal solution seeking methods. Hard systems thinking adopt an objectivist stance; i.e.,
the problem is seen as independent of the individual’s views or beliefs. By contrast, soft
systems modeling take a subjective stance and recognize the importance of the
participant’s perceptions in defining the problem.
2.5 PROJECT DEFINITION PROCESS MANAGEMENT
2.5.1 PROCESS PROTOCOLS FOR PROJECT DEFINITION
Given the issues associated with organizational design, project management has
researched project definition by improving the transparency of the process. Notable
research is the generic process protocol for design and construction that has been
developed by the University of Salford, UK and industry partners (Univ. of Salford
1995). The Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol (GDCPP) maps into “eight
sub-processes (Activity Zones); four broad stages; and ten phases” as described in Table
2.3 (Kagioglou et al. 1999). Industry partners have mapped the project definition phases.
A notable example includes the client perspective process model developed by the IAI
33
UK Client Domain Committee, 1998. Process maps are created for facility owner
business services and project interfaces.
Table 2.3 Outline of Salford Process Protocol
ACTIVITY ZONES BROAD STAGES PHASES

Project Development Pre - project stage: Demonstrating the need
Conception of need
Resources Outline feasibility
Design Substantive feasibility study
and outline financial
authority
Production Pre - construction stage: Outline conceptual design
Facilities Full conceptual design
Health & Safety Coordinated design,
procurement and full
financial authority
Statutory and Legal Construction stage: Production information
Process Management Construction
Post completion stage: Operation and maintenance
Process re-engineering focuses on some key principles for improving the quality of
project delivery. These include (Kagioglou et al. 1999): adopting a whole project view;
considering the full product life-cycle; applying a consistent process throughout the
project life cycle; applying progressive design fixity; applying planning and review
procedures through the use of stage gates, coordination, stakeholder involvement and
teamwork; and finally providing feedback or learning for future projects.
This protocol provides facility owners with a directive for managing their project
delivery process. With respect to project definition, the process phases have clear
deliverables on what must be achieved to move onto the next stage. The protocol does not
however address how learning occurs in the group process nor does it describe the
complexity associated with understanding the facility owner’s purpose.
34
2.5.2 PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Measuring performance of projects has been a focus of industry research. The US-based
Construction Industry Institute (CII 1999) has developed a project management tool to
support the project definition phase. CII research has shown that the Project Definition
Rating Index (PDRI) can be effectively used to improve the predictability of project
performance. Gibson and Gebken (2003) use the tool in administering project definition
workshops for project participants. The PDRI tool allows the project team to quantify,
rate, and assess the level of scope development on projects prior to beginning
development of construction documents.
In the UK, Gann et al. (2003) have developed a Design Quality Indicator (DQI) as a
tool for improving the design of buildings. The conceptual framework has three aspects:
Firstly Building Quality considers: performance, engineering and construction.
Functionality incorporates issues such as: use, access and space. Finally Impact
considers: character and innovation, form and materials, internal environment and urban
and social integration. The tool is designed to provide methods for measuring
performance by providing feedback and capturing stakeholder perceptions of design
quality. The tool is intended to create a forum for thinking about value and to act as a
mediator between customers, end-users, designers and producers.
The tool seeks to complement Key Performance Indicators (Egan 1998) developed
for construction projects, namely: client satisfaction with the product, client satisfaction
with the service, defects in the product, predictability of cost, predictability of time,
construction time, construction cost, safety, productivity and profitability.
35
These performance indicators provide construction teams with useful variables to
consider over the course of the project development. Project management can benefit by
incorporating these indicators into their work routines and use them as templates upon
which to facilitate discussions with project stakeholders. Empirical research is still
needed to understand how these indicators foster shared understanding in groups.
2.5.3 ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAMMING
In building facility projects architectural programming is perceived as the means to
define the problem, where design is considered as the means to create the solution.
Traditionally architects assume the role of developing facility owner requirements
through the practice of architectural programming. Methods of architectural
programming approach pre-design activity as a problem definition process.
The work of Peña and Parshall (2001), Cherry (1999), Hershberger (1999), Tompkins
et al. (1996), Verger and Kaderlan (1994), and Preiser (1993) develop various
programming methods to establish client and project needs and values to allow designers
to respond with alternative solutions to defined problems.
Peña and Parshall (2001) describe programming as the pre-design activity that
develops the considerations or design determinants that define a comprehensive
architectural problem. Peña et al. define programming as a process of five steps: 1)
Establish goals; 2) Collect and analyze facts; 3) Uncover and test concepts; 4) Determine
needs; and 5) State the problem.
Architectural programming is a detailed process which generates large amounts of
information to be developed and managed. The information gathered and processed from
the five step iterative phase culminates in an information index that adequately defines
36
the problem and solution for design and construction development. These considerations
include: function, form, economy and time.
2.5.4 COMMON ORGANIZATIONAL BARRIERS IN PROJECT DEFINITION
Researchers have identified the difficulties in managing the project definition phase of
construction projects. Melgrati and Damiani’s (2002) empirical research on development
teams found that most of the projects observed were re-defining the project (problem
definition) well into the project’s development. Underdeveloped project definition can
impact the downstream processes, whereby the purpose of the project eventually becomes
apparent. Kähkönen (1999) summarizes the state of research with respect to the
management of project definition:
“Compared with the later stages of project management, it seems that the
basic nature of the project definition process is poorly modeled and
understood, leading inevitably to unsatisfactory practical implementation.
Within the project definition process one can often encounter unclear or
conflicting objectives, high levels of uncertainty relating to most
estimates, communication problems between individuals, unrealistic
opinions and a lack of creativeness, flexibility and consensus between
various parties.”
Barrett and Stanley’s (1999) investigation into the process of briefing reveals process
inefficiencies, many of which are attributed to organizational and human factors. Barrett
et al. (1998) and Hudson (1999) argue that systematic processes are limited in
establishing best practice. Poor process and organizational design are primary
contributors to poor project definition outcomes. Barrett and Stanley (1999) proposes key
solution areas that include: client empowerment to inform, educate and make decisions;
management of project dynamics; appropriate user involvement; appropriate information
and visualization techniques, and appropriate team building.
37
Kamara and Anumba (2001) also report on similar barriers such as inadequate
involvement of all the relevant parties, insufficient time allocated to project definition,
inadequate consideration of the client perspectives, inadequate communication between
the parties, and inadequate management of changes in project requirements.
2.5.5 LEADERSHIP ROLES IN PROJECT DEFINITION
The leadership role of management as a neutral “needs analyst” is important so to
manage the interests of multiple project stakeholders. Halman and Burger (2002)
highlight the different expectations held by the project manager and the project client in
project definition. Their evidence suggests a difference in role expectations by both the
client and project management. The need for facilitative leadership is apparent.
Construction owners expect a greater emphasis on management leadership and
motivational skills by project managers, whereas project managers expect to rely more on
their technical skills to understand the project purpose.
According to Cherry (1999), there are various views as to who should carry out and
control the architectural programming process. There are architects who feel it is the
facility owner’s responsibility to establish and finalize a complete program so that they
can concentrate solely on design development. There are architects who feel that they
should be involved in the programming process from the outset, so as to test the
stakeholder’s needs and have continuity at the design phase. Then there are designers
who feel the programming process should not be a distinct process separated from design.
Architectural programmers may approach the programming process assuming that a
design solution and pending design project is imminent. Unless managed effectively, the
result may be too narrow or too broad a definition of the project purpose. The process
38
may also be regarded as project centric and fail to seek out non-capital investment
solutions, and so the process can lose sight of the greater opportunities to be explored.
There is a lack of process knowledge associated with the programming process. The
literature (Cherry 1999) on programming establishes the fact that the programmer is
centered on defining the problem, but the means to manage the dynamics of the process
are less developed. The dynamics of change, client priority and choice are not evident in
the programming model. While the programming process provides a comprehensive
account of the information necessary for a complete program specification, the process of
decision making is not clearly specified.
The overload of information can result in added complexity. Facility owners normally
have limited problem solving resources and time to deal with such large amounts of
programming information. How to steer the process effectively with the right amount of
information is a challenging issue for project management, particularly when dealing
with a large scale project within a multi-faceted client organization.
Green (1996) is critical of the construction professional’s naïve understanding of
owner organizations. Owners have varying degrees of understanding about their needs
and values. Green’s analysis of metaphors by which owner organizations operate, offers
direction in understanding the socio-technical complexity and the nature of the owners’
decision making practices. Directive management techniques are suitable for systems that
display low levels of complexity and change. Unitary owners with pre-defined and well
established needs may operate through the machine metaphor; i.e., a mechanistic process
of requirements development.
39
Within the context of project definition activity, purposes are more difficult to establish
in owner environments of high complexity and change. Pluralistic owners are multi-
faceted and may lack common goals “and require a common understanding of the
problem”, which may be better perceived “as a social process based on iteration and
learning”.
Project management is in the strategic position to interface with the customer
organization and the project stakeholders to define purpose. Smith (2000) argues that
“when the strategic analysis of needs has been rigorously and conscientiously pursued
then it should result in a clearer view of the goals of the organization, a better definition
of its real needs and the strategic decision should recommend the best means to achieve
those goals”. Therefore the project definition process serves as a significant stage of
project delivery to create consensus between the client organization and the project
stakeholders on the purpose of the project in question.
2.6 CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has discussed project purpose and its relationship with customer value. I
have identified needs and values as the basis for understanding project purpose. I have
discussed the principal research that supports purpose development. The use of
systematic requirements processing methods can provide transparency and traceability in
the project definition process, but may be limited in complex environments. I advocate
the integration of design activity with purpose development. Design activity can support
the development of project purpose. Coupled with organizational barriers such as poor
organizational and process design, the process of understanding purpose is complex and
40
can be characterized as a wicked problem. The literature supports the use of social
processes to deal with wicked problems.
The next chapter identifies the development of purpose as a complex adaptive
process. I review the issues associated with learning in a complex system. I then propose
collaborative learning as a means of developing purpose.
41
3
PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH COLLABORATION AND LEARNING
3.1 INTRODUCTION
While systematic processes, as developed by Kamara et al. (2000) provide a structured
framework for developing project requirements, they can also be found lacking when
managing the human and organizational aspects of decision making in project definition.
In the previous chapter I identified the existence of wicked problems in planning and
design processes. Complex and uncertain environments reveal situations that are wicked
or messy to manage and resolve. The alternative approach to traditional problem solving
methods is a collaborative approach.
My general research hypothesis for this study is that:
“The emergence of project purpose can be effectively managed by
understanding project definition as a complex adaptive process”.
In this research I argue that the project definition process is complex and in order to
manage the development of purpose, collaboration and learning are necessary in project-
based organizations. This chapter advances the argument for group collaboration and
learning to support the development of project purpose.
I first describe the characteristics associated with complex systems as they relate to
project definition groups. I examine the necessity for collaboration and identify process
conditions that support collaboration. I identify the process of learning and how it relates
to the project definition process. I describe the importance of dialogue and shared
understanding, and the leadership role project management plays in facilitating group
processes. Finally I outline the direction for this research study.
42
3.2 CHARACTERIZING PROJECT GROUPS AS COMPLEX SYSTEMS
3.2.1 THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT
The environments within which construction projects are defined are made up of multiple
stakeholders. Figure 3.1 illustrates a generic organizational structure of the project
definition group. The variety of stakeholder entities are categorized as: project
management, the facility owner groups, design specialists, and regulatory agencies.
Project management is responsible for coordinating these multiple stakeholder groups.
These stakeholders may operate within their own work environments under separate
organizational strategies, policies, and work routines. In project development, the groups
interact to achieve a common purpose. In this research context, the common purpose is
the development of a physical facility.
Facility Owners
Facility Facility Users
Financiers
Facility Owner Facility Owner Facility

Interest Groups Group Function
Specialists
Project
Environmental Manager Architectural
Planning Designers
Regulatory Design
Agencies Specialists

Figure 3.1 Project Definition Stakeholder Groups

43
3.2.2 DETAILED COMPLEXITY
Organizational systems are described in terms of combinatorial, or detail, complexity.
This form of complexity frequently takes the form of hierarchy (Simon 1969). Within
each stakeholder entity, a hierarchical structure exists, which normally is designed to
support the organizational strategy. A hierarchic system is composed of interrelated sub-
systems. The greater number of stakeholder agents increases the detailed complexity of
the system.
As in Figure 3.2, facility owner organizations are typically made up of hierarchical
structures. The owner organization might have a strategic group that makes decisions
about their facilities. The owner’s operations management provides knowledge about the
organization’s functions and operational activities. At the lower end of the hierarchy,
there are the operators and end users of the facility. Depending on the organization, these
users may be few or very many. Ideally these users are supported by strategic and
operations management in term of fulfilling the facility-based user needs. Hierarchical
structures can exist also within the regulatory agencies and the design specialist groups.
Owner Organization Regulatory

Agencies
Project
Strategic Management
Management
Design
Operations Specialists
Management
Facility Operators or Users
Figure 3.2 Hierarchical Structures in Project Definition Environments
44
3.2.3 STAKEHOLDER INTERACTION
Organizational systems tend to have high levels of dynamic complexity arising from the
interactions among the agents associated with the system over time. All organizations
undergo change over many time scales (Sterman 2000). Facility owner organizations
change their business or service models, and develop new products and services as they
understand changes of need in their environment. This in turn changes the organization’s
functions and the personnel types operating in the organization. Physical facilities also
change to support the organization.
Stakeholder entities may perceive themselves as self organizing; i.e., entities that
have their own internal structures, strategies and routines to make decisions and perform
operational goals in their organization. For example, the operations management
personnel may operate based on individual strategies and policies independent of each
other. Stakeholders have their own patterns of action which is based on the some success
criterion (Axelrod and Cohen 1999). Operations management may perform specific
functions in their workplace to produce goods or perform services based on their defined
level of performance.
Complex properties exist in terms of parts and laws of interaction (Simon 1969). A
project system might be made up of a large number of parts, in this research context,
project stakeholders that have many interactions. Stakeholders may be highly dependent
on each others actions. Typically tightly coupled stakeholder entities have high reliance
on each other and there is a reciprocal process ongoing to understand the impacts of each
other’s actions. The process requires strong interaction among agents. Stakeholder
entities are governed by feedback from other entities operating in the environment. For
45
example; operation managers might maintain strong interactions with the organization’s
business development group to understand what the impacts of their decisions have on
the performance of the facility workplaces. This would lead to learning about how both
entities are dependant on each other, and eventual adaptation of the facility.
Changes in one part of the complex system can have large effects on another part. For
example, a new regulatory policy concerning facility safety might emerge based on new
scientific knowledge. This can affect how a facility can continue to perform, which
affects what functions occur in the facility and may lead to physical changes to that
facility. The ability to adapt to changes in one part of the system depends on how
stakeholders learn and understand how these changes impact their operating environment.
3.2.4 IMPEDIMENTS TO LEARNING IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS
There is evidence that human and organizational factors impact the effectiveness of
project definition due to the nature of complex systems. Sterman (2000: 20) identifies a
range of issues that impede learning within the complex system. These include:
“dynamic complexity, imperfect information about the state of the real

world, confounding and ambiguous variables, poor scientific reasoning
skills, defensive routines, and other barriers to effective group processes,
implementation failure, and the misperceptions of feedback that hinder our
ability to understand the structure and dynamics of complex systems”.
With respect to project definition, Figure 3.3 illustrates how learning about project
purpose is impeded. These impediments include the uncertainty associated with the
facility owner’s needs and the identification of relevant stakeholders. Stakeholders
associated with the project may or may not be identifiable. There is ambiguity associated
with the assumptions made by stakeholders, along with stakeholder values and interests.
The inclusion or exclusion of appropriate specialist construction knowledge in project
definition impacts the learning process. Project management is also challenged by the
46
complexity of the facility owner organization and its’ internal decision processes.
Decisions made about the project purpose can result in a poor outcome.
Project Phase Uncertainty about:

Outcomes •Project needs
•Purpose remains •Business case strategy
ill-defined Real World
•Resources & Constraints
•Project Stakeholder
Identity
Decisions
Client Information
Organization Feedback
Issues
•Multi-faceted
organizations
•Inefficient Organization
internal processes Strategy, Structure, Mental Models
Rules & Routines Of Real World
•Isolation errors
•Impenetrable
boundaries
Architecture/Engineering/Construction Ambiguity about:

Specialist Issues •Stakeholder belief &
•Poor leveraging and sharing of AEC knowledge value systems
at front end •Shared meaning
•Inability to collectively elicit and understand •Decision frames
client value systems
•Lost opportunity to create value and innovation
due to poor group process design
•Distant proximity to effectively inform Client
Decision Processes
Figure 3.3 Impediments to Learning about Project Purpose (Adapted from Sterman 2000)
47
3.3 PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH COLLABORATION
3.3.1 COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
Scrivener et al. (2000) have found increasingly that design is being viewed as a
collective, collaborative and even a community process. Supporting argument comes
from Buccariarelli (1988) who considers design activity as a social process or social
construction. Kalay (2000) defines collaboration as an agreement among the facility
owner, project management, design specialists, regulatory agencies and other project
interest groups to share their abilities to achieve the larger objectives of the project as a
whole, as defined by the project stakeholders. The terms: collaborative, cooperative,
concurrent, user-centered, participatory, socio-technical and community design all
emphasize the importance of group processes.
Innes and Booher (1999) argue that “consensus planning” (a form of collaborative
activity) is not only about producing agreements and plans, but also about
experimentation, learning, change and building shared meaning. The notion of
collaborative capability is central to taking advantage of emerging opportunities to create
value in the project definition phase.
The design of a collaborative process is a first step towards understanding what the
project purpose is. Without adequate facilitation of stakeholder interests, ambiguity and
uncertainty of the problem to be solved will increase. Innes and Booher specify process
criteria for an effective collaborative process. A collaborative process includes all
relevant stakeholders. The process engages participants in a common purpose and
maintains their interest over the course of the process. The process is self-organizing in
that it allows group work to function effectively. The process is creative and challenges
48
assumptions and the status quo. The process uses high quality information that is diverse
and representative of the stakeholder interests. Consensus is sought after the process has
fully explored the interests and needs of the stakeholders. Project management is
responsible for creating these collaborative conditions in project definition. The style of
management used to foster collaborative conditions is an important consideration for
project managers.
3.3.2 DIRECTIVE VERSUS ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Nishiguchi (2001) and Stacey (1999) describe the characteristics of directive and
adaptive management approaches. Figure 3.4 illustrates management’s role as defined by
the levels of complexity in the environment.
Organic Extreme
Complex
Multiple Entities Adaptive
Management
Styles
Emergent Purposes
& Solutions
Ill-defined
Static Project Purposes
Straightforward Dynamic
Project Purpose
Directive
Management Organization of
Styles Low-complexity &
Little Change
Mechanistic Extreme Simple
Figure 3.4 Project Management Styles and Complexity (Adapted from Stacey 1999)
Decision-making in the directive approach is a top-down, unilateral process. It is based
upon the deployment of functional skills and result information. A directive style of
49
management may be appropriate for organizations operating with low levels of
complexity, but most organizations owning and operating facilities have high levels of
complexity.
A more adaptive style of management is necessary in complex environments. The
essence of adaptive management is that managers can learn as actions unfold, and as new
issues emerge (Graham & Kruger 2002). Stakeholder needs and values are more difficult
to establish in environments of high complexity and change. Stakeholder entities are
increasingly more dependent on each other to make decisions, and require interaction to
understand each other’s needs and values. Project Management’s capability to guide the
group process is based on its ability to recognize and understand the emerging project
purposes and to gain timely feedback from the relevant stakeholders.
Ruitenbeek and Cartier (2001) view an adaptive process as one that guides group
learning and manages project changes based on learning. The adaptive approach utilizes
real-time interactive processes, relational skills; e.g., commitment building, and process-
based information to develop meaningful action. It is supported by cross functional
organization and penetrable organizational boundaries. The adaptive approach is open-
ended and has an organic structure, in contrast to a more mechanistic and closed structure
that epitomizes the directive approach.
3.3.3 LEARNING
Learning as discussed by Argyris (1999) occurs firstly when an organization achieves
what is intended; i.e., when there is a match between intentions and outcomes, and
secondly when a mismatch is identified and corrected and turned into a match. The
extended process results in double loop learning (understanding the governing problem
50
variables and altering actions) to determine how the original project goals and design
criteria were set and established (See Figure 3.5). Single loop learning may focus on
changing actions without a focus on the governing variables. The classic example of
single and double learning is the “Thermostat Model”. Single-loop learning is focused on
the heating system achieving a given temperature. Double-loop learning involves
changing the setting on the thermostat and questioning the assumptions behind the
thermostat setting (Cartwright 2002).
Match
Governing Actions Consequences
Variables Mismatch
Single-Loop
Double-Loop
Figure 3.5 Single and Double Loop Learning (Argyris 1999)
Project definition can be perceived as a learning process as described by Argyris. To
relate this learning model to project definition activity Figure 3.6 illustrates a set of
learning cycles to test project purposes, criteria and concepts. Single loop learning occurs
when the project definition group solves for the initially stated project purpose, without
questioning the intentions behind those purposes. The project group may achieve the
initial purpose with an adequate solution, but may not actively test the underlying
assumptions upon which purpose is based.
Double loop learning challenges the intentions of stakeholder purpose (governing
variables). Governing variables may include the initial problem represented in client
purpose, team assumptions, stakeholder needs and project constraints. Learning about
purposes and their associated constraints can only be determined and resolved by the
51
project stakeholders. The challenge for project management is how to create a group
process that supports double-loop learning.
Purposes Test Concepts
Constraints Concepts Expand/Change Constraints

purposes
Fulfill
Purposes Concepts
Limit Test
Translate into
Aid Generation of
Criteria Test
Criteria Test Concepts
Criteria
Evaluation
Concepts Expand
Purposes Expand/Change Criteria Change Criteria
Figure 3.6 Project Definition Learning Model
The project definition process is significant in that it offers the stakeholder groups an
opportunity to identify constraints early in the project. Project constraints serve as a
means to understand the implications of achieving project purpose. Constraints, extensive
in organizations and facilities, are relationships that are maintained or enforced in a given
context (Mayer et al. 1995). Constraint statements describe the relationships between
objects and processes. Goldratt (1990) defines a constraint as “anything that limits a
system from achieving higher performance versus its goal”.
Constraints can be considered to act as enabling and limiting in a given context. For
example, operations management may set a specific time for facility functions to occur;
e.g., an 8 hour working day. This constraint enables operations management to manage
52
their operations costs (e.g., the use of energy) for the facility. The user may consider this
constraint as a limiting one, should there be a desire to use the facility beyond an eight
hour working day.
A proper understanding of project constraints can determine whether or not
stakeholders can achieve their purposes. By thoroughly identifying a constraint,
stakeholders can judge whether it should be maintained or decide whether it should be
removed if necessary to create greater value for the stakeholders. The constraint may
cause undesirable consequences or no longer support the organization’s goals. Without
unearthing the constraints of the project, purpose will remain untested. Therefore a
sufficient capability is required by project management to reveal constraints and propose
means of working with such constraints.
3.4 FACILITATING THE EMERGENCE OF PROJECT PURPOSE
3.4.1 PURPOSE AS AN EMERGENT PRODUCT OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT
Complexity often results in features called emergent properties, which are properties of
the whole system, though not of its parts (Axelrod and Cohen 1999). Emergence is
associated with dynamic systems whose behavior arises from the interaction of its parts,
and cannot be predicted from knowledge about the parts in isolation (Corning 2002).
Within the context of project definition, purposes emerge based on the interaction of the
facility owner groups, project management, design specialists and other relevant
stakeholders.
A key issue with understanding purpose is the synergy that a collaborative process
creates. According to Corning “synergy refers to the cooperative effects that are
produced by two or more particles, elements, parts or organisms – effects that are
53
otherwise not attainable”. Management needs to understand how project purposes emerge
from the interaction of the stakeholder agents in the system. I posit that management can
be in a better position to adapt within the system, once they can perceive the emergence
of customer and stakeholder purposes.
In this research, project management control is understood as effective facilitation.
By facilitation I mean promoting interaction, participation, relating and dialogues. Project
management may find itself continually iterating and redefining the basic premises of
purpose, based on constant feedback and incremental learning cycles with the project
group.
Straus (2002) defines the role of a facilitator as consisting of four functions: a process
guide, a tool giver, a third neutral party and a process educator. “Process guidance” and
“tool giving” are the means of designing and providing appropriate group problem
solving methods to address the problem at hand. A “third neutral party” serves as an
impartial actor that place emphasis on the process and is not biased about issues of
content associated with the problem. The “process educator” function is the means by
which the group is frequently informed about the facilitation of the process.
Facilitative (leadership) actions can support the transition of purpose from need to
requirement. Purposes change as project variables are further defined and their
relationships are better understood. A shared problem space or forum can facilitate
stakeholder conversations and dialogue. These shared spaces facilitate the development
of needs and these needs transform into project requirements through a facilitated
process. Purpose is propositioned to emerge once stakeholders progress to consensus.
54
3.4.2 FOSTERING SHARED UNDERSTANDING
One of the main assumptions of this research is that shared understanding leads to more
effective problem definitions by project planning groups. Cannon-Bowers and Salas
(2001) state that shared understanding is a broad construct which describes mutual
expectations by group members and the extent to which teams are able to establish a
common platform for their task. Shared understanding has many associated terms e.g.
shared meaning, shared cognition, or shared vision. Shared understanding emerges when
the team establishes a common frame of reference.
Establishing shared understanding requires developing group language, roles, goals
and priorities, group purpose and ways of getting work done (Cohen et al. 1999). How
well group member differences and dependencies are identified and acknowledged
determines the level of shared understanding. By invoking the “shared understanding”
construct, project management can better understand the effects of team and
organizational performance. The construct serves as a means of team interaction. It
facilitates coordinating behavior with/without communication. It allows management to
interpret cues, make compatible decisions and take appropriate action. Finally it serves as
an indicator of group readiness to progress onto the next stage of project development
(Cannon-Bowers and Salas 2001).
Typically stakeholder knowledge includes: attitudes, beliefs, stakeholder knowledge,
inter-positional knowledge, expectations, and predictions. Effective shared understanding
allows information exchange, providing big picture summaries, and seeking information
from all available sources. It allows effective communication; e.g., use of proper
phraseology, brevity, clarity, completeness of standard reports. Shared understanding
55
supports group behavior; e.g., error correction and back-up/assistance, and it supports
group leadership; e.g., providing guidance, stating priorities and gaining group
consensus.
3.4.3 MANAGING MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDER FRAMES
In order to develop a sense of how teams develop shared understanding of project
definition problems and solutions, it is necessary to understand the “frames” by which the
various team members structure their perspectives of project purpose. Different realities
exist when project participants engage through collaboration in project definition.
Organizational stakeholders may frame the problem within constructs of their own
expertise or experience (Beach 1997).
Buenano (1999) acknowledges that in stating a problem: facts, beliefs, ideas,
discrepancies, causes and consequences continuously interplay. Berger and Luckmann
(1967) propose that “reality” is not objective and shared by all those engaged in a social
act. Instead they perceive that multiple realities exist through different social systems.
Different worldviews develop in social systems and are established and maintained
through specific ways of socialization, thinking and acting. Bilello’s (1993) PhD
dissertation examines multiple stakeholder frames to understand how different
organizations structure a (a building design project) problem for their individual decision-
making purposes. Bilello found that stakeholders were motivated around individual
interests and values, based on their professional role and responsibility.
Beach (1997) defines a frame as a “mental construct consisting of elements, and the
relationships between them, that are associated with a situation of interest to a decision
maker. The elements are salient to current or past events. The relationships define the
56
expected interactions among the elements”. Should the frame not represent the situation,
it should be is revised through replacement or reinterpretation of the various elements and
relationships.
Frame analysis is the study of the ways in which practitioners frame problems and
roles, and it can aid in allowing stakeholders to become more aware of and to criticize
their roles (Schon 1983). Frames are often difficult to identify and construct. Agents
tasked with problem solving often lock into a particular frame and it may be difficult to
switch frames without support from outside (of the constructor of the frame) (Russo and
Schoemaker. 1990 & 2002).
Explication of stakeholder frames is a necessity in the group process. For example,
the viewpoint of the owner groups such as the facility users may differ greatly from that
of the operations management. Operations Management may only be concerned with
managing the functions of the facility. The user satisfaction with the facility functions
may not be known to the operations management, and would need to be communicated
for shared understanding to occur. The concerns of the user are important for the
operations management to understand so to improve the facility functions. The user may
not be concerned with constraints that the operations management has to deal with in
managing the facility functions, but they can acknowledge the constraints of operations
management. Mutual understanding of individual frames can aid the process of alignment
into a shared collective frame.
3.4.4 SHARED UNDERSTANDING THROUGH DIALOGUE
As diverse stakeholders collaborate to produce individual and collective purposes,
communication breakdowns of many types are to be expected given individual
57
worldviews. Dialogue serves as a group communication mechanism that allows collective
purpose to develop. Dialogue serves as a group communication mechanism that allows
interaction and feedback to occur.
Dialogue allows the exploration of complex or difficult issues from many different
perspectives. It reflects the way individuals think and is a key to learning through
interaction with one another; it is in fact, a critical medium of learning. Specifically, as it
relates to Senge’s model (1990), it forms a foundation that enables work groups to better
practice the majority of the learning disciplines: systems thinking, mental models, shared
vision, and team learning.
If a problem is not well understood, each group member solves a different problem.
This can lead to lost opportunities to innovate. By allowing dialogue to serve as a
proactive device in problem identification, clearer purpose definition may develop.
Dialogue goes beyond “discussion or conversation”, which usually only addresses
argument or a point of view. When practiced successfully, dialogue allows groups to
move beyond any one individual’s understanding to gain new insights and to create in
ways that could not be achieved individually (Hale 1995). Evaluative inquiry, listening,
reflection, assumptions elicitation, and suspension of judgment are skills necessary for
group dialogue to occur successfully (Isaacs 1999).
Scharmer (2001) states that “reflective and generative dialogues” are minimum
conditions for group knowledge creation, in this case knowledge about purpose
development. Schon’s notion of reflection allows a group to surface and criticize the tacit
understandings that have grown up around a repetitive experience of the group, and to
make new sense of situations of uncertainty or uniqueness. Generative dialogue is akin to
58
opportunity finding or proposing solutions to a group problem. It is a form of synthesis or
creative activity.
3.5 DIRECTION FOR THIS RESEARCH
3.5.1 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ISSUES
In complex project organizations, directive management approaches can be ineffective,
and require adaptive management processes to support the definition of project purposes.
In project definition processes, management has to facilitate multiple perspectives of
stakeholder purpose. The ability for project management to create value and innovation is
dependent on their ability to manage the multiple frames of interest in the group process.
Project Management can support group shared understanding, dialogue and learning
through the design & facilitation of a group process. Purpose development is best
approached through an iterative cycle of purpose (needs and values) and solution
development.
3.5.2 CONTEXT FOR THIS RESEARCH
The focus of this research is to understand the theoretical and practical implications for
project management who are developing purposes within complex project environments.
The study seeks to provide new insights into management action in the project definition
phase. I seek describe the challenges project managers face when developing stakeholder
purposes, and understand the importance of project management steering action, and how
it can support group learning.
This research will use a case study method which comprises two distinct phases of
field research. The first phase of study develops a set of case studies in a public client
education institution. These studies reveal the operational complexity that project
59
management works within. The case studies reveal how project purpose is framed by
individual stakeholders, how the process evolves, and how the overall project definition
is impacted. The second phase of study researches a particular workplace management
system that displays evidence of supporting collaboration. The management system is
described. A set of project case studies is developed to determine the collaborative
characteristics of both the management methods, and the facilitative leadership and
steering action of the project manager.
60
4
RESEARCH METHODS
4.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE OVERALL STRATEGY
Love et al. (2002) state that research in construction management can be categorized as at
the intersection of natural science and social science. Two methodologies dominate the
study of construction management: the positivist approach and the interpretivist
approach. The positivist approach studies events and establishes facts that are
independent of the observer. It adopts a deductive method to guide the research direction.
The goal of this method is to remain objective with no prior pre-conceptions by the
researcher. Where social actions by humans are integral to the research question, then the
positivist approach is limited in understanding.
The interpretivist approach studies events that include the values and thoughts of the
observer. Interpretive research believes that to understand the world of meaning, one
must interpret it (Love et al. 2002). Interpretivism moves from making specific
observations to the creation of in-depth understanding of the subject of study. In
construction research, people are central in the behavior of organizational systems. In
order to understand the dynamics of these social systems, human activity is considered to
be an important variable of study. It is therefore an active variable for this research study
and lends itself to the interpretative research approach.
Qualitative research methods are useful in examining and developing theories that
deal with the role of meaning (Ezzy 2002). Denzin and Lincoln (2003) state that
qualitative research “emphasizes the qualities of processes and meanings that are not
experimentally examined or measured in terms of quantity, amount, intensity or
61
frequency”. Researchers focus on the socially constructed nature of reality, the
relationship between the researcher and subject being studied, and the situational
constraints of the inquiry. This research is focused on the interests and perspectives of
project stakeholders as they interact and develop shared purposes for their projects. It is
necessary to use a qualitative approach to understand how to manage these project
stakeholders.
4.1.1 RESEARCH APPROACH
This research is interested in stakeholder interactions that occur during project definition.
Empirical case studies provide new conceptual insights by investigating individual cases
for an in-depth understanding of the complex external world. Yin (2003) defines a case
study method as appropriate when: “a “how” or “why” question is being asked about a
contemporary set of events over which the investigator has little or no control”.
The purpose of this research study – to identify and characterize adaptive
management action in project definition activity - calls for the use of qualitative research
methods. In order to understand the dynamic nature of project purpose development, this
research is using the case study research method (Yin 1993 & 2003). The use of case
studies is one of many ways of doing social-based qualitative research. Others include
experiments, surveys, histories and analyses of archival information (Yin 2003).
This research explores the development of purpose in construction projects. The
objective is to understand how the purpose(s) of the project emerge from the stakeholder
processes. What are the collaborative issues for project managers responsible for
managing the project definition process? Can group process be managed to align
62
stakeholder interests in pursuit of a common purpose? If so what are these management
strategies?
4.2 THE RESEARCH UNITS OF ANALYSIS
The management process is the primary unit of analysis. I focus my attention on the role
of management and its ability to adapt process conditions to support emerging purpose. I
center my study on construction project managers, adopting the framework of
Engestrom’s (1987) Human Activity System (See Figure 4.1) to describe the
management process. This framework allows me to identify and define the relevant
research variables.
Tools
Methods to Develop Purpose
Subject Object Outcomes

Management Creation of Project
Owner Groups Purposes Program
Specialists & Mission
Regulatory Statement
Agencies
Rules of Interaction Community Division of Labor

Management – Owner- Project Definition Group - Task - roles and
Specialists – Regulatory Management, Owner responsibilities
Agencies Strategy, Operations &
User, Specialists, and
Regulatory Agencies
Figure 4.1 Project Definition Activity System (Adapted from Engestrom 1987)
4.2.1 DEFINITION OF RESEARCH VARIABLES
A human activity system is situated within a community of practice; i.e., a group of
people. The community of practice in this research context is the client organization that
63
perceives the need for a building project. The community of practice is made up of
subjects. These subjects are community members that include facility owner strategists
and operations personnel, users, construction specialists and management personnel.
Facility owner strategists are responsible for the overall strategy for the building
project. The strategy personnel typically approve the project for capital investment.
Operations personnel are responsible for making sure that the organizations’ functions
are aligned with the building project purpose. Users are personnel that use the facility.
Construction industry specialists provide construction knowledge to support the clients’
purpose for the building project. Regulatory agencies provide knowledge on the purpose
of local planning issues and codes.
In the Engestrom framework, community members interact to define or create an
object. In this research context the object is the creation of purpose. The outcome is
defined purpose which is represented as a project program and mission statement. The
group members have a set of roles and responsibilities to accomplish to develop the
project purpose. Project management personnel coordinate the owner organization, the
construction industry specialists and regulatory agencies. They interact through a set of
formal and informal rules of interaction in group meetings and other mediums of
communication.
The groups employ tools to develop the project purpose. A tool may be a purpose
development methodology used in a particular context; e.g., a workplace planning
method. The choice and management of these methodologies effects how the groups
interact, and in turn conditions the development of project purpose.
64
4.3 RESEARCH PHASES
The research comprise of two distinct phases of exploration. Figure 4.2 describes the
overall research timeline. The initial phase is made up of three case studies. I undertook
these studies at the Facility Services organization at the University of California,
Berkeley. Facility Services are responsible for managing the physical environment on the
Berkeley Campus. The second phase of exploration took place at the Haahtela Oy Project
Management Services Company in Helsinki, Finland. There I studied their management
processes and a set of projects. These projects used the management processes to define
the project purposes.
65
1/2000 - 7/2002 8/2002 - 8/2003
Initial Phase of Exploration Second Phase of Exploration
1/2000 - 6/2000 7/2000 - 12/2000

1/2001- 6/2001 7/2001 - 7/2002 8/2002- 3/2003 4/2003- 6/2003 7/2003- 8/2003
Hearst Clark Kerr Underhill
Case Study Case Study Design Haahtela Case Study
Memorial Campus Housing
Analysis and Selection Study Analysis
Mining Building Renewal Development
Figure 4.2 Research Timeline
66
4.4 INITIAL PHASE OF EXPLORATION
4.4.1 CASE STUDY DESIGN
I began this initial research phase with a general objective: to understand what constituted
the project definition process for a large building project. This case study design was
deliberately open-ended and exploratory in nature. I set out to identify the important
project definition variables as shown in Figure 4.1. My intention was to examine the main
management processes, stakeholder meetings, the decisions made and their outcomes.
The goal was to understand how the project stakeholder’s interests were developed and
how these interests impacted the process and final purpose of the project.
4.4.2 RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS
In order to focus this research phase, I proposed a set of research propositions for
investigation. These propositions were developed in the first phase of exploratory
research.
Proposition 1a: Project definition activity is characterized by a purpose definition cycle
that is iterative and adaptive, and the emergence of purpose is subject to
the interdependency of stakeholder’s needs and values (interests) and
project constraints.
Proposition 1b: Purposes change over the evolution of the project definition process and
are shaped and re-shaped by the ongoing dialectic between stakeholder
interests and project constraints.
Proposition 1c: The choice and management of the methodology used to develop
purpose conditions its effective development.
67
4.4.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
In order to test the first set of propositions, I set out to achieve the following specific
objectives:
• To describe how project managers structure the project definition process;
• To understand how stakeholders express or frame their interests in project definition
processes;
• To describe how project constraints emerge in the group process;
• To describe instances of change with respect to project purpose over the course of
project definition;
• To highlight the organizational factors that affect management’s capability to
support the collaborative process that effectively develops project purpose.
4.4.4 CASE STUDY SELECTION
The initial phase of exploratory research focused on three projects all situated on the UC
Berkeley campus. I studied these cases over an eighteen month time period. The research
was facilitated by a part-time research internship at the Project Management Division of
Facilities Services, the development organization responsible for all UC Berkeley
facilities planning, design, construction and operations. I selected their management
processes as a focus of study primarily as they are operating in a large facility owner
organization, which in turn is representative of a public educational institution with
complex demands on building facilities.
I selected three projects as a context for understanding the management processes.
Table 4.1 summarizes the project characteristics, the rationale for their selection, the
research objectives for each case, and the research methods used.
68
Table 4.1 Initial Phase - Exploratory Case Studies
Project A B C
Case
Name & Hearst Memorial Clark Kerr Campus - Underhill Housing
Description Mining Building - Facility Renewal Development –
Seismic Retrofit & Study Green Design
Program Process
Improvements
Owner Public State Entity Public Client Public Client
Client Division Division
Facility University Building Residential housing, Mid-rise housing
Use with mixed uses: dining and development.
Lecture, research conference services.
laboratory,
administrative and
public space.
Rational Project had evidence Project definition Design process was
for Case of multiple stakeholder process was ongoing ongoing with
Study interests. and accessible. opportunity to
Selection Project definition Project offered an document the
process was lengthy, opportunity to emergence of
with many process observe group stakeholder interests
iterations to manage meetings and identify and the development
stakeholder interests management issues of purposes.
and consensus on the associated with
project purpose. emerging purposes.
Research To describe the project To describe the To describe a
Objectives definition process, the project definition specific project
stakeholders involved, process, the project definition process;
the driving needs for stakeholders and their i.e., green design.
the project, the project interests. To understand the
constraints, conflicts of To establish the stakeholder
interest, subsequent rationale for perspectives.
changes in the process structuring the To support the
and the final outcomes process. project group by
with respect to project To describe how developing and
purpose. emerging purposes sharing a holistic
develop from group representation of
meetings. their interests.
Research Process re- Meeting Meeting
Methods construction, observations, archival observations,
interviews, and study, interviews, archival study,
archival process and decision interviews, process
documentation study. influence mapping. and decision
influence mapping.
69
The projects, a building seismic retrofit & program improvements project, a facility
renewal planning project and a housing development project, all had unique
characteristics with respect to their development of purpose. All the projects were under
the management responsibility of the Project Management Division. The project
developments are all subject to the guidance and regulation of the university campus
administration. The projects represent a cross section of project types that are evident in
the university community.
4.4.5 CASE RESEARCH
4.4.5.1 Evolving Research Focus
I began this phase of research by first studying the Heart Memorial Mining Building
project. This study was primarily a reconstruction of the project definition process based
on interview and archival research methods. Through narrative description I developed an
account of the project stakeholders and their interests, the management processes and
their outcomes.
Once I understood the management issues associated with the Hearst project, I sought
a second case study, the Clark Kerr Campus facility renewal study. My objective in this
case was to observe directly a real time process unfolding. I set out to describe how the
process was planned and how stakeholder purpose was developed.
Based on the findings from the Clark Kerr study, I then chose a third case study to
focus further on a specific management process. I selected a green design process from
the Underhill Housing project. My objective was to develop a holistic description of
stakeholder interests with the aim of using the description to facilitate further
understanding by the project group about the problem at hand.
70
4.4.6 RESEARCH METHODS
Through archival study, I documented stakeholder information relating to project purpose
issues. In each project I examined project documents such as architectural programs,
engineering reports and management progress reports. I used material from the
documents to investigate with project stakeholders as well as the reasons behind project
issues.
I held interviews with the key stakeholders. These included the project manager,
designers such as architects and engineers, and building operators and users. Through in-
depth interviews, I developed insights into their perspectives on the project. I used an
open question format to develop an account of the project definition process. Typically
interviews with project stakeholders were open and candid. Interviews were sometimes
scheduled, but mainly, as an intern resident in the organization, I had many informal
conversations with the project stakeholders. The on-site placement allowed me to engage
in candid conservations about project issues.
I asked questions relating to how the project originated; who the main stakeholders
were, what new stakeholders emerged as the project developed, what needs drove the
project development, what conflicts arose in the process, what the main constraints were
in the project, how solutions were developed, why a specific solution was chosen for
project development, what difficulties management encountered in managing the process,
and how they were resolved.
I also investigated the structure of the project approval process used by the University
administration. I examined the ways stakeholder organizations carried out their work
routines and the rationale behind their functions. I examined specific issues relating to the
71
management process. These included the rationale for structuring group meetings, who
attended and why, and what issues were to be raised in meeting agendas and why.
In the Clark Kerr and Underhill studies, I undertook direct observations of group
meetings. Through direct observation I developed accounts of how project purpose was
developed in the group processes and meetings. The observation role allowed me to see
events unfold and see new issues relating to stakeholder purpose emerge in the group
conversations. I documented these events and emerging issues.
Based on these methods, I developed a narrative account for each project. The role of
the project manager is central to each of the studies. Each study describes the process
events, outcomes, how the initial purpose was framed, and how elements within the
project environment conditioned the framing of project purpose. All cases had their own
unique context and stakeholder make-up. The nature of the studies revealed how multiple
stakeholder perspectives steered the project development path. The projects allowed me
to understand how the purposes of the project were framed within the perspectives of the
stakeholders concerned. The projects provided evidence of how the impacts of
stakeholder framing created process outcomes and subsequent process changes.
4. 5 SECONDARY PHASE OF EXPLORATION
4.5.1 CASE STUDY DESIGN
Based on the insights of the initial phase of research, I developed a second phase. I
identified the need for a close integration of holistic views of the project by management
with the detailed problem solving methodologies that shape and develop project
purposes. In order support the process as one of learning, I identified management
facilitation as the primary attribute of an effective group process.
72
My objective was to investigate the project definition process as one of learning and
adaptation. I sought to understand how shared understanding was developed by the
project stakeholders on purpose and how this new understanding created new action on
the part of the project manager.
4.5.2 RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS
Based on the above assertions, I developed a second phase of research propositions.
These propositions focused on the role of management and the methodologies they used
to develop project purpose effectively.
Proposition 2a: Project Managers are more effective in supporting the emergence of
project purpose using a hybrid of directive and adaptive management
methods.
Proposition 2b: A project managers’ capability to employ an adaptive (steering)
technique is dependant on their ability to get feedback on the
interdependencies of stakeholder needs and values and the project
constraints.
Proposition 2c: The capability to develop project purpose effectively is dependent
primarily on management’s perception of the stakeholder framing of
interest. Facilitative leadership by management supports an individual
stakeholder’s framing of purpose and in turn the holistic project
framing of purpose.
Proposition 3: Effective adaptive management creates shared understanding. The
degree of shared understanding is dependent on the existence of a
common language to support purpose development and its’
73
transparency as seen by individual stakeholders. Such characteristics
enable effective collaboration to support the development of project
purpose.
4.5.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
In order to test the propositions, I set out to achieve the following objectives:
• To describe the characteristics of the adaptive management system. These
characteristics include management facilitation, problem solving methodologies, and
the type and quality of information created by the project group;
• To describe the adaptive management actions occurring within the group process.
These may include a project manager’s actions to facilitate group problem solving;
• To relate management action with the project purpose on a selected set of industrial
projects; i.e., identify how management facilitation developed new purposes or
resolved project constraints.
• To identify instances where project managers with learning capabilities create
innovative outcomes for project definition. These instances may include innovations
in the building facility design or innovations in the clients’ purpose.
4.5.4 CASE STUDY SELECTION
In order to test these propositions, I identified a second set of case studies at another
project management organization. I selected Haahtela Oy, a Project Management
Services Company located in Helsinki, Finland. I initially investigated the Haahtela
Company as a possible research site. I found that Haahtela demonstrated a culture of
mixing research with practice. Haahtela has a research division where they develop
management methods and software support tools for the Finnish construction industry.
74
The organization’s management methods have been developed based on on-going
research and implementation in real projects. Their management process were achieving
positive results in practice. The management process was capable of engaging all project
stakeholders in a process and an ability to create consensus about the project purpose. In
essence I sought to research an effective management system that supports project
definition activity, and an organization that had research capability to allow in-depth
analysis of their management processes and access to their project information and
stakeholders.
4.5.5 CASE STUDY CONTEXT
By selecting the Haahtela management process, I limit the focus of my research in a
number of ways. Firstly, Haahtela are somewhat different from other project management
service providers in that they have in-house capabilities to understand the client functions
and needs for the facility project. Other project management service providers may hire
architectural services to perform this function and then act primarily as coordinators (and
not necessarily as problem solvers with specialist knowledge about owner facility needs).
Haahtela performs project definition for their real estate owners primarily through the
management of their workplace planning system. The workplace planning methodology
drives the problem solving process and is the primary channel for defining the project
mission statement. The workplace planning system integrates activity management, space
quantification, space performance criteria setting, and cost economics procedures.
This research does not focus on design specialist knowledge; e.g., the knowledge of
the architect. The soft knowledge skills of traditional architectural programming such as
knowledge about aesthetics are not a focus of this research. In their projects, however
75
Haahtela may also coordinate other project definition activities such as architectural
design, engineering feasibility and manage land acquisition issues.
My study deals with the process mechanisms by which stakeholder knowledge is
accessed and utilized in the group process of coming to agreement on the scope and
objectives of the project. Specifically the focus is on the actions of the project manager
and the process conditions created for the problem solving group. The project manager
also operates as the lead problem solver in that he adopts a dual role: a project
management role and a workplace planning role. The project management role has a
holistic view of the project definition process, whereas the workplace planner role
concentrates on defining the client’s workplace (if operating in isolation the planner may
not have a holistic sense of the other ongoing project definition activities).
This research is concerned with the interactions of the workplace planner and facility
owner groups only. Interactions with the workplace planner and other project
stakeholders such as designers are not addressed. Specifically the emphasis is on group
conversations that deal with facility functions, spatial definitions and resource allocation
The Haahtela services are employed by real estate owners. These owners are mainly
public institutions that perceive the need for a physical facility, specifically buildings.
These owners include educational, state government, and healthcare organizations. Quite
often these owners have limited resources to allocate towards their facility management.
The process of making resource allocations towards facility investment decisions is
important to manage.
I have selected five projects that used the Haahtela management services to define
their projects. Table 4.2 illustrates the main purpose of each project. I selected these
76
projects as they represented a range of different owner types. I sought projects that were
seen as complex with diverse stakeholder needs and operating limited project resources. I
intended to understand how the Haahtela management process resolved stakeholder needs
within the project constraints.
Table 4.2 Haahtela Case Studies
Project Name Stadia Vantaa Police Cygnaeus Arcada Synapsia

Polytechnic Station High School Polytechnic Rehabilitation
Centre
Main Features Workplace and Workplace Existing New Campus New

facility needs functions facility planning and healthcare
unknown to obsolete. functioning development. facility
the users. poorly. planning and
development.
Stakeholder Client needs to Facility School users New campus New
Drivers reduce facility owners want to need improved required for healthcare
operating improve learning education center required
costs. facility facility. institution. for patients in
performance rehabilitation.
for users.
Management Develop an Develop Develop a Develop a Develop a
Process Issue understanding alternatives for workplace workplace specialist
of the current workplace program for program to healthcare
and future strategy. education support facility
needs of users within education program
education strict budget users within within strict
users. constraints. limited budget budget
constraints. constraints.
At the time of study, each of the projects was in a different state of definition. The project
provided an insight as to how the management process operated at various stages of the
project definition process. The Stadia project was in the early stages where the owner did
not know the current performance of the facility workplaces. The Vantaa Police case was
in an early phase of definition where the owner was exploring different facility options.
The Cygnaeus High School was in a final stage of project definition, where the project
stakeholders were about to gain consensus on the workplace program. Project definition
77
in the Arcada and Synapsia cases was completed at the time of study, but these cases
provided opportunities to compare the initial project purposes and the final project
solutions.
4.5.6 RESEARCH METHODS
I spent six weeks at the Haahtela Company in Finland during Spring 2003. During my
time there, I worked daily with Ari Pennanen, a project manager who also practices as a
workplace planner. Ari has researched and developed a workplace planning system at the
Haahtela Company. The system is the subject of Ari’s PhD thesis. The system was
implemented and tested in industry practice by the company.
During my time there, I adopted the research role of participant-observer. I used
qualitative methods to develop descriptive data on how the workplace planning system
functions. I combined a set of research methods; i.e., observation, interviewing and
archival research methods to develop research data on the planning system.
I began my studies by describing the history and evolution of the firm. This served to
put their project definition services in context and to elucidate why they offer such
services based on their professional values. I then set about describing the components of
the planning system and subsequently documented how the system interfaces with project
clients and also how the system functions internally within the consulting practice. In
parallel to developing data on the planning system, I participated in a number of ongoing
projects at the firm as described in Table 4.2. These case studies served as a means to
experience firsthand the management process in complex public client organizations.
My research approach involved working directly with the planning system and
shadowing Ari in his work routines. For example I developed an initial space
78
quantification model of the Stadia Polytechnic – Automotive Engineering Program. The
direct interaction with the system allowed me to experience how data was taken from
client needs and transformed into a quantified model used for further client feedback.
The immersion with all planning routines allowed me to question Ari on a range of
issues associated with the planning system. When specific issues came to my attention, I
was in a position to discuss them directly with Ari. For example, I queried why certain
information was important to develop about owner functions, and why other information
was ignored. After client project meetings where I shadowed Ari in his planning role, I
had the opportunity to get him to reflect on the planning process and get his perception on
process and stakeholder issues. This research approach worked in an open manner. Given
Ari’s deep interest in the research, he welcomed and engaged in most if not all of my
questions. I tried to maintain an open mind on the management process, and to question
why the process was effective and what its limitations were.
My experience with interviewing project clients was also professional. My “foreigner
or outsider” status helped when talking to clients. I feel I gained their trust (company
personnel and project stakeholders) quite easily and it helped to reveal stakeholder
interests and to uncover group conflicts. During my time at the company, I kept field
notes and gathered a range of documentation pertaining to the research on the planning
system. I used voice recording for all meetings and I had full access to the relevant
information systems at the firm. I held scheduled interviews with project stakeholders
such as owner groups and designers. I used a semi-structured interview format. Appendix
A documents a structured list of the research questions which were used as a guide in the
interviews.
79
Subsequent to the field trip, I maintained a working relationship with Ari. We have
passed documents back and forth to verify the accuracy of my descriptive accounts and of
my interpretation of how their process operates.
80
5
INITIAL PHASE OF EXPLORATION
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY CASE STUDIES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the first phase of exploratory research, reporting on a set of
construction projects developed at a public education institution, UC Berkeley. The
purpose of the studies was to reveal the how the project definition process is managed
and how project constraints are established as the process evolves. The studies reveal the
dynamics of project purpose and how the design of the problem solving process
influences the identification of project purpose for the client. The findings suggest that
project managers operate in complex environments when developing project purposes.
Project managers require more effective adaptive methodologies to develop stakeholder
interests and develop them towards a shared project purpose.
5.1.1 THE CLIENT BACKGROUND
5.1.1.1 Facilities Services
The context for the study is the University of California at Berkeley, a large educational
facility. Facilities Services (formerly known as Capital Projects) is a University
organization that is responsible for providing a physical environment for the Berkeley
campus. The main divisional units in Facilities Services include: Physical and
Environmental Planning (PEP), which oversees long-range physical planning for the
campus development, and ensures that capital projects meet environmental quality
standards; Project Management (PM), which manages all campus projects, taking them
from program development through construction; and Construction and Inspection
81
Services (CIS) which monitors the quality and progress of all construction work
underway. Project Management is the divisional unit of Facility Services that is the main
focus of this study.
Project Management operates in a complex environment where multiple
organizations interact to develop construction projects. Figure 5.1 illustrates the primary
organizations involved in a construction project.
Project Facility Owners Executive Campus

Financiers UC Regents Planning
Committee
Project Review
Committees: Building Program
Project Committee
Design, Safety,
Management
Accessibility &
Space
Physical & Construction Facility Users
Environmental & Inspection College
Planning Services Departments
Local City
Authorities
Regulatory Design Architects &

Agencies Specialists Designers

Figure 5.1 Facilities Services and University Stakeholder Entities
The University of California manages a large building stock on the Berkeley campus.
University capital investment decisions are guided by a long range development plan.
This plan is directed by a Strategic Academic Plan and the New Century Plan. The
Strategic Academic Plan contains a set of principles that define the parameters of future
82
campus development. The Strategic Academic Plan has shaped the physical vision of the
campus described in the New Century Plan. The New Century Plan comprises policies
and initiatives to guide the physical development of the campus for the 21st century.
5.1.1.2 The University Capital Project Approval Process
The implementation of the New Century Plan is overseen by a newly formed Executive
Campus Planning Committee, which is supported by a capital project approval process
(Facilities Services, 2003). Facilities Services manage this capital project approval
process1. The project approval process is made up of seven phases:
Phase 1: Concept Review
Facilities Services identify the project sponsor and relevant stakeholder groups as
illustrated in the Figure 4.1. Physical and Environmental Planning are responsible for the
coordination of the various project stakeholders and campus interest groups to understand
the project purpose. The outcome is an understanding of the project needs and funding
strategies. The project group makes an assessment of the project purpose with respect to
the guidelines set out in the New Century Plan. Facilities Services prepare a concept
analysis and propose a recommendation to the Executive Campus Planning Committee
for review.
Phase 2: Feasibility Analysis
Physical and Environmental Planning develop a preliminary space program which
includes a range of solution options or alternatives. The feasibility analysis includes
sustainable design, seismic retrofit, renovation, and replacement issues. The project group
1
Facilities Services have an ongoing development of their approval process, which has evolved over the
past number of years, based on learning from past projects.
83
explores non capital investment options, such as organizational re-structuring. Physical
and Environmental Planning develop a set of design guidelines along with conducting
campus reviews with relevant interest groups. The project group presents a
recommendation to the Executive Campus Planning Committee for review.
Phase 3: Program Development
In this phase, Project Management takes greater responsibility for the project
development. They select a project architect who prepares a detailed program and design
concept. Physical and Environmental Planning carry out an environmental analysis of the
design concept. Various campus committees review the project design concept. These
various groups are responsible for design, facility accessibility, academic planning, and
space management. The project budget is set at this stage. The project group presents a
recommendation to the Executive Campus Planning Committee for review.
Phase 4: Schematic Design
In this phase the project architect completes the schematic design. Various campus
committees review the design. The project group presents the design to the Executive
Campus Planning Committee for review. The University Chancellor and the University
of California Regents approve the project depending on the investment amount.
Phase 5: Design Development & Phase 6: Working Drawings
In phases five and six, the project architect completes the design and generates working
documents for the next phase. If there are changes to the project design from phase four,
then the associated campus review committees assess these changes.
Phase 7: Bid and Construction. In this phase, the project group begins construction
development through the bidding and selection of construction services.
84
5.1.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDIES
This research deals only with the management issues associated with the early process
phases, 1 to 4. The study reports on three case studies:
1. The Hearst Memorial Mining Building (HMMB) Seismic and Program Improvements
Project;
2. The Clark Kerr Campus Facility Renewal Study; and
3. The Underhill Units 1 & 2 Housing Development – Green Design Process.
In each case study I describe the project context by identifying the relevant stakeholders
and the main planning processes and decision outcomes that were managed by Project
Management. My research began with the Hearst project, a building seismic retrofit &
program improvements project. The project definition phase had been completed when I
began my research. My objective was to develop a descriptive account of the project
definition process and to understand how the purpose of a complex facility was defined. I
relied on archival investigation and stakeholder interviews to understand the process
events and issues.
In the Hearst study I found that the initial project goals were redefined as the project
development process revealed new criteria, namely, historic preservation issues. The
study revealed how the re-definition process created new goals and values that helped
management steer subsequent stakeholder decision making and consensus building.
In the Clark Kerr study, a facility renewal planning project, my objective was to
follow a real-time project planning process and understand how and why process events
were structured. I had the opportunity to shadow the project manager and attend client
85
and specialist meetings and thus to observe how new issues emerged. My main objective
was to understand how the process design impacted the emergence of project purpose.
In the Clark Kerr study I found how a specific problem solving process - in this
instance a facilities condition assessment - can narrowly frame the purpose of a project
and cause the project group to overlook a more holistic and user centered perspective on
the problem. The case study reveals how particular framing of the process can conceal
other stakeholder needs and values.
Based on the evidence of the Hearst and Clark Kerr study, my next goal was to make
understand the perspectives of stakeholders concerned with a specific design process; i.e.,
green design. In my third case study, the Underhill housing development project, I chose
a green design process since it offered a real time opportunity to build up a description of
emerging stakeholder issues. My initial objective was to support the project manager by
describing the green design process as events were unfolding. My premise was that by
making the process explicit through description, it might facilitate a more holistic
understanding of the issues for the project manager and the project team.
In this case study, I did not achieve my objective to facilitate a group process, due to
project time pressures on the project team. I did develop new insights about the process
as it unfolded. The Underhill green design study identifies the issues of managing the
development of green design in an uncertain and changeable environment. The case study
examines the use of a design method (an industry standard) to establish green design
criteria and the capability of that method to consider client purpose. The case study
describes events that affect the perspectives of stakeholder involved in the definition of
“green” design needs and values.
86
5.2 THE HEARST MEMORIAL MINING BUILDING PROJECT
5.2.1 PROJECT INITIATION
The Hearst Memorial Mining Building is located in the northeast quadrant of the UC
Berkeley campus. The building was designed by campus architect John Galen Howard,
and constructed in 1908. It is a four-story building of approximately 130,000 gross sq.
ft. The building which strongly reflects the Beaux-Arts tradition is regarded as highly
significant architecturally and historically, and is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places.
The Department of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering, one of seven
departments within the College of Engineering, fully occupies the Hearst Memorial
Mining Building. In 1989, Project Management held initial conversations with the
engineering department and found that the existing department workplaces were
inadequate and required modernization. Coupled with this need was the issue of building
safety. An earlier campus wide study (carried out in 1973) on seismic safety found that
the building had a “very poor” safety rating. Seismic strengthening and interior
remodeling to this significant historic building was necessary for continued use.
Therefore the main prompts for project planning action were the engineering
department’s need for modernized workplaces and seismic safety concerns. The Hearst
Memorial Mining Building project began as a “study phase”2. Based on the initial project
issues, Project Management initiated a set of studies to determine the feasibility of
improving the workplace program and retrofitting the building to address seismic safety
2
The Study Phase developed in 1989 corresponds to the current project approval stages: Concept Review
and Feasibility Analysis.
87
concerns. At this point Project Management identified the primary project stakeholders
that were relevant to the project. Figure 5.2 illustrates the stakeholder groups.
Project Facility Owners Campus Building

Financiers UC Regents Committee
Building Program
Project Review Committee
Committees:
Project
Design, Safety,
Management
Accessibility &
Space Facility Users:
Physical & Construction Colleges of
Environmental & Inspection Engineering
Planning Services Departments
Fire Code
Architectural
Regulatory Design Programmer
Agencies Specialists Project Architect
Engineering
Consultants
Public Structural,
Code Agencies: Mechanical
Conservation Construction
State Historic & Electrical
Groups Seismic Systems
Preservation
Figure 5.2 Hearst Memorial Mining Building Project Stakeholders
Project Management employed an architectural firm to conduct an architectural
programming study and a consulting engineering firm to perform a seismic retrofit
feasibility study. The architectural firm developed an architectural spatial program with
the Engineering Department’s program committee. The Department provides
undergraduate and graduate instruction and conducts a large research program. The
needed workplaces included research laboratories, faculty and graduate student offices,
teaching laboratories, administrative and support spaces, and classrooms. The research
88
laboratories included specialized electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems, fume
hoods, and clean rooms. The architectural team produced a spatial program to fit within
the existing spatial configuration.
The consulting engineers investigated various structural systems, for example
concrete shear walls as a means of strengthening the building. They performed a range of
technical studies, for example, ground motion studies, geotechnical investigations, and
materials testing of the existing building. Based on input from academic and engineering
communities, the consulting engineers investigated the feasibility of using seismic
isolation bearings to strengthen the building. The isolation method was proposed as an
effective means to satisfy the safety criteria for the building.
The project group made a set of strategic decisions during this phase. First the
College of Engineering decided that that the Engineering Department should continue as
the primary user of the building. Subsequently the department’s workplace needs
demanded high functional performance in terms of mechanical and electrical systems.
Secondly, the project group decided to improve the seismic safety rating from “very
poor” to “good” so that in the event of an earthquake, the building functionality would be
maintained. The choice of the “base isolation” system as the preferred strengthening
method was based on satisfying this safety performance criterion.
Also in this phase, the project group made assumptions on the how the spatial
program and seismic strengthening method might impact the existing structure. Based on
an assessment of the State Historic Building Code, the group assumed limited
preservation of the structure would suffice. The group decided on preserving the building
89
exterior and the building lobby area, while physical changes to other areas of the
structure were thought to be feasible.
The study phase concluded with a report on the feasibility of the project in the form
of a "Project Planning Guide" (PPG) as required for all UC Berkeley campus projects.
The study phase lasted until 1994 when the project program and an allocated budget were
approved by the UC Regents for further development. Figure 5.3 summarizes the main
studies and subsequent decisions made in this phase. The project then proceeded to the
Preliminary Plans Phase.
90
Figure 5.3 Project Study Phase
91
5.2.2 THE PRELIMINARY PLANS PHASE
Once the UC Regents approved the project, Project Management hired an architect to
develop, manage and deliver a project design specification according to the requirements
laid out in the Project Planning Guide. The employment of the architect marked the
beginning of the Preliminary Plans Phase3. Normally the architect would take the guide
and develop a range of design concepts. However, once the architect had evaluated the
project planning guide, he felt that improvements could be made to the spatial program
and its configuration within the existing structure.
The architect and Project Management together decided to initiate a project
confirmation stage whereby the goals of the project should be confirmed. They felt that
creating this stage within the process would allow them to confirm the program
requirements and compare them with those as laid out in the original project planning
guide. The architect4 defined the purpose of the “project confirmation and concept
design” stage as a process to "… further explore and develop criteria for seismic
reinforcing, develop alternate design concepts that respect the historic significance of the
building and thoroughly evaluate total construction costs”. The design concepts would
identify alternative space layouts in HMMB while considering the goals of the project”.
The architect sought to confirm the program data that would influence or constrain
the design. The architect undertook a set of meetings with the established program
3
The preliminary plans phase corresponds to the current project approval process phase: program
development.
4
Project Architect (1996) Program Confirmation & Concept Design Report, Hearst Memorial Mining
Building Seismic and Program Improvements Project, Project Architect.
92
committee comprising members of the College of Engineering. The architect elicited new
information using group interviews to confirm the purpose of the workplaces. The
outcome of many discussions with the program committee culminated with a vision and
mission statement as described in Table 5.1.
Along with confirming of the architectural program, Project Management was
coordinating a range of other studies. It led weekly design meetings with the entire team
to understand the impacts of a base isolated structural scheme. The team visited recently
completed facilities to further comprehend how base isolation integrates with an existing
building. An Environmental Impact Report for the building project was also prepared by
the Physical and Environmental Planning group of Facility Services. Closely linked with
this report was the development of a Historic Structures Report. These studies led to
increased engagement with the State Historic Preservation Office and local conservation
groups. This interaction in turn provided the design specialists with new understanding of
the importance of maintaining the building fabric.
Once the architect completed an evaluation of the original scheme, he developed four
alternative concepts. These alternatives were developed to respond to the program
requirements, the future adaptability of laboratories, the extent of historic rehabilitation,
building system requirements, structural base isolation system requirements and project
costs. The concepts incorporated alternative mechanical and electrical schemes and
associated cost models.
Project Management facilitated periodic reviews of the concepts with the Program
Committee to receive and evaluate feedback. The schemes were collectively evaluated
against project vision, mission and goals with the Program Committee. The concepts
93
were evaluated along with the original concept against the goals for the project using a
project goals matrix which set a framework for focused dialog and consensus building.
Table 5.1 Project Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives (Project Architect, 1996)
Vision
The Hearst Memorial Mining Building will be a place that nurtures, sustains, and inspires
engineering education for the next century.
Mission The building Committee’s mission is to:
• provide a balance between architectural design, seismic upgrade and programmatic
needs,
• ensure that the project’s budget, schedule and scope are met,
• represent all stakeholders, present and future, within the department, the college and
the broader community,
• reclaim the architectural heritage of the building according to the intentions of its
original architect, John Galen Howard
Goals
Functional
• Organize for functional and operational efficiencies
• Develop space and operational ideas that promote effectiveness
• Provide flexibility for the future, including the easy conversion of a space from
one use to another
• Develop a broad based programmatic plan that will make a “complete building,”
one that will retain its users through the entire day
• Reinforce the hands-on experience of engineering for students, faculty and staff
Collegiality
• Develop multiple opportunities for informal interaction throughout the building
• Develop features in and around the building that will attract and retain the best
faculty, students and staff
Site
• Proceed with an understanding of the project’s place and site
• Develop the project in such a way that the entire campus, and especially the local
environs, will be a better place as a result
Historic
• Recognize the historical significance of Hearst Memorial Mining Building
• Act with an understanding of the architectural spirit of the original building
• Develop a strategy of space use that complements the original building
• Create a preservation philosophy in an open environment
Seismic/Life Safety
• Develop a lasting structure
• Design the seismic upgrade in such a way that the building will protect persons
and contents within it, and that the building’s functionality will be preserved
94
The project team further developed evaluations with regard to total program area, gross
building area, net to gross area efficiency, and projected project costs. Table 5.2
summarizes the main features of each concept. The ranking of concepts was a result of
group discussion on how well each concept performed with the established goals and
objectives.
Table 5.2 Performance of Design Concepts - Summary (Project Architect, 1996)
Concept Ranking Concept Performance Issues

Original 5 Fair to Poor Project Goal Ratings
Planning Program Area less than required
Concept Efficiency less than Concept A (Base Scheme)
Gross Area and Cost Greater than Concept A
A 3 Fair to Poor Project Goal Ratings
Program Area less than required and lower then Original
Planning Concept
Most Efficient concept after Concept B
Lowest gross area and cost
B 1 Predominately good to excellent goal ratings
Exceeds program area
Most efficient concept
Lowest cost concept to achieve program area
C 2 Fair to good goal ratings
Program area less than required and comparable to
Original Planning Concept
Efficiency is lowest due to inefficient mechanical
basement
Costs comparable to Concept B without achieving program
area
D 4 Mostly excellent goal ratings
Program area exceeds required area in below grade space
Efficiency comparable to Concept A due to extra program
area
Mostly costly concept due to new full basement
The designers and Project Management had a preference for Concept B. They felt that
Concept B most effectively addressed the project issues in responding to the project goals
and in achieving the proposed academic space program while reclaiming historic interior
building elements with an efficient and cost responsive concept. The design team
95
recommended this concept to the larger project stakeholder community, while
acknowledging that the concept exceeded the original budget as allocated in the project
planning guide.
The project team was faced with selecting a concept that was beyond their original
budget and this issue required further resolution. The design team then produced a
“Scheme E” deliberately designed to reduce costs, but its performance was poor with
respect to the other project goals, in particular the preservation goals. The features of the
scheme negated the preservation criteria. Scheme E was an example of how optimizing
the cost variable impacted the other performance variables undesirably. The project team
was aware of this issue, but tested this alternative to provide tangible results and show the
impacts to the project stakeholder groups.
On presentation, the larger project community reacted negatively overall.
Conservation groups felt that the project concept would destroy the building’s fabric and
historic character. The College of Engineering was concerned about the impacts that the
project might have on their fund raising opportunities. At the same time there were
limited resources for project allocation from the University administration. At this stage,
Project Management was faced with political and legal issues regarding the lack of
consideration for the now very important building preservation criteria.
5.2.3 REDESIGN STAGE
In order to reduce the project costs, and satisfy the other design requirements; i.e.,
program, structure, preservation values and to a lesser extent schedule, the project team
undertook a redesign stage to develop a new concept. The goals of the design team were
96
to maximize the use of the existing fabric, with minimum replacement and the
reevaluation of user needs.
In what was regarded as a collaborative effort by the project manger, Project
Management and the designers developed a new design scheme, which mostly resembled
Scheme B. The architect and structural engineer re-examined the structural schemes as
the structural elements were impacting the existing building fabric. They found that the
structural shear wall construction would adversely impact the building’s fabric and would
be expensive to build. They also found the structural scheme conservative in terms of
structural properties. The architect requested whether it was possible to remove the shear
walls. The structural engineer managed to re-design the structural scheme to remove all
the shear walls from the interior space. This allowed minimum disruption to the building
fabric. The new scheme relied on base isolation and selective reinforcement in the
masonry walls and floors.
The architect also re-examined the architectural program. The architect searched for
ways to change the program to reduce the demands of the spatial performance. The
architect worked with the program committee to re-evaluate how the user functions could
operate in alternative spatial configurations. The program committee accepted the idea of
a shared lab concept. The buy-in by the program committee to the strategy of facility
sharing helped reduce spatial, mechanical and electrical system demands and to enhance
the preservation of the structure. This change reduced the functional demand and further
reduced the project cost. Along with the re-designed structural scheme, Scheme B’ was
deemed a viable design concept.
97
In 1996 the concept was presented to the project community for review. The State
Historic Preservation Office reacted positively to the new concept. The College of
Engineering understood the project constraints and accepted the project concept. The
financial budget and planning administration had issues with the concept being over-
budget. Scheme B’ was finally accepted for schematic design and design development.
An augmented project budget was approved by the UC Regents in 1997.
5.2.4 DISCUSSION OF CASE STUDY FINDINGS
5.2.4.1 Process Evolution
Designing with existing structures provided the project group with an extra set of design
constraints not usually encountered when designing new structures. Project groups are
face with satisfying design criteria, such as maintaining the existing building form, while
assessing current structural conditions, the architectural program, legislation, preservation
laws, constructability of solutions, budget, and schedule. The process is iterative with
new learning required to understand the impacts of each performance criteria.
The project approval process had a set of milestones and deliverables to achieve over
the course of project definition. Project Management did not strategically develop a
design process to suit the project; instead process planning evolved as design constraints
were identified and defined in greater detail. The project manager felt that by introducing
certain design process stages, such as the project confirmation stage, new value was
created for the project.
The process changed with the emergence of major design issues that were deemed
unresolved and required further definition. The "Program Confirmation" stage requested
by the architect is an example. The principal architect requested a re-evaluation of the
98
detailed program requirements developed by a different consultant architect in the
planning phase. The project architect showed that the original project program was not
fully developed, in that greater understanding of the building constraints were necessary.
5.2.4.2 Learning about Purposes
The re-development of: a vision, a mission, a goals and objectives structure (See Table
5.1) provided the designers with a solid basis for defining the problem. These value
structures allowed the project stakeholder to develop group dialogues with which to
articulate their hard and soft values. According to the project manager, the “expanded
values” developed in the project confirmation stage became the basis for all subsequent
decisions made in the design and construction phases.
The goals and objectives laid out in the program confirmation report were used to
evaluate alternative design options. Using the goal driven approach, the design team had
a benchmark that was used effectively to determine the merits of the initial design and
which led to the re-design process and final concept design selection. The design team
sought to assess their concepts with questions such as: does this design promote historic
preservation? Is this design within the boundary of program requirements? How does this
structural scheme impact the building fabric? How are the mechanical and electrical
systems affected by this spatial configuration?
5.2.4.3 Creating Learning Dialogue about Constraints
The Hearst Mining Building case study illustrates the importance of revealing project
constraints. For example historic preservation became one of the most important design
constraints that eventually had a major impact on the final design scheme. The subject of
preservation was novel for the project management, so there was an initial learning curve
99
about the implications of preservation issues. The initial design work was carried out on
the assumption of limited preservation. At the project’s outset, preservation had not been
experienced by project management on other university buildings. Testing how well the
preservation goals had to be met was until then unexplored.
The initial assumption that limited preservation goals would suffice ultimately
became a contentious issue among conservation stakeholders. The political and legal
risks associated with preservation performance brought about the subsequent testing of
alternatives. The designer’s search for alternatives evaluated a range of performance
impacts across the criteria associated with function, budget, preservation, safety in the
form of structural integrity, and project schedule to a lesser extent. Preservation can be
viewed as an enabling constraint on the project or a barrier, depending on the stakeholder
interest. By viewing preservation as an enabler, as perceived by conservation advocates,
then the historic character of the building is maintained. If preservation is viewed as a
barrier, then other project purposes are impacted; e.g., the structural solution was not
viable where it impacted on the existing fabric of the building.
The project manager felt that once the preservation values had been properly
identified and incorporated into the project brief, then the project stakeholders had
embraced its importance as a project goal to fulfill. The testing of alternative concept
schemes ultimately provided the project stakeholders a way to understand how a
stakeholders’ set of constraints impacted on another stakeholder’s purpose.
5.2.4.4 Expression of User Needs
The re-design stage also demonstrates the effort by the design group to search for a viable
solution. Rejection of the design concepts by the stakeholder groups and other interested
100
parties gave the design team no other option but to implement a "re-design" stage. The
search for a solution gave the team impetus to return to the governing variables, such as
the user’s spatial needs and then to redefine those needs. This process reveals how user
needs and the design solution need to align, with all stakeholders making choices
according to their needs and values. The re-design process shows how client groups may
have to re-think how they express their needs. The architects’ proposal of a “shared lab”
space put the onus on the program committee to understand their own policy for the
workplace and the level of performance that would be satisfactory. This instance reveals
the interconnectedness of the user functions and the physical configuration. Previous to
this the need for space was specified in a way that demanded a larger quantity of space.
The example demonstrates that by challenging the way users perform their work practices
may in turn create new ways of performing that work. Client organizations may not have
given thought to their functions or activities prior to workplace design.
This example reveals the importance of using design solutions by the design group to
engage the users. Concepts if facilitated effectively, can engage the user to reflect on
alternative means of functioning in their work environment. Should the user not be able
to see new means of working through the conceptualization of alternative space
configurations, then it would be difficult for the design concept to satisfy other
constraints such as maintaining the existing fabric of the building. The case example
reveals the importance of effectively representing user needs and how that representation
is critical in framing purpose.
101
This example also reveals how once users a vision for their project, and management may
have difficulties to propose alternatives5. Individual users tend to see their needs solved
in the concept solution, and prematurely buy into a solution often when changes are still
imminent, because the overall project constraints are not yet identified and resolved. For
example, a user may see his or her workspace located in a particular place in an early
design concept. If the spatial configuration changes later in the process, he/she may be
reluctant to accept the new design concept. The new proposed solution may have impacts
on how users may have to change their current work practice. A challenge exists for
management to emphasize to user groups that the project definition process is in a state of
change until all other stakeholder interests have been identified and incorporated into the
design solution. Users need support in conceptualizing their future actions and behaviors
in a new workplace facility.
5.2.4.5 The Search for Alternatives to Satisfy Client Needs
The Project Manager reflected that the initial strategic decision to select a user with high
technological needs resulted in a highly complex project. The decision at the early stages
of the process that the Engineering Department would remain as the principal user of the
building meant that the building design had to meet high performance requirements. The
requirement of high tech laboratories resulted in large mechanical and electrical systems.
Coupled with safety criteria and historic preservation issues, the project exceeded its
original budget allocation. The project manager felt that a more expansive search for
5
This is the experience of the Haahtela Management team also in their practice. Ari Pennanen remarked
how conceptual design drawings can have a negative effect by allowing clients to fix on a partial, local
solution when the global problem is still unresolved.
102
alternative solutions to meet user needs could have been done at the early stage. The
strategic question as to whether the building user would change was not given due
consideration in the early project study phase.
Selecting another location for the user other than the Hearst Mining building may
well have produced new dialogues on alternatives. If the project stakeholders had known
the final costs of the project, they might have decided to build a new facility elsewhere. A
user with low-tech needs would have reduced the performance demand on the existing
building and the additional costs may have been better spent developing a modern facility
on a different site. For historical and cultural reasons, it is improbable that the
Engineering Department would entirely give up their original home, but the project team
could have explored this possibility. The project manager pointed out that the current
capital approval process is more aware or conscious of seeking out alternatives, including
non-capital investment solutions for their facility users.
5.2.5 CONCLUSIONS
This study of the Hearst Memorial Mining Building project provides insight into the
project definition process for a building facility. The project, completed in 2003, is
widely considered of high value in the UC Berkeley community. While the final project
costs are considerably higher than the original budget, there is general consensus that the
project has fulfilled its purpose as defined in the project confirmation stages.
This project was complex technologically and also in terms of managing stakeholder
needs and values. The story shows that project definition began in earnest when the
principal architect was employed and alternative concepts were developed and tested
against stakeholder needs and values. The underlying assumptions made in the original
103
study were subsequently questioned and re-thought in the downstream processes. The
project team gradually began to realize the impacts of their original assumptions
particularly their assumption about building preservation.
The case shows how project definition is not complete until full technological,
regulatory and socio-political feasibility studies are conducted. The project highlights
how the planning process can evolve and be extended if the full implications of the client
purposes are not defined as early as possible. While an extended process may produce
positive outcomes, it may negatively impact the overall delivery schedule for a project.
The administrative role of management to get the project approved may mean losing
sight of the problem solving skills necessary to manage the dynamics of project
definition. The case study also notes that the project definition study was a collaborative
team effort once the project team realized the needs of all stakeholders. The case reveals
how framing the problem from multiple perspectives creates shared understanding and
greater empathy for the purpose of the project. The challenge for management is how to
recognize emerging stakeholder perspectives and incorporated them into the project
definition process.
The case reveals the gradual emergence of new stakeholders and new important
needs. The preservation needs and values were initially unknown, but increasingly
emerged as very important once design solutions were actively tested. The case
demonstrates how teams need to constantly question their assumptions about the
governing variables of the project. The governing variables are the needs and values of
the stakeholders. In this case the project architect identified new ways to configure the
spatial program in the existing building, by re-defining how the users could function
104
effectively. The action of the architect demonstrates positive challenging of assumptions
about client purpose.
105
5.3 THE CLARK KERR CAMPUS BUILDING FACILITY RENEWAL STUDY
The Clark Kerr Campus is located about one quarter mile southeast of the Berkeley
Central Campus. The Campus consists of approximately 20 buildings (approximately
371,072 outside gross square feet (OGSF)) and associated grounds and facilities. The
buildings were originally constructed beginning approximately 1930 and concluding
approximately 1954.
The project client, the Department of Housing & Dining Services (H&DS), operates
the Clark Kerr Campus, providing residential facilities, food services, and conference
services. Housing & Dining Services are a self-financing department operating their own
business entity and generating their own revenue streams from the above services. The
department operates and maintains a range of facilities on and around the Berkeley
campus. The H&DS mission is to increase revenue where possible within its organization
while fulfilling its need to provide affordable and quality student accommodation, and
conference services for the university. This is made possible through the provision of bed
spaces, conference space, and dining services to customers. The revenue generated from
these services supports their operation costs, maintenance and renovation costs.
Housing and Dining Services regard the Clark Kerr Campus as an important facility
to support their business services. The facility has been identified also for potential
expansion and development, but requires a detailed environmental planning study to test
the site’s capability. In the short term, facility maintenance and renewal was a priority
issue for H&DS.
106
The Clark Kerr renewal study began when the facility operations department of H&DS
identified the facility as in need of maintenance and renewal. The operations management
did not have a comprehensive account of the current state of physical condition for the
buildings and associated utility systems. H&DS approached Project Management to
initiate a planning study to understand the condition of the facility site. This information
was deemed necessary to assist H&DS and the project management team in defining the
scope, budget and implementation strategy for a proposed multi-year, facility renewal
project. H&DS wanted to understand what buildings should be renewed first, in what
order, how to achieve these renewal phases over time constraints and what the costs of
renewal would be.
Based on initial discussions between the operation directors of H&DS and an
assigned project manager from Project Management, they decided to hire an external
facility condition assessment team to perform a study. The purpose of the planning study
was to provide up-to-date information on the condition of the Clark Kerr campus. Prior to
the initiation of the study, the project manager established a scope of works for the FCA
team through various meetings held with H&DS operations directors and management
and stakeholders identified in Table 5.3.
107
Table 5.3 Project Stakeholders
Client Facilities Physical Facility Regulatory

(H&DS) Services Plant Consultant Agencies
Team
Client Project Operations Project Building Code,

Directors, Management & and Management, Seismic Policy,
Operations, Physical and Maintenance Engineering Local Development
Maintenance, Environmental Teams. and Regulations - City,
Finance & Planning. Architectural Accessibility Code
User Groups. specialists. and supporting
committee, State
Architect, Historic
Code, & Campus
Review Committee.
5.3.2 FACILITY CONDITION ANALYSIS (FCA)
The study took the form of a Facilities Condition Analysis (FCA). The study consisted of
evaluating buildings, grounds, and utility systems or elements of them in terms of the
following characteristics: current condition, anticipated remaining life, code, safety and
health implications and investment opportunity. The analysis team performed physical
appraisals of the buildings and the surrounding site. The team surveyed building elements
such as external physical appearance of structures, and internal building elements such as
utility systems. The team also took note of code compliance issues such as space
accessibility.
5.3.2.1 Facility Condition Assessment Report
Once the physical on-site surveys were completed, the facility consultants processed the
field information and compiled it in the form of a facility condition assessment report.
Over the course of the physical appraisal and information processing work, the facility
108
consultants interacted with the project manager and H&DS operations personnel to
discuss the contents and format of a completed report.
The completed report was a comprehensive document containing the data gathered on
each building and utility system inspected. It included as-built building information,
system condition evaluation and recommendations of design measures to bring the
building element into conformance with existing code or functional demands. Functional
building systems are identified in the facility appraisal and rated on their level of
performance and assigned a priority for renewal. The facility assessors also appraised the
facility for code violations. They located, identified and assessed the degree of violation.
The facility consultants also provided cost estimates under three categories: minimal
range, program adds, and accessibility costs. The minimal range estimate included all
scopes of work necessary to bring the facility into code compliance and to function
adequately. The 'program adds' estimate included other scopes of work (elective program
improvements) to be determined by H&DS. The 'accessibility costs' identified costs to
bring the facility into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
facility consultants also prepared a preliminary renewal program schedule to plan the
order and phases of construction work.
The need for the cost estimate and the renewal program schedule was seen to support
H&DS decision to renovate the facility. The campus renewal program would be based
on available funds, which the financial officer at H&DS would allocate within the
company-spending budget for each program phase. Construction work was scheduled to
minimize facility revenue loss. Through ongoing discussions with the project manager,
H&DS, and the facility consultants, they devised a strategy to phase the renewal program.
109
The prioritization of the construction phasing was based on: safety and health
considerations for user groups; the priority demands on functional performance of
existing systems; the maintenance of operations during the main residential occupancy
seasons; and minimizing the overall impacts to H&DS services and operations.
5.3.3 PROJECT REVIEW MEETING
The consultants prepared a final draft report for review by Project Management and
H&DS. The immediate issue of concerning to the project manager was to verify that the
facility condition assessor’s work was accurate and complete. Then the project manager
wanted to understand what the client intentions were with respect to facility renewal. The
project manager was also concerned with identifying other stakeholders that needed to be
aware of the process developments. The supporting stakeholder communities that manage
regulatory issues were seen as strategic to the planning process and needed to be
involved. The review meeting was the forum for these perspectives to be voiced and
understood.
Once the facility consultants had completed their report, the project manager arranged
a review meeting with the facility consultants and H&DS personnel. The purpose of the
meeting was to identify issues of concern regarding the renewal program. The facility
consultants wanted to make sure that the project manager and H&DS were satisfied with
the facility condition assessment report.
The review meeting began by H&DS representatives requesting a summary of the
report from the consultants. In particular, H&DS were looking for a summary of issues
that were critical to the development of the renewal program. The facility consultants
briefed the meeting group on a set of facilities issues such as specific building conditions.
110
The discussion then centered on the building and site accessibility issues. The consultants
remarked that there were code violations found in the assessment and they would need to
be investigated further. The meeting continued with discussions on the impacts of ADA
(American Disabilities Act) code violations and what other stakeholder should to be
brought into the process.
Together H&DS and the project manager realized that the renewal program would
have to address the views of the campus committee responsible for accessibility and also
deal with the implications of complying with the State Historic Code. The outcome of the
meeting was a directive for the project group to develop an accessibility master plan for
the campus facility, and also include a provision to perform a historic structures
assessment.
5.3.4 ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNING PROCESS
5.3.4.1 Realization of Project Issues
The review meeting allowed the project stakeholders to understand some of the main
design issues regarding the Clark Kerr Facility. These design issues were not collectively
shared prior to this time. Figure 5.4 illustrates the conversation flow in the group
interaction. The FCA team was asked about the facility's level of ADA code compliance.
This set off a discussion on the implications of widespread ADA code violations. This in
turn, set off a sequence of design tasks searching for a solution to the accessibility issues
on the campus.
111
FCA Team Project Manager Client Campus Planner CCRAB
What ADA Violations exist?

Code Violations are widespread
What are the implications for renewal?
What is the degree of Code compliance allowable?

Do we need Partial or Full Conformance?
What are the allowable Code Compliance Levels?
Full Code Compliance Advisable

Estimate Full
Impacts Consult CCRAB on ADA design solutions
Key
Develop ADA
Master Plan Actor
Possible ADA & Historic Impacts/Constraints?
Provide for Historic Assessment FCA Information

Estimate for Historic Studies in Renewal Plan Report Flow
Review
Meeting
Figure 5.4 Group Dialogues on Accessibility Issues
112
The outcome from this meeting was the development of an ADA Master Plan to address
the campus wide accessibility issue. The discussion identified new stakeholders, namely,
the Campus Committee for Removal of Architectural Barriers (CCRAB), and the Historic
Structures Code regulators. These engaging interactions led to new understanding and
further action on defining the problem.
5.3.4.2 Impacts of Information Flow
In this case study, the facility condition assessment was the main means of defining the
project purpose. The main revelation from observing the review meeting was that Project
Management had not been forced, prior to this point, to examine in a detailed manner
what design issues were associated with the facility. I was prompted by this observation
to question whether Project Management could realize these issues earlier in the process.
I examined the flow of information from when the facility consultants first generated
it and to when they finally delivered it to Project Management and H&DS. I found that
the information was delivered as a full set of completed documents on the entire facility
at the end of the study.
In this case the facility information was delivered in lengthy reports, i.e. in large
'batches'. To examine the entire set of documents would have required extra resources by
the project manager. The project manager relied on a preliminary inspection of the
documents and the opinions of the facility consultants to get an overall understanding of
the facility issues.
How the project information is managed impacts the timely availability of
information required for understanding and subsequent decision-making. The principle of
early feedback on the state of the facility is the issue of concern here. An alternative
113
option may be to deliver partial information (e.g., completed information on one specific
building) on the condition of the facility earlier in the process. This information could
then offer an opportunity for the project manager and H&DS to gain an understanding of
the project constraints and then to issue new directives to the project group to resolve the
arising issues.
5.3.4.3 The Voice of the User
In this project, the project group framed the problem almost entirely on the functional
performance of the facility and code compliance issues. The implications with respect to
the users of the facility were not directly discussed by the project group. There was a lack
of discussion from a user centered perspective regarding the strategic plan. There was
little focus on the changing needs of the user and how the facility may strategically
support these needs. Issues such as changing user profiles and facility functions were not
discussed openly in the group meetings observed.
It is probable that user issues are discussed internally within the H&DS organization.
I do not argue that the project stakeholders lack awareness that the facilities support user
functions, but the focus on physical facility issues alone may risk loosing sight of
opportunities to understand how both user and facility function best together.
In this planning study the facility operators focused on the renewal issues. The range
of design alternatives available to H&DS in this project is limited, as the site
development is restricted through legislation in an effort to restrict the environmental
impacts of increased housing development. H&DS in the mean time is faced with an
aging facility requiring upgrading to functional performance standards. Should there be a
114
more explicit and parallel conversation on user issues, the project definition process may
expand its focus to create opportunities to support user needs.
5.3.5 CASE STUDY CONCLUSIONS
This case study shows how a project planning meeting created new realizations about
facility issues among project stakeholders. The meeting raised concerns such as facility
accessibility and historic structures preservation. The project manager then initiated a set
of new investigations to resolve the emergent issues. New stakeholders such as code
regulators were identified and invited into the project.
This case study highlights the flow of information in large batches impacts the
emergence of project issues. Important issues can remain hidden until a major review
meeting. In the observed process, the planning issues involved are not fully realized and
dealt with until a formidable report is available to the project team. By waiting for a
completed design report upon which to base a decision(s), information reliability is
increased, but the full realization of the project purpose and potential impacts is delayed.
While I recognize the purpose of the condition assessment is to determine the facility
functional performance issues, a collaborative workshop may well have revealed these
issues once the field surveys were in part complete.
In the future, should the process be re-designed to specify the delivery of smaller
batches of information, the full realization of issues may occur earlier through feedback.
Small batches of information can increase the interaction of the project stakeholders
through regular communication and discussion of emerging issues. Stakeholder interests
can often remain dormant and inactivated for group discussion without management
115
facilitation. Project managers may activate stakeholder perspectives earlier in the process
by creating an incremental problem solving process with regular stakeholder interaction.
The dominance of a particular problem approach; i.e., in this case the Facilities
Condition Assessment, can run the risk of narrowly framing the project definition. The
central problem solving methodology is that of an operation perspective; i.e., facility
management. H&DS voiced strongly that the planning issues are on renewal and how to
spend their deferred maintenance budget allocations. I do not question that facility
renewal and maintenance issues are not strategically important to the overall value of the
facility, but what is also important is the facilitation for the voicing other diverse
stakeholder perspectives.
The importance of having a process capable of identifying diverse stakeholder issues
was apparent in this case. The dominance of one problem-solving approach risks omitting
the user-centered perspective. What was at stake in this case study was the opportunity to
identify facility issues centered about the ultimate user. Other perspectives can be used to
define the problem other than facilities condition assessment; e.g., a user centered
perspective. The ability to change how the problem is framed from a facility operations
centered perspective to a user perspective and to other stakeholder viewpoints is critical.
This case study provided further motivation to understand group mechanisms that create
this capability.
116
5.4 UNDERHILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - GREEN DESIGN PROCESS
In early 2001, Project Management hired an architect, under the direction of Housing and
Dining Services (H&DS), to perform program confirmation, design, bid, and construction
phase services for three new student residence halls located on two blocks, south of
central campus, in the city of Berkeley. The housing structures were proposed for
development on the site where existing residential facilities, Residents Halls Units 1 and
2, are located, on the south side of the main campus area.
H&DS have a mission to provide residential housing to students attending the
Berkeley campus. The University had made a commitment to provide university housing
to all incoming freshmen who request it. H&DS had also seen recent increases in the
demand for University housing from continuing students. The driving goals for the
project were to increase the number of beds available to Berkeley students, provide
Berkeley students with alternatives in University housing, and provide Berkeley students
with a living environment that supports learning.
Prior to the selection of the project architect, Facility Services had already completed
a project feasibility study in 1999 in cooperation with H&DS. A local architect was hired
to produce information pertaining to the project needs, a draft program statement, and site
and planning issues, as identified in the Underhill Master Plan. This study developed a
design concept that took into account the program specifications, and the environmental
and site conditions. A massing study was developed by the architect who proposed
building structures that depicted a 4-7 story stepped form. Construction systems options
were discussed and an order of magnitude cost estimate was provided.
117
5.4.2 GREEN DESIGN PROCESS DEVELOPMENT
The energy crisis of 2000-2001 in California was the impetus for the University of
California to consider the implications of developing environmentally sustainable
buildings. At the university policy level, policy statements were developed on
sustainability practices. At the local project level, the Underhill projects were considered
an opportunity to include a degree of sustainable building features.
At the project program development stage, the main architect began developing a set
of schematic drawings that followed the original design direction created by the concept
designers. Early in this schematic design stage, H&DS asked the architect to consider
sustainable design features that might enhance the building project6. H&DS briefed the
architect to investigate building systems that supported green design and to select
building systems that complied with a four year payback period. The architect was
enthusiastic to have an opportunity to support a sustainable design project and suggested
that the project use the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard
as a basis for their analyses.
LEED is the standard industry practice methodology for evaluating green design
performance. LEED is used to rate physical facilities. The methodology has pre-
established performance criteria that the design solution can achieve and then receive a
rating based on conformance. For example if an environmentally friendly building
material is selected in the design, then the building receives a positive rating in the form
6
My participation in the project began at this schematic design stage. The sustainable design process was
seen by me as an opportunity to focus on a specific process. My objective was to map the evolution of the
process and describe how it was being managed. I had volunteered to map the process for Project
Management.
118
of a points system. The accumulated number of points for a building design corresponds
to an overall score. The higher the score the better the environmental performance of the
building design.
In the meantime, the project team was busy developing concept design solutions to fit
with the facility functions, site constraints, schedule, and budget demands. The architects
did not fix a schedule when they would perform a green design process. As the project
developed, the green design decision-making process was pushed downstream while
other, presumably more important decision processes took precedence. These decisions
centered on aligning the building form with regulatory and budget constraints.
Eventually the architectural group did a LEED evaluation of their current building
design. They presented their results at a project group meeting where they briefed the
project manager and H&DS representatives. Their analysis showed their current design
resulted in a high or favorable LEED rating for the building project.
The architects showed the project group that they had an opportunity then to get the
building project LEED certified. They also revealed to H&DS that there were
administrative costs associated with the certification process. H&DS were then left with a
directive by the design team to decide on whether to continue with LEEDS certification
or just continue to use LEED principles as an appropriate design guide for the project.
The client has to decide on whether to invest in design resources to develop a
sustainable facility with LEED certification. H&DS representatives stated that they
would have to discuss the decision internally prior to making a final investment decision.
119
5.4.3 ANALYSIS OF GREEN DESIGN PROCESS
For the remainder of my time spent researching the project, a decision had not been made
by the project group on how to continue in the green design process. I did not achieve my
objective to describe the green process as perceived by each individual stakeholder. This
was primarily due to the time pressures on the project groups. This prompted me to
recognize how the process might have been a more open and collaborative one.
The stakeholder perceptions of the green design needs are influenced by their
individual concerns and also their perception of ongoing concurrent events and project
demands. Based on my observations of the project, I created an influence diagram in
Figure 5.5. The influence diagram seeks to show that there were a range of issues
impacting the ability to hold a collective group dialogue on the purpose of green design.
The influence diagram illustrates the range of process issues, competing interests and
sociopolitical perceptions that impact an open group dialogue. The main issues identified
are: the use of a particular design method to develop the purpose of green design,
reservations by the facility operator to invest in sustainable design, the lack of time and
resources to address the green design problem in-depth, and an on-going demand on the
project stakeholders to address more pressing project issues such as budget overruns.
120
Figure 5.5 Green Design Process Influence Diagram
121
5.4.3.1 The Use of the Green Design Methodology
The architect defined the problem based on the LEED methodology. He perceived the
problem as how to achieve a satisfactory rating for the existing design concept. Given the
fact that other pressing design activities were concurrently ongoing, the green design
became an evaluation of the existing concept design. So the problem definition is solution
centered as opposed to being driven explicitly by the green design performance criteria;
i.e., the designers did not start with purposes and then develop a design concept based on
these purposes, but rather worked back from a concept towards satisfying purpose. If the
design solution had provided a low LEEDS rating then the process may have incurred
considerable rework on the design concept.
5.4.3.2 Facility Operator Concerns
H&DS had to decide on committing company resources to immediate project demands
(green design investigations, feasibility and modeling) which would in turn affect the life
cycle phases of the project; e.g., operation costs. H&DS, while interested in developing a
sustainable building project, voiced reservations about how to get the building certified
with the support of the university administration.
Historically the administration did not consider life cycle costs in their evaluation of
capital investments. The investment costs would have to have supporting cost benefit
arguments for the administration to sanction the extra investments. At the same time
energy directives were being developed by the university administration in the form of an
energy policy. This was another issue that might support the project sustainability
development, but the implications of implementing the policy were at the time untested at
the project level.
122
While there were opportunities for the project to become a model for sustainable green
design practice for buildings on the university campus, H&DS were faced with
navigating their design project through the requirements of governing/sanctioning
campus bodies, without delaying the project schedule. There was uncertainty felt by
H&DS with respect to how the new campus policy on sustainable building practice
would be interpreted by campus bodies7.
Coupled with this issue was the pressure that other project concerns were putting on
the group resources. The project group was identifying means to mitigate project budget
overruns. At the time of the green design discussions, the current design concept was
found to be over budget when compared with the initial planning concept. This budget
issue may also have impacted the client’s decision to invest in green design.
5.4.3.3 Managing the Process Impacts
The project team had limited resources and time to address all project design issues. In
terms of impacting the design process, an earlier program document produced in the
concept/feasibility study, was found to be incomplete at the schematic design stage and
required further development. The program confirmation was also impacted by outdated
space assignment data. These issues had to be resolved first before developing the
schematic drawings. The resources taken to confirm the program took time away from
the schematic design schedule. Figure 5.5 illustrates the relationship of these issues.
The request for green design systems at the schematic design stage was a new issue
for exploration for the project team. Prior to this stage, the green design component was
7
The recent release of a sustainability document by the university was a response to the recent energy crisis
experienced by the State of California.
123
not previously investigated at the project feasibility stage. The level of design resource
investment was unknown prior to this green design requirement being specified.
Meanwhile, the other design goals, namely, elevations design and aesthetics, budget
constraints and schedule took precedence over the available design resources and design
focus. The budget model was currently over the set budget and had to be addressed. New
program needs, financial revenue modeling and strategic decisions were ongoing and
took precedence over the purpose development for green design. The result was that with
limited problem solving resources, the green design agenda slipped from the design
process schedule. Management finally regarded that the green design criteria as a
complementary design feature as opposed to being a design driver with priority focus for
development.
5.4.4 CASE STUDY CONCLUSIONS
5.4.4.1 Articulating Green Design Purpose Issues
This case study showed evidence that there were multiple perspectives on what the
purpose of sustainable design may be. I did not see evidence of an open group dialogue
that might have articulated the issues illustrated in Figure 5.5. While internal
conversations by stakeholders were ongoing, a more open dialogue in the project group
forum was necessary to articulate stakeholder interests and to create shared
understanding. In this case the project manager was aware of each stakeholder interest
and had a holistic perception of the problem. However, the creation of a holistic view of
the green design problem appears to have been underdeveloped. Should the project team
have engaged in an open conversation about the implications of developing sustainable
124
green design, then it is possible that the issues illustrated in Figure 5.5 may have been
addressed and the constraints on the process understood.
5.4.4.2 Promoting Facilitation
This case argues that the project manager should be concerned with advancing problem
definition through facilitation of the group. The project manager’s role is to design the
process to support active purpose creation. The project manager needs to facilitate how
the problem is being framed by the individual stakeholder. Then the project manager
needs an ability to synthesize the problem in the collective or holistic sense. What is
imperative is that in order to create a shared understanding of the process dynamics,
stakeholder perspectives must be included in the group dialogues.
The project manager needs to be aware of the emerging issues in the project
environment and to support stakeholder’s understanding of the impacts of these issues.
The development of purpose about green issues was impacted by the pressures of other
ongoing design processes. Stakeholders with decision power are influenced by their
interactions with these processes and how they finally make decisions. Concurrent events
can impact the perception of the purpose issue in question; i.e., the impact on green
design needs and values. The forces impacting green design need to be articulated. The
issue here for project managers is how to articulate the ongoing competing project events
to the project group.
5.4.4.3 LEED as a Group Learning Instrument
The aspiration to develop a LEED certification for the building project can be considered
an innovative endeavor, given that the University Administration had not historically
engaged in sustainable building practice at a system wide level. The project group is in
125
effect charting new ground in defining these purposes. This makes the case for
acknowledging unknowns and making issues of uncertainty more explicit all the more
important.
The design team acted internally to evaluate their existing design solution with
LEEDS prior to revealing the result to the project group. Designers may wish to protect
their professional services knowledge, insofar as they as experts assume they know what
the problem is. The quality of their design process is something that they may also wish
to protect. From their perspective they wish to say their existing design solution is in
conformance with LEEDS and they can then seek extra architectural services by
administering the LEEDS certification process. The management philosophy is
questionable with respect to how the process is developed. A holistic and open approach
to the problem is more desirable.
While the use of LEED as an evaluation instrument is a worthwhile methodology for
in-experienced clients dealing with innovation in their capital projects, there is a danger
that the rating system will be taken at face value and not used to explore and improve
how the client organization operates. The LEED methodology does offer a means to
facilitate a green design process. In essence I feel that the key finding from the case is the
lost opportunity to use the LEED system as a group learning tool. The main issue here is
whether the LEED tool is a driver in establishing purpose or whether the tool is a post-
design evaluation tool. Should the process be seen as a learning tool, stakeholder needs
and values should be made explicit. Should the design team see the design assessment as
no more than a product conformance check, then learning opportunity is greatly
diminished and real opportunity for the stakeholders to understand their purpose is lost.
126
5.5 CONCLUSIONS TO THIS EXPLORATORY PHASE
This set of exploratory case studies described how project purpose is developed in a
complex client institution. Table 5.4 summarizes the findings from this phase of
exploration.
Table 5.4 Case Study Summary
Framing of Hearst Memorial Clark Kerr Campus Underhill Green

Project Mining Building Renewal Study Design Planning
Purpose
Initial Purpose was initially Purpose was centered Purpose of green
Framing of underdeveloped and around systems renewal design was
Purpose solutions were based on and facility centered on return
limited assumptions. management. of investment.
Re-framing Purpose was developed Purpose was centered Purpose was
of purpose in a collaborative on functional framed through a
learning process. performance of design assessment
building systems. rating tool.
Outcomes – Collective creation of Strategic operations Decision options
purpose purpose through a vision, plan centered on system for client to invest
statement mission and goals renewal and facility in green design
statement along with operations. User needs options. Collective
testing of solution were not explicit in purpose of green
options. purpose development. design was
underdeveloped.
Framing Process was conducted Process was Process was
Classification through collaborative performance based framed through
learning. assessment utilizing design
select stakeholder performance
needs. assessment.
Features of Evidence of many Project was considered not that different
Group unknowns and from normal projects done before.
Framing acknowledgement Project was produced to “get the job” done
thereof by management. and approved.
Project was considered Problem tasks were seen as information
as an opportunity to processing stages.
change the organization Stakeholders acted as self sufficient and
in many ways. remained fragmented.
Opportunities to learn
about stakeholder needs
and values.
Partners are collaborative
and interdependent.
127
In client institutions such as UC Berkeley, the initial driver8 for a project may not arise in
the user domain. It may be operations driven as in seismic renovation, or financially
driven by an emergent financial donor looking for a valid education need to support.
What is important to recognize is that the initial stakeholder driver may narrowly frame
the problem definition should not other relevant stakeholders be included in the process
at an appropriate time.
The Hearst Mining project is an example of how to do project definition effectively.
Once the project definition activity took place in earnest, the process effectively explored
alternatives, identified constraints and tested user needs and values. The case serves as a
good precedent to follow in terms of process design. The Clark Kerr study reveals how a
dominant problem solving frame can condition the direction and outcome of the project
definition. The green design study reveals how multiple perceptions of the problem
interplay and how ongoing process events influence the project definition.
The way the group process is managed determines the historical path of the project
definition. Path dependence is understood as choosing “one road which often precludes
taking others and determines where you end up” (Sterman, 2000). These studies reveal
how the project path is influenced by the organizational structures serving project
definition, the decision processes by which the organization frames project needs and
values, and the role management plays when operating in complex and often bureaucratic
environments.
8
The Haahtela Planning system is very much user centered with due concern for client strategy and
operations.
128
The cases show how over time there were changes in the collective understanding of the
problem to be solved. The necessity for a shared forum to articulate the changing
perceptions is notable. The implication for management is that in this project phase,
stakeholder perceptions of the problem differ. The role for management is to seek means
to facilitate the timely voicing of these perceptions and create conditions for learning and
then create action based on this learning.
Stakeholders frame purpose based on their interests. Their interests may promote or
prevent the development of shared purpose. The ability of stakeholders to reframe their
interests is dependent on the leadership of management to promote the voicing of
multiple perspectives. The process of framing purpose is important for management to
perceive and understand as it evolves over the course of a project definition phase.
Management requires a capacity to understand the assumptions and beliefs that a
stakeholder has about the project purpose at a particular point in time.
Differences in stakeholder perceptions of project purpose are couched in stakeholder
experience, roles and responsibility. The project manager is the instrumental agent in
trying to reconcile such differences. Frequently this works through the network of
conversations that the project manager engages in through the project development
process. The project manager’s importance to act as an integrating agent grows as the
project develops. This is a result of the inherent lack of transparency associated with
group knowledge. While the project management role is to make sense of stakeholder
perceptions and incorporate them into the project definition model, a lack of problem
definition transparency creates ambiguity in stakeholder perceptions of other
stakeholders’ interests. This results in increased reliance on the project manager.
129
The project manager’s role as expert can increase when he/she acts as knowledge agent
for or on behalf of another stakeholder. The project manager requires support to maintain
a holistic view of the project purpose. The project manager’s perception inherently
becomes part of the problem definition. The implications may be that the subsequent
process steps designed by the project manager may be impacted by her/his perception of
the process.
An option for the project manager is to identify means to create process transparency
among the stakeholder network. Process design, group meetings, and facilitation are
important means for creating this transparency. Creating a collective forum for
stakeholders to reflect on the project issues is a first step. The promotion of the group as
the collective problem definition unit is then necessary. The project manager may have to
be selective what stakeholders are present at each meeting, depending on the sensitivity
of the project issues and levels of trust among stakeholders.
The next phase of exploration seeks to understand the nature of an adaptive
management system and the characteristics of effective project definition.
130
6
SECOND PHASE OF EXPLORATION
HAAHTELA WORKPLACE PLANNING SYSTEM
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapters Six, Seven and Eight describe the second phase of study on purpose
development. The goal of this phase was to identify a project management process with
the ability to develop project purpose using a learning and stakeholder feedback
approach. The objective was then to describe the characteristics of the management
process that supported group learning about project purposes and project constraints.
The context for the study was the Haahtela Oy Company located in Helsinki, Finland.
Haahtela Oy provides project management services to the construction industry in
Finland. They do so using workplace planning methodologies along with project cost
estimating and budgeting techniques. This chapter describes the professional background
of the company and how it evolved to provide project definition services to the
construction industry. The principal management processes developed around workplace
planning are described and the generic group dialogues are classified.
6.2 BACKGROUND TO CASE STUDY ORGANIZATION
Haahtela’s professional services originated in construction cost economics services. In
the late 70’s, Yrjänä Haahtela, the company founder, was working in the National Board
of Building in Finland. He was in charge of developing cost economics theory for
building construction projects. While there he started to do research on project budgeting
and cost estimating. He developed new methods for estimating the cost of projects in the
government-based environments. In the 1980’s Haahtela found conflicts between the
131
facility owner, designers, and project management. Facility owners thought that there was
a lack of concern for their needs on the part of architects. Haahtela became convinced
that the correlation between architectural quality and cost was weak. Project managers
realized that designers were in control but were not delivering positive results. They
realized that project management could not measure future project costs and control
them.
In the 1990’s architects began to agree with Haahtela that clear cost targets were
necessary at the outset of a project. Clear cost targets supported designers in maintaining
client satisfaction. As consultants Haahtela learned to handle facility functions, project
finances, and time schedules better than the project management services being provided
at the time. At this stage they developed their own in-house project management
capability and stopped offering cost economics consulting as a separate service to outside
project customers. Haahtela then realized that there was no reason to separate
construction economics services from project management. The company then provided
full project management services from the project definition phase to final project
delivery. Facility owners gradually gave Haahtela increased power to steer design and
accept design solutions based on their capability to integrate cost economics with project
management methods.
As of 2003 Haahtela are actively involved in real estate management in Finland. The
Haahtela workplace planning group participates in local and regional real estate seminars
to develop workplace strategy. Haahtela confirms that real estate operations are now a
critical part of their company strategy and that there is an increasing demand for services
to support strategic and operational thinking in real estate management.
132
Haahtela primarily work with large scale public owners that are multi-faceted and
complex. These clients are primarily public organizations, which include healthcare
institutions, educational institutions and governmental institutions. Public institutions
often operate with finite resources and it has been the experience of Haahtela that these
clients chronically have needs that cannot be supported by the resources available.
Therefore the process of resource allocation in the project definition stage is critical in
strategic planning of their facilities. The ability to carry out facility programming with a
close understanding of cost economics is now an important issue in real estate
management and facility planning. Haahtela regards the integration of workspace
planning, facility performance setting and cost modeling as core capabilities in their
services.
Haahtela also conducts research on methods and tool development. In 2003 a third of
Haahtela employees performed research and two thirds carried out project management.
The project management group shares project management knowledge with the research
group. Haahtela’s capability to perform research and to develop technological support
further enhances their understanding of their professional services. Haahtela believes that
they are a leading innovator in the Finnish construction industry. They sell their research
& development products in the industry. Very few project management firms in Finland
assign the large amount of R&D resources that Haahtela does. Haahtela’s strategy is to
continue to do project management and research in parallel.
Haahtela continue to develop project management tools to support their services.
Figure 6.1 shows the evolution of the firm’s services and products from the founding of
the firm to the present day. The primary software systems are TAKU (a design
133
performance setting tool, and cost management tool), Project Management Knowledge
System, Real Estate Knowledge Systems, and the Workplace Planning System (WOP).
Haahtela Project Management Services
Cost Project Strategic & Operational

Economics Management Facility Planning -
Consulting Consulting Workplace Planning
1970 1980 1990 2000 2003
Cost Performance
Economics Criteria Setting Workplace Planning
Tools Tools - TAKU Tools - WOP
Project Knowledge Real Estate Management

Management Tools Tools – Life Cycle Costing
Haahtela Research Products & Services
Figure 6.1 Evolution of the Haahtela Firm – Services and Products
6.3 HAAHTELA WORKPLACE PLANNING SYSTEM
6.3.1 BACKGROUND
The Haahtela workplace planning system creates information to support the user, the
facility owner, and the real estate and building professional. Their processes are designed
to facilitate strategic workspace management that supports the strategy of the business or
service organization (of the facility owner). The Haahtela process concentrates on
defining and managing spatial needs in the facility workplace. This workplace planning
approach emphasizes measurement of specific factors relating to space such as user
actions occurring in the space, operational functions and core services supporting the
134
ultimate product or goal of the organization. This quantification of space is based on the
organization’s operational needs and on using operational measurement units. Traditional
architectural programming information such as building form, connections between
spaces, materials and draft layout schemes are not considered in the functional model.
General real estate operations and decision making are also not considered in the model,
but are considered in the holistic project definition process.
The development of the workplace planning system originated in 1994-5 when Ari
Pennanen, a project manager and researcher at Haahtela became focused on the front end
of project development. Ari was interested in understanding facility functions and
activities and their relationship with the facility space program. He initially developed a
prototype workplace planning tool which functioned adequately to support the cost
estimating and budgeting process. Ari was not satisfied with the geometrical space model
that he first built. The facility functions, activities and actions were not represented. The
time a facility space was in operation was not incorporated in the original model. Time
was an important variable to model as many spaces are related to time especially when
multiple users are involved. The temporal loading became an important consideration.
His current PhD research (Pennanen 2004), “User activity based workspace definition as
an instrument for workplace management in multi-user organizations”, concentrated on
rectifying these concerns.
6.3.2 QUANTIFICATION OF SPACE
The quantification of space determines the quantity of a single space category and the
required floor area to perform a function. The space quantification model begins with
describing the organization’s function taking place within the space. The modeling
135
procedure uses operations-based accounting to associate functions with the organizational
goal or product. These functions are both core functions and supporting functions that
enable the organization to achieve its goals.
The quantification procedure emphasizes measuring factors that determine the
quantity and use of space. These factors include: the total volume of the sector, the
service level programmed for the sector, the temporal strain of functions and goals for the
use of time in the space; the people working and the geometrics of the objects to be
placed in the space and finally regulations required for the space to perform satisfactorily.
The space quantification model describes the variability associated with the usage of
space.
Table 6.1 illustrates the nature of the quantitative model. Consider an education
institution that operates in a teaching facility. The volume for the sector is the number of
students learning in the facility. This serves as the driver for determining service levels
for the learning space. The service level is a description of the core and supporting
services that are employed to ensure that organizational goal is fulfilled. The core and
supporting function take form in operations; e.g., teaching and research functions. These
operations occupy a space or a part of a space for a unit of time. The time strain on a
teaching classroom may be two hours per class. The space may have a number of classes
scheduled during a specified operating period. An expected level of efficiency for the
space affects the quantity of spaces and the flexibility of functions requiring the use of
the space. The operating degree specifies how flexible the space needs to be. Low
operating degrees provide good flexibility but require extra spaces to accommodate the
strain. Functions are defined in appropriate hierarchies to define activities and actions
136
occurring in the space area or volume. A student may require 1m2 of study space to
perform his/her actions. Regulatory specifications are included in this model as
necessary. These regulations may incorporate minimum circulation dimensions.
The quantification model is automated in a web-based application, which supports the
workplace planner in defining the workplace environment.
Table 6.1 Space Quantification Example
Quantification Variable Description Example of Education

Institution
The total volume of the No. of Customers or Two hundred design
sector. Products. students.
Floor space per group 100sq. meters of classroom
size. space per 40 person class
size.
The service level Core Services. Teaching & Research.
programmed for the sector. Supporting Services. Administrative services.
Dining.
The temporal strain of Temporal Strain. Teaching Design Theory 2
functions and goals for the hours per class, three times a
use of time in the space i.e. Operating Degree. day equals a 6 hr temporal
operating degree. strain on the classroom.
If the teaching class has a
50% operating degree, then 4
hours are available. Another
classroom will be required.
The people working and Each function requires Lecturer requires 10sq.
the geometrics of the space expressed as a meters of lecture area.
objects to be placed in the performance result. Students require standard
space. seating and 1sq. meter
workspace.
Regulations. Regulatory society Circulation space between
defines the quantification seating is 0.5meters.
of space.
6.4 STEERING THE PROJECT DEFINITION GROUP
Haahtela have developed a management process to develop spatial quantification of the
workplace environment. Figure 6.2 illustrates the control model for the workplace
management system. The process is supported by a management steering model and the
137
workplace planning procedure. The workplace processes are managed by the workplace
planner through a dialogue between the facility owner organization that include strategic
and operational management, and facility users.
The structure of the steering model is based on cybernetic closed-loop control. The
steering model itself is based on feedback-loop control where the feedback is a
description of the current or desired state (use of resources) due to the clients’ needs and
values. Pennanen (2004) identifies disturbance in the system as the variety of needs and
interests based on changes occurring in the work environment. What is controlled is the
organization defining its spatial requirements. The outcome is a set of needs and solutions
to satisfy those needs.
Disturbance Controlled Outcome

Different values Organization Wishes and wants
Different interests defining working in activities, rooms
Organizational environment and performances.
changes Consequences in
Changing business use of resources
environment Action
Perception
Goal Agent Representation
Dialogue Workplace Planning Procedure

Target Price Method
Controller
Figure 6.2 Closed Loop Control for Workplace Management (Pennanen 2004)
The Controller is the workplace planner who along with project management develops
and presents a representation of the controlled system. The states of the workplace needs
138
are measured by first defining a list of user functions and activities with the users and
operations management. The workplace planner then defines temporal and geometric
needs for the facility operations. This leads to a definition of the working environment
which includes room schedules, performances, details on the potential for use and spatial
utilization degrees. The solutions are budgeted and associated costs are traced the back to
activities through the use of activity-based cost management.
The workplace planner identifies four primary stakeholder groups in the project
definition environment: owner strategy, owner operations management, facility users and
external agents. These stakeholder groups inform the workplace planning process.
The owner strategy group consists of personnel that have overall responsibility for
workplace planning strategy. The group comprises a board of directors that have a vested
interest in understanding the importance of building facilities in relation to the overall
goals of the organization. The operations management group may consist of personnel
that have responsibility for designing and operating organizational functions and
activities. They are normally responsible for ensuring that the facility supports their
functions.
The user groups consist of personnel that actually use the facility workplaces. They
are concerned that the facilities have the necessary capability to allow them to perform
their actions. Finally external agents may consist of personnel that have knowledge or
influence to inform the state of owner functions or facility performance. They may
include design and regulation specialists, or specialists on owner functions.
Once the workplace planner presents the workplace measurements, the facility owner
develops an understanding of the present or desired state of the system; i.e., what kind of
139
working environment the owner groups need and value, and what the subsequent
consequences are on their resources. The information presentation allows transparency in
that the client stakeholder can trace organizational activities to where they originate.
Typically during the process, stakeholders reflect on their needs and propose new
methods which can reshape the organization’s activities and improve their work
practices. The workplace planner and project management as controllers are aware of the
new goals and then steer the process to search for solutions to reach the new targets.
Additional changes can be added to the workplace planning model to create new learning.
The process reaches conclusion once there is group consensus that the desired state has
been reached.
6.5 THE WORKPLACE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
6.5.1 PRINCIPAL PROCESS STAGES
The workplace planning information becomes very detailed particularly when dealing
with large scale facilities such as an educational institution. There are many stakeholder
entities, functions and spaces to define. In order to deliver this service effectively,
Haahtela have developed a set of process phases. Figure 6.3 illustrates the process phases
and principal management actions.
140
Owner identifies facility need and issues a
directive to do workplace planning
1
Program Statement
9 Approval
Present State of System
3 Needs & Resources
Issue Strategic Target Directives Owner

Strategy External
6 Agents
Internal
5 4 Owner Dialogues
Workplace 7
Planner Operations & Planner Dialogues Group Consensus,
8
Workshops Commitment
Resource Measurement & Problem Closure
3
3 Measurement Clarification
2 Owner
Id. Business Drivers & Metrics Operations
Users
Figure 6.3 Network Diagram: Workspace Planning Process Stages
The workplace planning processes are operationalized in nine distinct stages as follows:
1. The facility owner identifies potential facility need-based issues and a directive is
issued to Haahtela to perform workplace planning studies.
2. The workspace planner identifies the organization’s primary level of needs which
are expressed as business or organizational drivers. A collective agreement is
made on how to best measure the drivers between the owner operations
management and the workplace planner.
141
3. The planner engages in a set of group processes to develop the space
quantification model. The measurements focus on: user functions, activities and
actions, space performance, and spatial costs and budget analysis.
4. Once the initial state of the workplace is established the facility owner groups
convene to validate the model. At this stage the owner groups receive a summary
of the state of facility needs. The groups are given an opportunity to understand
the problem across organizational levels. The groups then discuss the accuracy of
the workplace model and develop a consensus on the validity of the spatial
metrics.
5. Once the owner groups understand the current state of facility needs, they meet
with the workspace planner to discuss the issues. At this stage the workplace
planner offers his opinions on the state of the facility needs. He typically
identifies cues or problem areas where poor performance is evident; e.g., poor
utilization of space or expensive workplaces. He may advise on how to improve
the workplace by making changes to the operational functions or to the workplace
environment. The workplace planner seeks agreement with the owner groups that
they realize and understand the state of the problem and what alternatives are
possible.
6. At this stage the owner strategy group offers a broad directive to operations
management and the workplace planner to achieve their workplace strategy.
7. The operations management groups and the workplace planner convene in a set of
workshops to make changes to the functions and workplace environment.
Numerous workplace alternatives are explored and tested.
142
8. The workplace planner seeks agreement with the operations management groups
on a final solution.
9. Finally the owner strategy group approves the final program statement for the
facility.
6.5.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS STAGES
6.5.2.1 Facility Owner Identifies Need
Typically at the outset of a project, the owner strategy group identifies a need for
workplace planning (See Figure 6.4). This need may arise due to demands from
operations or external agents; e.g., regulatory agents. The trigger for action may come
from many sources. Common facility related issues include: rent control, misalignment of
operating costs, regulation changes, new business (products and services) opportunities,
operations changes and/or user needs changes. While the strategy group may know
general issues (e.g., operating costs must be reduced, or space may be badly needed to
support certain functions), they may be unaware of the current state of needs and lack
expertise to assess these needs and how to satisfy them. In particular they may lack
expertise to understand their spatial needs in relation to their business needs.
At this point they issue a directive for the workspace planner to do a study on their
facility needs. The planner listens to the owner’s general problem, but assumes nothing
about its definition. In the planner’s mind, the problem is currently ill-defined.
143
Owner identifies facility needs and
issues a directive to perform workplace planning
1
Owner
Strategy External
Agents
Workspace
Planner
Owner
Operations
Users
Figure 6.4 Network Diagram: Stage 1 Facility Owner Identifies Need
6.5.2.2 Defining the Initial State of Facility Needs
At this stage the workplace planner initiates a needs appraisal study of the owner
organization (See Figure 6.5). The planner primarily interacts with operations
management. The planner begins with identifying the business or organizational drivers.
Drivers are associated with the goal of an organization; e.g., the number of students in an
education system, or the number of patients in a healthcare system. The planner and
operations management jointly define and decide on the driver metrics. Drivers may not
be initially clear to the operations management. They may vary depending on how the
business models operate. For example, a lecturer may teach so many students on a regular
basis until those students have completed their study workload. The driver in this case is
the number of students. There may be a certain number of students in an education
144
program which defines class sizes. The operational functions are student learning and
teaching. By defining appropriate drivers with functions, one can define appropriate
space with these functions and activities. The planners typically identify core functions,
supporting functions, services to staff, and finally facility management functions.
Directive issued to do WSP

1
Owner
Strategy External
Agents
Workplace Planner
2 Owner
Operations Users
Id. Business Drivers & Metrics
Figure 6.5 Network Diagram: Stage 2 Defining the Initial State of facility Needs
6.5.2.3 Resource Use Measurement
Once the driver metrics are established and agreed upon, the planner measures the
operational functions, the user activities and actions (See Figure 6.6). The planner creates
a spatial definition to associate with the organizational functions and activities.
Information regarding the temporal strain is also gathered. In gathering this information
145
the planner adopts an empathic role to understand the user activity i.e. the planner places
himself in the shoes of the user and operations management. The planner performs a walk
through of existing space and notes the details of the space, asking operations
management and users a set of questions about actions performed in the space. The
planner learns about the operational function and how user activities support this
function. He gets a sense of how well the space is used and the limitations of the spaces.
At this point, the user and operational needs are flexible in that the planner does not
spend time validating the necessity of each need, but he gathers enough information to
make an accurate representation of the workplace.

1
Present State of System

3 Needs & Resources
Owner
Strategy External
Agents
Workplace Planner
3 Resource Measurement
Owner
2 Operations
Users
Figure 6.6 Network Diagram: Stage 3 Resource Use Measurement
146
6.5.2.4 Internal Owner Dialogues
Once the substantial process of data gathering has been completed, the planner creates a
spatial model that describes the client’s functions, a spatial performance result, workplace
costs and a budget analysis, which is presented to the facility owner. The owner groups
now have an opportunity to review a model of the current state of needs and available
resources. This stage allows the client groups to realize the facility needs and to gain a
greater understanding of the problem (See Figure 6.7).

1
Owner
Strategy External
Agents
4
Internal
Workplace Planner Owner Dialogues
Owner
2 Operations Users
Figure 6.7 Network Diagram: Stage 4 Internal Owner Dialogues
Typically the groups develop an agenda for verification with the planner. They identify
possible inaccuracies and changes to the model. The operations management may
identify omissions or inaccuracies in the workplace model. The transparent nature of the
147
information allows the client strategy group to understand different operational functions
which are all represented with the same workplace variables. This reflection process is
important before the next stage as it stimulates learning among the client groups and sets
an agenda for the next stage meeting with the planner.
6.5.2.5 Owner & Workspace Planner Dialogues
Once the owner groups have reviewed the initial model, they provide feedback to the
workplace planner on the validity of the workplace model (See Figure 6.8).

1
Owner
Strategy External
Agents
5 4
Internal
Workplace Planner Owner & Planner Dialogues Owner Dialogues
Owner
2 Operations Users
Figure 6.8 Network Diagram: Stage 5 Owner & Workspace Planner Dialogues
Frequently owner groups may initially deny the reality of the system; e.g., groups tend
not to realize the low utilization of their spaces. An operations manager may use a space
periodically and feel that the space is vital to the successful performance of a function.
148
Yet when analyzed the space may have low utilization. The planner typically offers
opinions on the state of the facility needs to the groups. The planner cues areas where
poor performance is evident. The planner offers scenario advice on impacts of possible
solution alternatives. A set of directives for further planning may be established at this
point by the groups.
The focus on problem areas initiates dialogues with owner strategy, operations and
the planner. While joint agreement on the problem may or may not be an outcome at this
stage, the groups must agree on how the system state is described and that it is accurate.
This gives the group a shared problem frame for the groups to continue with in the
process.
6.5.2.6 Owner Directives, Solution Finding, Owner Consensus and Approval
As illustrated in Figure 6.9 the client strategy group issues a directive to the workplace
planner and operations management. This directive may have a broad or a specific target;
e.g., change operational functions or reduce space demands by 20%. The operations
management personnel are often made responsible for identifying means of resolving the
workplace strategy.
The planner then structures an “operations and planner” workshop to develop change
scenarios that seek to achieve the intended targets. The process includes iterative phases
of scenario planning and space measurement. The iterative process develops numerous
versions of the changing space model. The planner engages the operations personnel to
rethink their functions and how they may be re-designed to achieve the budget targets.
Once the target is achieved, there is agreement among the operations personnel on the
149
final definition of the workplace program. The owner strategy group approves the final
program statement.

1 Program
9 Statement
Present State of System Approval
3 Needs & Resources
Strategic Target Directives Issued

Owner
6 Strategy External
Agents
Internal
5 4 Owner Dialogues
Workplace Owner & Planner Dialogues 7 Group Consensus,
Planner Operations & Planner Workshops 8 Commitment
& Problem Closure
2 Owner
Id. Business Drivers & Metrics Operations
Users
Figure 6.9 Network Diagram: Stages 6, 7, 8, & 9 Owner Directives, Solution Finding,
Owner Consensus and Approval
The process stages are managed primarily in the form of group meetings. Figure 6.10
illustrates the complete workplace planning process. The process stages are managed in
group forums, whereby the relevant stakeholder groups participate in the process stages.
150
PROCESS STAGES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Group dialogues: present state definition Group dialogues: future state definition
- Workspace modeling - Scenario planning & resource allocation
Owner
Strategy
?
Owner
Operations
Users
Modeling Modeling Modeling Modeling

Tools Tools Tools Tools
Workplace
Planner
Shared Forum Parallel Shared Co-created
Forums Documents
Figure 6.10 Shared problem-solving forum
151
6.6 CLASSIFICATION OF GROUP DIALOGUE
This section describes the generic group dialogues that occur in the workspace planning
process. To represent the variety of group dialogues is an endless task. Instead the
research identified two generic dialogues as understood from the viewpoint of the
workspace planner who leads and facilitates the group forum.
The group dialogues can be classified as:
1. Present state definition: exploratory action to define the facility needs; and
2. Future state definition: creative action to generate workplace solutions.
The two categories of dialogue are shown in Figure 6.11. The dialogues occur across the
process stages. The first group dialogue is where the planner and owner groups elicit and
clarify information about the workplace needs. The second group dialogue is where the
planner and client groups create need scenarios and agree on ways of fulfilling these
needs.
Workspace Planning Process Stages
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Group dialogues: present state definition Group dialogues: future state definition
- Workspace modeling - Scenario planning & resource allocation
Figure 6.11 Group Dialogue Map
6.6.1 GROUP DIALOGUES: PRESENT STATE DEFINITION
The workplace planner uses this set of dialogues to familiarize himself and operations
management with the reasons for carrying out workspace planning. First this group
dialogue seeks to create a shared understanding as to why the study is necessary for the
152
organization in question. The second goal is to develop a shared model of the
organizational drivers, the operating functions and activities, the use of space and
specialist actions that occur within the space.
6.6.1.1 Breakdown of Speech Actions & Driving Rationale
Figure 6.12 illustrates a typical cycle of dialogue that may occur as this stage.
3) Defining Dialogue
What are your core products, services or goals?
Can you quantify this business driver? What is the basis for this figure?
What are the functions that serve this driver – core & supporting?
Can you locate a space and time strain for this function? What specific
actions occur within this space?
2) Clarification
Dialogue
Yes – Strategy has
Owner briefed us.
Strategy
4) Directive
Dialogue
Planner We serve or
produce x per unit
time
2
1) Initiating
Dialogue 3
Do you understand the
problem context for
developing a space
Owner Users
needs model?
Operations
5) Qualifying Dialogue
How do these measurements vary 6) Closing Dialogue
and how will they change over These measurements
time? may change for
example….
Figure 6.12 Micro-level Dialogues: Business Driver Metrics and Resource Measurement
153
The speech acts begin with the planner introducing the issues regarding the workplace to
the operations management personnel. The operations groups acknowledge their levels of
awareness of the problems relating to space and its context to organizational strategy. The
planner outlines the group problem solving approach to understanding workspace issues.
The planner then begins a set of queries to build to the space quantification model.
The responses from operations are queried further by the planner. The planner is
concerned with creating effective measurements for business drivers, operational
functions and activities, utilization of space and space dimensions.
Once an initial cycle of inquiry is completed, operations management begins to
understand the line of questioning and the format of information required. On occasion
the planner establishes whether the organizational drivers (governing variables) that
determine the amount of space are accurate. This leads to internal client discussions about
the changes occurring in these governing variables; e.g., the number of students in an
education facility may increase or decrease due to some influencing forces operating in
the environment. The operations personnel engage in conversation discussing the future
numbers of students, and what variations of student enrollment may arise.
Discussions regarding governing variables tend to take substantial amounts of group
time. Operations management may not be in a position to decide readily on the
organizational drivers. Typically the planner suggests that the operations personnel
develop further internal decisions on the drivers for the organizational functions. The
planner is therefore cautious to balance problem solving time with gaining fast and
relatively accurate information. The planner also realizes that once an initial model is
built, changes to the governing variables can be made easily downstream by the group.
154
6.6.2 GROUP DIALOGUES: FUTURE STATE DEFINITION
This classification of dialogue also occurs between the workplace planner and operations
management. The dialogue is centered on the results of the initial workplace model. The
groups initially check for accuracy of the model. Often the results of the needs model
from stages 1, 2 & 3 reveal that the owner’s needs cannot be met with the available
resources. Quite often the strategic directive is to minimize operating costs while
maintaining workplace functional performance. The operations management personnel
and the workplace planner seek alternative solutions to the workplace needs within the
project constraints. The planner engages in a set of workshops with operations to align
the client needs with available resources.
6.6.2.1 Breakdown of Speech Actions & Driving Rationale
Figure 6.13 illustrates the direction of inquiry and answers in a typical group dialogue
cycle. The actions describe typical dialogue scenarios that occur in stages 4,5,6,7 & 8.
The planner starts the interaction by scanning the model for performance issues.
Typically the planner identifies that a particular space that is under-utilized. The planner
explores a set of scenarios that engages the client group to determine ways of improving
the current state of space performance.
Operations management typically engages in these queries. They reflect on how they
currently practice. They then propose ways they would really like to operate in the future.
These dialogues engage the group in creative searches for possible solutions. The
dialogues often produce outcomes that result in significant changes in the way the
organizations’ functions are designed to operate. This leads to subsequent changes to the
workplace performance and design.
155
3) Defining Dialogue
Can you combine activities to same working environment? How
much must the working environment be changed to fit wider range of
activities? Is the activity really necessary? Compared to another?
Operations remove activity to outside of business unit or remove
activity from business operations. Is the action/room of/for that
activity really needed? Remove action to other space.
4) Directive
Owner Dialogue
Strategy Let see……….we
6
could do x?
4
5
Workplace 7 8
Planner 2) Clarification
Dialogue
What are the
options for us?
1) Initiating Owner
Dialogue Operations Users
The model shows
5) Qualifying
you have low 6) Closing Dialogue
Dialogue
utilization of space Yes we can operate
Well if you do x it
here in activity x with that decision.
will increase your
Is this correct?
utilization and reduce
Does this make
space over here. Will
sense to you?
that work for you?
Figure 6.13 Future State Planning Dialogue between Planner & Operations Management
In the group dialogues, the planner uses a set of problem solving directives to instigate
action by the group. The planner typically uses tactical querying as defined in Table 6.2.
These problem solving queries seek to improve the workplace environment by making
changes to the owner functions and to the configuration of the workplace itself.
156
Table 6.2 Workplace Planning Inquiry Methods
Workplace Query by Planner Potential Outcome

Objective
Combine Activity. Can you combine This query seeks to identify
activities to same activities that can be combined
working environment? into a single space. This strategy
allows space to be better utilized.
Combine space or How much must the This query tests the changes
change space working environment be necessary for the workplace to
configuration. changed to fit wider function.
range of activities? These queries create increased
Can space A and Space B utilization of space, and reduce
be combined? unnecessary space.
Remove or change Is the activity really This query allows operations to
the activities. necessary? Compared to benchmark their use of space and
another? their business performance in
Is the action/room of/for functional operations. This may
that activity really lead to the removal of activities to
needed? another space; or the removal of
the activity from the organizations
operations.
6.7 CONCLUSIONS ON THE WORKPLACE PLANNING PROCESS
This chapter has described the development of the Haahtela Workplace Planning System.
I have described the generic stages of group interactions. I have described the primary
group dialogue scenarios that generate knowledge about an owner’s workplace needs.
The forthcoming project case studies in Chapter Seven describe in more detail the context
of how these dialogues produce effective group action and results.
157
7
HAAHTELA PROJECT CASE STUDIES
7.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDIES
This chapter contextualizes the Haahtela workplace planning process as described in the
previous chapter through a set of project cases. The project case studies describe the
adaptive management principles by which Haahtela create effective workplace planning
statements. The projects are all based within public client institutions. Each study
provides an insight in a particular aspect of the planning process.
7.1.1 STADIA POLYTECHNIC
This case study describes the early phases of workplace planning for Stadia Polytechnic,
Helsinki. The process stages 2 to 3 were completed for a set of operations sectors. These
process stages encompassed a large set of appraisal studies of operational functions and
user activities. The case reveals the capacity of the workplace planning system to manage
needs data for large scale facility owners. The case shows how owner strategy personnel
require a complete description of the workplace system prior to making a decision on
strategic action.
In terms of the operations and user appraisal process, the empathic role of the planner
is described. Examples illustrate the planner’s skills in establishing accurate definitions
of the workplace environment. The case study reveals the varying levels of awareness of
the problem by stakeholders. The appraisal of the workplace reveals varying levels of
workplace environment efficiency. The group process reveals client fragmentation in that
little cross organization collaboration occurs. Subsequent to this, the workplace planning
158
system creates a forum for collaboration at many levels within and across the
organization.
7.1.2 VANTAA POLICE STATION
This case study is about the Vantaa Police workspace strategy and project development.
Vantaa is a metropolitan area of Helsinki. Vantaa police occupy an old existing building
was identified as functioning poorly. The building had poor technical performance issues
and no longer operated effectively to support service functions. The building was also
thought to lack space for activities. Haahtela were employed by a state owned property
developer to do workplace planning on the user organizations.
At the time of study, the process was iterating through the early planning phases 3, 4,
5 & 6 of the Haahtela planning process. My research focused on a strategy meeting
where the initial results of the workspace quantification model were presented and
feedback and action directives were issued by the client. Haahtela completed an initial
appraisal of operations and users. Haahtela presented the state of the system to the owner
strategy group. The purpose of the meeting was to develop options for the client based on
the existing state of facility needs. The case study represents the strategic views of the
owner and how the workplace information supported the development of further study.
The case study also reveals how the constraints of the existing structure and site are an
integral part of the conversation for action.
7.1.3 CYGNAEUS HIGH SCHOOL
The City of Jyväskylä Cygnaeus High School is a case study from Haahtela’s portfolio of
programming projects. At the time of study, the workplace planning process was near
completion. In this project the traditional architectural programming approach was not
159
effective in consensus making, in that there was stalemate in the project development,
primarily because of the project costs being too high. The traditional method was not
successfully controlling the project needs within budget. This case study describes the
group dialogues that took place within operations management to resolve the workplace
issues. These dialogues subsequently resulted in positive changes in the operations
design for the education facility and consensus on the project. The case study reveals the
group learning involved about the state of needs and their ability to satisfy these needs
within the project constraints.
7.1.4 ARCADA POLYTECHNIC
This case study is a workspace planning process for Arcada Polytechnic, a Swedish
speaking education institution in Finland. The institution serves the needs of the Swedish
speaking community particularly in the Helsinki metropolitan area. Prior to the project
the Arcada real estate stock was distributed over Helsinki. The main planning strategy for
Arcada was to create a centralized campus area. A centralised campus was seen to create
a cohesive identity for the Swedish education community.
Haahtela performed the workplace planning process and acted as the main project
managers. The case study demonstrates the changes over time with respect to the project
purposes. The perspectives or problem frames of the principal stakeholders are
described. The case demonstrates how the workspace planning tool is instrumental in
guiding the group conversations. The case also reveals how innovative dialogues
occurred based on the results of the planning models. The stakeholder network is
collaboratively engaged and created innovative means to incorporate emerging needs into
160
their facility plans. The case shows how stakeholders are reliant on the results of the
workplace model when basing and making their decisions.
7.1.5 SYNAPSIA REHABILITATION CENTRE
The Synapsia Rehabilitation Centre case study is about a complex multi-faceted client
organization with specialist needs. The project is run by the Käpylä Rehabilitation
Centre. The project demonstrates the ability of the Haahtela Workplace management
system to handle a specialist medical client. The empathic skills of the project manager
are particularly important in this case. The project represents a case where the workplace
planner is required to have empathic skills capable of understanding a specialist client
with multiple medical and social living needs. The project also demonstrates the
existence of a collaborative network at the functional or business level. The project group
collaborated with a neighbouring project sharing functional resources in the daily
operations of the facilities. This collaboration enabled greater client value. The facility
was recently completed and is in full operation.
161
7.2 STADIA POLYTECHNIC HELSINKI
7.2.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND
Stadia, Helsinki Polytechnic provides third level education for students from the Helsinki
city and regional area. The education system specializes in technical and engineering
disciplines in particular (See Figure 7.1). The education is primarily instruction-based
with small levels of research oriented education. Students typically graduate with
Bachelor Degrees. The education system is funded by the Finnish Government and
operations financing is based on student numbers enrolled in the education system.
The city of Helsinki rents facility space to Stadia. These physical facilities are
distributed over the central city region. Colleges or schools have their individual faculties
in different buildings; e.g., Mechanical Engineering is in one building and Civil
Engineering is located in another building in a different area of the city.
President of Stadia City of

Polytechnic Helsinki
Governance
Technical Education Programs
Haahtela
Automotive Mechanical & Building
and Production Construction Initial
Transportation Engineering Focus
Engineering
Information Laboratory
Electrical Technology & Techniques
Engineering Communications
Expanded
Focus
General Other
Studies
Figure 7.1 Stadia Workplace Planning Client Organizational Chart

162
7.2.2 TRIGGERING ACTIONS FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT
In 2002, the president of Stadia initiated a plan to develop a central campus area for the
Polytechnic. Colleges and departments were dispersed across the city district and lacked
cohesion and identity as a well established education system. Initial plans were created
but development plans to immediately go ahead with a central campus facility were put
on hold due to financial issues.
Along with the uncertainty of developing a central campus, the City of Helsinki had
requested Stadia to examine their current operating costs and seek means to reduce their
demands for space. As an initial strategy the City requested the freeing up of one
building facility, which it may use for alternative business development, possibly for real
estate rental.
7.2.3 HAAHTELA BRIEF
Stadia needed to identify the state of their current operations. They had little knowledge
as to how well their workplace performed. They needed to establish how they currently
used space and its efficiency, and to propose means to develop alternative space use
strategies.
Haahtela received an initial brief to carry out a facility needs assessment for Stadia.
The original focus of the Haahtela assessment was on the College of Engineering which
included the Department of Building Construction and the Department of Mechanical
and Production Engineering. The Haahtela brief was later expanded to model the other
technical departments and their workplace needs (See Figure 7.1).
Haahtela are familiar with working with education-based customers. They had recent
experience with a University campus development carrying out workplace management
163
services. With the President of Stadia, they agreed to manage a process to determine the
current state of the facilities and then help propose an implementation strategy. Haahtela
agreed to carry out an analysis using their workspace planning methods, performance
setting and cost modeling procedure. Haahtela in their approach stated that they did not
know the state of the problem, and their brief was to carry out a problem definition for
the client.
7.2.3.1 Workplace Planning Process
Haahtela first set out to establish the core activities in the engineering department by
interviewing managers of operations as illustrated in Figure 6.1. The interviews were
facilitated by Haahtela with the goal of mapping the current state of space use. Those
present in these meeting included the main operations manager; i.e., the head of faculty
or department and interested lecturers (principal users) participated in varying degrees.
Haahtela began the meeting by introducing their brief to carry out a workplace
assessment for the education institution. Then the meeting attendees voiced their
opinions about what information they had received internally regarding the state of their
workplaces. This introductory session allowed an initial voicing of the apparent problem
by the client stakeholders.
Once the client group had spoken of their initial needs and concerns, Haahtela spoke
of their approach, to first identify the primary business drivers for the organization and to
measure how past, current, and future work impacts the performance of the existing
operations. Once the facility system was modeled based on the organizational drivers and
the way work activities were performed, then further analysis of the needs could be
discussed through dialogue among stakeholders. Haahtela emphasized that the education
164
groups would make the decisions on what they need and what direction to take, based on
what the models revealed about the state of the system.
The meeting agenda then focused on describing the business drivers that demand the
use of physical facilities. This driver is usually the primary user of the facility and or one
that is the primary focus of service by the client organization. In the case of this
educational institution, it was the number of students being educated in the education
program. The core activity for education-based clients is obviously the education of
students. This activity is performed primarily through instruction, or through research.
The education of students as a core activity is a primary driver in the use of resources.
The meeting then established the amount of work that the primary need agent
requires in order to be deemed successful by the organization. In the case of a student it
is the amount of work the student performs to receive appropriate credits and finally to
graduate. The amount of credit has an associated workload, which is expressed in work
hours. This workload is associated to instruction and other work activities that the student
is engaged in. Haahtela produced a group work sheet that documents the student profile
and coursework.
Table 7.1 describes examples of work space definition. This worksheet served as a
main forum for group discussion, information gathering and data confirmation. Once the
amount of work was established the focus was placed on allocating the work to a space.
The work breakdown was located and specified with percentage of time spent in each
space to achieve a complete unit of credit. For example, a student may spend 50% in
general teaching spaces, 25% in computer labs and 25% in a specialist lab for a particular
course. The client personnel confirmed the way the spaces were being used based on
165
their initial knowledge. Haahtela tagged important spaces; e.g., specialist teaching
laboratories, for further appraisal.
Table 7.1 Worksheet Sample
Education Work Space Description Group Size Total % time

Activity Credit
Statics 3 General Lecturing 30 100
Mechanics 3 Mechanics Lab 15 50
Structural 2 Structures Lab 10 70
Mechanics
7.2.3.2 Facility Walkthrough
Once the owner groups agree on the work activities, the meeting group performed a
walk through existing spaces. From the walkthrough, Haahtela noted the general use of
the space, the location of equipment in the space, general dimensions and configurations
of the space type. The walkthrough allowed the client operations personnel to reveal day-
to-day user practices. Haahtela probed the operations personnel on the way they
performed their work. Operations personnel were often very keen to reveal their methods
and practices. The empathic approach provided details of spatial behavior and user
actions in the environment.
Often users were working in spaces that had an historical legacy; i.e., spaces and
work practices tend not to be current or moderizationed to support their function.
Operations personnel revealed their wishes as how they might like to perform work in the
future. With this evidence, Haahtela was in a position to build a model of the current
state of client needs based on the workplace planning information.
7.2.4 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
The interviews and walkthroughs served as an important means for Haahtela to
understand the user actions and organizational functions. They served to enforce the
166
planners’ commitment to greater understanding of the problem, and to further revelation
of the complexity of needs. Without this process, the initial state would remain ill-
defined.
Haahtela were selective in information gathering, as enormous amounts of data that
can be gathered regarding the needs of an organization. For example, education facilities
- laboratories in particular revealed a diverse set of workspaces. Consider one user of a
facility space; e.g., a student in a science laboratory. The user carries out a range of
actions to complete a learning procedure. The actions can include the use of multiple
pieces of equipment in various locations within the space or spaces. Details and facts
pertinent to the organization of the space, the teaching methods used, the complexity of
the experiment process etc. can become very detailed and almost impossible to manage
effectively.
Haahtela adopt a higher level of definition for the purposes of the workplace model.
They adopt a generalist approach by getting a sense of how the facility operations and
user activities are performed in a routine. Haahtela get a sense of the existing facility
layout and arrangements of space and equipment. They concentrate on identifying the
space and general activities performed in the space. Details are taken of general spatial
layouts that fit the actions typically performed and size specifications are allocated; e.g.,
floor space allocations. Haahtela note specialist procedures and specialist equipment.
Appreciating “how things got to be that way” is important so as to question the basic
assumptions of the functions. The spatial arrangements typically are adapted over time
and there are numerous examples of how historical legacy has dictated current ones.
167
The case study demonstrates the emphasis Haahtela place on the user-based means to
collect data to support an initial workplace model development. The onus on operations
management and users to define their activities demonstrates a colloborative approach to
the workplace development. The initial appraisal process is quite extensive and time
consuming, but necessary to build up a realistic workplace model for the client
organization. The ability to quantify all activities and spaces for a large scale facility and
organization allows the client to realize the implications of future decision making from a
holistic perpective.
168
7.3 VANTAA POLICE STATION WORKPLACE PLANNING STRATEGY
Vantaa is a metropolitan area of Helsinki. Vantaa police occupy an old existing building
that had been identified as functioning poorly. The building no longer operated
effectively to support the service functions. The building was thought to lack space for
activities. The police organization obtains its real estate services from Senate Properties,
a government owned property developer and owner. Senate Properties develop the
working environment for these public entities.
The police organization operates under the Finnish Ministry of the Interior. Within
the police building are located two ministry offices: prosecution and justice (See Figure
7.2). Interior Affairs and Justice Departments operate within the ministry and in
cooperation with the police. The Ministry of the Interior provides funding for its police
organization in terms of operation and real estate.
Focal User Organization: Vantaa Police Real Estate Services Company
Police Functions Senatta Property Services

Investigation Company (Owner)
Security (Government Owned)
Connected User Organizations

Financial Organizations
Co-located Ministry Functions
Prosecution
Justice Ministry of the Interior
Jurisdictional Governance
Internal Affairs - Enforcement
Registry Division Ministry of Justice

Passport control & Administration Jurisdictional Governance
Figure 7.2 Vantaa Police Station Workplace Planning: Organization and Relationships
169
7.3.2 TRIGGERING ACTIONS FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Vantaa Justice Law courts, Prosecution and the Police service use the same Senate
owned building in Vantaa (Law occupies one area of the facility and the Police occupy
the other side). Currently Senate is renovating the law department. The Police were not
satisfied with the present working environment as there was a lack of space and existing
space performance was regarded as poor. The problem context for Haahtela is centered
on the Police organization primarily.
7.3.3 HAAHTELA BRIEF
Haahtela were contracted to perform a workplace assessment to determine the needs of
the Police organization. As far as Haahtela were concerned their primary client is Senate
Properties, a government owned enterprise responsible for managing and leasing the
property assets of the Finnish State. The property owners were interested in maintaining
their present customers and so were serious about developing an effective workspace
strategy for their clients. The user, Vantaa Police, could find another property owner, but
chose to work with Senate Properties to develop a functional workplace.
The initial strategy proposed by Senate to Haahtela was to consider placing a set of
users in the same building location. The aim was to try to collect all users to same
renovated police building, is possible. This approach was based on the strategy of the
Ministry which wished to locate all services for Vantaa in one location. The planning
process entailed carrying out workplace planning, budgeting, and the development of
common goals among stakeholders and finally for Senate to develop a new real estate
contract with the stakeholders; i.e., user groups.
170
7.3.4 WORKPLACE PLANNING PROCESS
Haahtela carried out an appraisal to identify the current state of stakeholder activities.
Haahtela interviewed the building users (process phases 2-3 in the Haahtela Workspace
Management System) and developed a basic space quantification model. Tables 7.2 and
7.3 summarizes the amount of space required and existing in the facility. By
understanding the existing building, the group determined that 4 000 m2 more space was
required.
Table 7.2 Vantaa Police - Total Net Area Needed
Police 11 600 m2
- order and security, lost property
- emergency
- criminal investigation
- licence services
- prison - justice process & Arrests
Local public prosecutor office 910 m2
Local enforcement office 3560 m2
Local register office 1470 m2
Total 17 540 m2
Car parking Storage
Police cars 70 app. 1850 m2
Police taken cars 5 app. 120 m2
Police lost’n found prop. 610 m2
Enforcement 20 app. 500 m2
Enforcement 1000 m2
Total 2470 m2 1610 m2
Table 7.3 Existing Building Space Profile
Police and prosecutor 9212 m2

Enforcement, personnel 1461 m2
Enforcement, cars and storage 1500 m2
Register 879 m2
Total 13 052 m2
Haahtela also developed a quantification of activities for outside the building which
comprised car spaces (space required: 5500 m2). Haahtela then identified issues
171
associated with the building location. They examined the operations and activities by
developing daily workplace scenarios on how the police perform their work. The primary
constraint issues that emerged were security and work function adjacency. A set of
activities required a ground floor location. In the police building there were about 2500
m2 of space on ground level. It was possible to build another 500m2 on the existing site.
Therefore the activities that require access to ground level could be solved. Haahtela then
looked at locating activities underground and identified a range of activities that do not
require natural lighting. The main site issue was that there was no basement level, but the
organization has activities with performance levels that could work underground. These
activities worked separately and had little reason to be located with other activities. They
need not be placed at ground level or above. The problem prompted Haahtela to search
for options to relocate these activities elsewhere.
7.3.5 STRATEGIC CLIENT MEETING
At a client strategy meeting Haahtela presented results (See Tables 7.2 and 7.3) of the
initial spatial needs model to the client strategy group. The stakeholders present at the
strategy meeting were the Haahtela workplace planners, one a project manager and the
other an architect, a Senate real estate manager, a Senate workplace planner and the
Senate customer service manager.
7.3.5.1 Meeting Dialogues and Resulting Actions
To begin the meeting, Haahtela offered an assessment of the needs and site constraints.
They briefed Senate personnel on the finding that operation & user needs did not match
to present site capacity. They then proposed some strategic possibilities to satisfy the
spatial needs. Haahtela found that “Enforcement Storing” and “Lost & Found” activities
172
were similar in nature. These activities did not relate to the other activities and could be
located elsewhere (Spatial need is 2300 m2). To support the remaining spatial needs,
Haahtela suggested investigating the acquisition of an adjoining site space and
developing a facility there. Once Haahtela presented the results of the initial workspace
model, they requested comments and feedback from the Senate personnel. The primary
workspace issues raised were as follows:
1. Questioning the Governing Variables: Storage at Enforcement.
The real estate manager raised an issue immediately with a query: “Does Enforcement
really need that big a store? My feeling is that there is something wrong.”
Haahtela Project Manager Response: “Do we have a driver for storage, how many
articles? Not yet. Maybe they (Enforcement) want it because they happen to have it now.
So the driver must be checked”.
The model accuracy at this point is not precise. The dialogue example reveals the
engagement by the client with the model. It presses the planners on the validity of the
model. The client is also engaged as to why they operate in this way currently. It triggers
a dialogue about how effectively their current operations are working and why they work
in this way.
2. General Site Planning Strategy.
Real estate manager: “if we want to place every functional program (set of activities) to
same site we need about 6 000…8000 m2 more space. Can it be solved?”
Haahtela Project Manager: “Yes and no. The City planner accepts 7000 m2 and no more.
But if under-ground-level activities should be placed on ground level it is impossible. The
car parking must be solved”.
173
The planner offers knowledge of local regulatory constraints. This instance reflects
awareness by Haahtela of the site limitations. Further study is required to evaluate site
capacity.
3. User commitment to workspace planning model.
Senate workplace planner and the Senate customer service manager.
“Do users agree with workspace planning?
Haahtela Project Manager: “At the activities level and driver level yes. At the working
environment level we do not know yet the user profile of actions. We have not had
feedback meetings with user groups yet”.
This dialogue is a clarification action by the client agents. It is a framing of the problem
based on their interests to understand their customer and their levels of satisfaction. The
query checks the workplace planners on the completeness of their assessment, and
instigates further action with the user groups.
4. Creating Flexible workplaces: example of “Interrogation Hotel”.
Haahtela raises an issue regarding flexible workspace strategy for police work:
“Some of users want private working rooms and interrogation tables inside. Some prefer
teamwork area. My suggestion is teamwork, based on discussions with the HR manager -
the organization is changing and they need flexibility in workspace. Teamwork space fits
to HR need. I have created “interrogation hotel” area where all police interrogations
will be held. If we transfer groups inside building, interrogations will remain in same
place……To make teamwork area more effective, we have included team meeting areas
inside landscape. Other meeting areas are low in resource utilization. By creating 11m2
174
rooms – they are more flexible and more interaction but with less privacy – not less
space”.
In this instance the planner offered a flexible spatial solution to the users. Haahtela
proposed a workplace strategy concept to the group with respect to the “Interrogation
Hotel”. This instance illustrates an evaluation of the problem with a spatial solution. The
user also offers commitment to the proposal of flexible workspace. It reveals a problem
solving approach by which the solution is part of the problem. The solution requires
further testing and verification in the model and commitment by the stakeholders.
5. Utilization Strategy.
Haahtela Project Manager: “I have not measured all utilization degrees yet. I do that
soon”.
Haahtela has made a first pass on the problem without fine tuning and making spaces
very efficient at this point. Typically Haahtela would mention that utilizations can be
improved, but does not push for optimization if there are available resources. Low
utilization does not necessarily mean the activities will be changed to improve efficiency.
It is based on the user values. A case example of a policeman exchanging information
with a new shift policeman demonstrates this issue of low utilization. They use a space
for 1 hour or so. Yet this is a vital activity and is a decision for the user as to assess what
utilization degree is satisfactory.
175
7.3.5.2 Meeting Directives: Next stage Action
Once the client personnel had finished their assessment of the Haahtela presentation, they
initiated a set of “next stage action” items. They voiced the following directives:
1. User Feedback.
The Senate customer service manager requested that: “user feedback meetings have to be
held. The users and Senate must have a common understanding on the working
environment”.
2. Strategies for the Co-location of Users.
The real estate manager suggested investigating two strategies for the facility: ”co-locate
all users in one building or co-locate police and justice in one building. Our first
strategic option is to get all users into same existing building. Police and prosecutor are
co-located together. Justice and police need to be there to collaborate when doing work.
Ministries are more inclined to sanction the project with co-location. If some activities
shall be placed elsewhere, it is acceptable. The second strategic option is to have only
police in this building and solve remaining needs by some other means”.
3. Test Site Constraints and Determine Feasibility.
The real estate manager issued a set of directives to determine the project feasibility:
“Develop a soil survey to determine whether the cellar be built (if ground water level is
high it may be expensive). Produce a sketch/graphic visualization to ensure that
activities really can be placed to site. Haahtela can use their architect. Develop survey of
adjacent sites to determine whether Senate can buy parking space. Establish feedback
meeting with workplaces. Develop new dialogues with users once the state of the system
176
is known after having discussions with ministries. Identify activities that can be placed
somewhere else. Establish project budgeting and develop feedback to ministries”.
The case study reveals how workplace information is perceived from the strategic
perspective of the owner. The information presented by Haahtela was used to further
understand the holistic constraints of the existing facility and site conditions. The owner
strategy personnel were interested in the larger implications what strategic actions are
necessary to develop the facility and user satisfaction. The workplace information
connects with issues such as site capacity and alternative means to locate functional
activities.
177
7.4 CYGNAEUS HIGH SCHOOL JYVÄSKYLÄ
The City of Jyväskylä is located 300km north of Helsinki in Central Finland. It is a
regional city with a population of 250,000 inhabitants. The public entity, the City of
Jyväskylä, is responsible for developing and managing real estate to support its public
customer base in the city. The leader of the “Investments and Maintenance” division of
the Real Estate group oversees the project development process. In this case their
customer is the Cygnaeus High school in Jyväskylä which requires facility changes to
support increased education demands and to improve functionality of the existing
structure.
The client-based project stakeholders broadly consist of the City of Jyväskylä, the
Department of Education, and Cygnaeus High School teaching staff and students. The
city is the ultimate decision maker in terms of sanctioning the project for further
development. The city normally works with the Department of Education and they plan
the city’s education facilities. In education projects, the real estate group first discusses
with the department their needs and then makes preliminary plans. The closest client
representative in this case is the school principal. The preliminary plans go to the board
of education which decides whether to continue development. If deemed suitable, then
the group takes the plan to the city executive. This committee sanctions the project
development. This committee is made up of politicians, who work on a part time basis.
The preliminary plan typically describes the problem context i.e. who is involved;
who the advocates for the project are; what it means for the client; how the city can
finance the investment, maintenance costs, an outline design scheme, and cost estimates
178
for the project development. A decision is then made on whether the project is deemed
viable for further development.
7.4.2 THE CYGNAEUS HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT DEFINITION PROCESS
The early project development process for the high school went through a number of
iterations. Figure 7.3 illustrates the process event timeline for the program development.
Beginning in 1997, a number of architectural programs were developed, but were refused
by the city as being too expensive. In 2003 the Haahtela group was finally brought into
the process when the project reached a stalemate.
The head of Project Managers in the City of Jyvaskyla is responsible for investments
and maintenance of capital projects in the City’s real estate organization. He was
responsible for the overall planning of the Cygnaeus High School Renovation and
Program Extension project. In 1997 the City Real Estate Group began the project
primarily due to a renovation need. The existing building was built in the 1960’s and the
existing school did not support user capacity or perform functionally. The department of
education also initiated a strategic planning study for a central high school. The city
council made a decision to establish a large high school on the present building site based
on their forecasts for education.
The 1st preliminary plan started in 1997. The City originally hired a local
architectural firm to perform programming services for the school. The selected
architectural programmer specialized in renovations, and was commissioned to do the
first programming draft. Regarding the programming process, the architect tried to
”create a problem statement in writing or black and white”. The architect felt it was his
job put the project into context, - ”how big the project may be”. The city wanted a
179
visualization to understand the site. They developed a massing model. The architect
mainly focused on client needs. The school stressed the need for specialist teaching
subjects; e.g., music. They made the plan according to teachers’ direction, as opposed to
the citys’. The city was not as involved, but encouraged testing possibilities. Design
schemes revealed general layout, circulations, where valuable spaces were located, and
what they looked like. They used visualization to get feedback. Their programming
process considered building materials ideas and they provided general knowledge about
construction methods.
The city used cost estimators internally to assess the program. The 1st program was
developed, but was deemed too expensive. This initial program was seen by the city to
waste time and resources. In the end the city refused the program as too expensive. The
city was not involved in the program development on a regular basis. The architect and
the school representatives developed the program together. This program was not used
any further.
A new program development started in 2002. Again technical and size issues
triggered the new program planning. The 2nd version was a continuation of the 1st version
from 1997. The results again were similar to the first program’s in that the project scope
exceeded available resources. A 3rd version of the program was developed with little
change from the previous version. Based on experience, the project coordinator found the
new programs too expensive. Once the architect established a square footage, he guessed
from the size that they could not support the project financially. The project was again
put on hold. At this stage, when the process ended in stalemate, the city employed
Haahtela to redevelop the program for the school.
180
1997 2002 2003 Project Definition Timeline
Strategic Strategic
Education Education
Planning Program Planning Program 2 Project Program
rejected rejected Stalemate Approval
City Governance
Haahtela
Worklace Planning
Operational Operational System Employed
Needs Needs
Project
School Representatives
Target
Setting &
Workspace
Consensus
Program Program 2 Program 3 Planning
Developed developed redeveloped Orginial Programmer Workshops
had observation status -
Architectural Programmer only at this stage Consensus
By
Operations
& Users
Program
developed
Haahtela Workspace Planners
Figure 7.3 Cygnaeus High School Project Event Timeline
181
7.4.3 EMPLOYING THE HAAHTELA WORKSPACE PLANNING PROCESS
The city real estate group already used the Haahtela cost management programs in their
project development services. They met with Haahtela and then decided to make a test
case to use the workplace management system for this project, as it was the biggest
investment project for the school system and it badly needed resolution.
7.4.3.1 Information Gathering
Once the services of the Haahtela were requested by the city, the Haahtela group began to
implement their process. The first stage was to gather existing information as defined in
Table 7.4. Haahtela used this existing information to build their initial workplace models.
The Haahtela team initiated a set of communications based on the initial information with
the teaching staff at the school. The focus of discussion was on the activities of the
facility space.
Table 7.4 Cygnaeus High School Appraisal Study Information
Workspace Planning Information acquired by Haahtela

Program 20.11.2002 Program 7.1.2003 Data for Haahtela
- done by teachers and - done by teachers and workplace planning
architect architect - previous programs
- ”wish” 6763 m2 usable - ”wish” 6734 m2 usable - 650 pupils (from
area area Jyväskylä city)
- with plant rooms, - with plant rooms, - courses (from
corridors etc. about 8 corridors etc. about 8 headmaster)
2 2
150 net m 150 net m - teachers vision of
- included 3 possible “high school without
design solutions permanent classes”
- survey of the technical
condition of building
- the rooms and their
sizes in existing
building (from city)
- Courses of adult high
school.
182
The discussions provided Haahtela with new information to develop their workplace
model. There were a lot of comments by the teachers concerning almost every specialised
classroom. The importance of specialised subjects was raised. For example, the principal
informed Haahtela that Cygnaeus High School emphasized the importance of music-
teaching in their teaching curriculum. In the first calculation only one music-teaching
area was deemed necessary with maximum utilization. The principal wanted more
flexibility and lower utilization. Therefore a second music space was allocated.
Haahtela then presented their space model to the users at the high school at an
Operations and User Workshop in Jyväskylä. A set of new issues was raised based on the
feedback from the presentation. For example, the vice-principal informed Haahtela that
the initial workplace model did not take into account the teacher’s desire to use several
classrooms at the same time. The teachers would like to have lessons in one classroom
for a half an hour and then split pupils for rest of the hour in 2 classes. So the teachers
would need two classrooms for one group. Haahtela suggested that they could take it in
account only by using a lower utilisation degree. The principal acknowledged that this
request led to lower utilisation. At this point there was an initial agreement on the space
program needs.
7.4.3.2 Strategic Project Meeting
Once Haahtela had consensus on the state of user needs, they were in a position to
approach strategic stakeholders with new information at a strategic client meeting in
Jyväskylä city. This meeting included the school principal, the vice-principal, the city
management of real estate, the city management of schools and the Haahtela team. At this
meeting the principal said that workplace planning program was acceptable with minor
183
corrections and they, the teachers accepted it. They said they would prefer program
version 3 that had a great spatial area of 6926 net m2. The city management had Haahtela
make a suggestion on how the school program could be reduced further without losing
functions and activities. Haahtela had prepared a program version 3.1 (space size: 6089
net m2) prior to the meeting.
The city proposed a target cost that would make the project feasible for further
development. Through the use of the workplace information, they had a dialogue on
different approaches to make the project work financially. After much discussion the city
and school agreed. The group negotiated a target between versions 3 and 3.1. This
decision to create a target allowed the project to progress. The city left it to Haahtela to
work with the school groups to make the necessary spatial changes without loosing user
functions. Haahtela agreed to work with the school operation stakeholders to establish a
revised program based on this agreed target.
7.4.4 FINAL OPERATIONS WORKSHOP
Haahtela arranged a final workshop with the teaching group leaders to make the
necessary changes to the workplace. This meeting included the school principal, the vice-
principal, the principal of the adult education, and the Haahtela Workplace Planners. In
this meeting the group had a clear target; i.e., a mean value target of program versions 3
and 3.1 which meant achieving 6508 m2 net area of program space. The city management
had agreed that the school operations make decisions to achieve the target. In this
meeting Haahtela had to allocate spatial resources to the user activities. The group had a
set of discussions during the day to seek means of reducing the program space demand.
184
Haahtela began the workshop by examining spaces with low utilization. They initiated a
dialogue about an auditorium space for 217 students (273 m2 in version 3.1). Haahtela
recognized that the need for an auditorium for education is low (2 % utilization) and in
return it uses a lot of resources. The principal responded by saying that he wanted to use
the facility space for large groups undertaking final examinations before graduation.
Smaller groups need too many teachers for supervision which then disturbs education
operations during the exam period. Examinations use few temporal and a lot of spatial
resources. Equally there is a high priority for this need; i.e., to perform student
examinations. Then an architect on the Haahtela team informed the group that he had
experience with flexible classroom design in another school facility1. In his experience,
that facility invested in portable walls with good sound insulation and it enabled the
school to create one big area from three 80 m2 classrooms on such occasions of need. The
idea of specifying adaptable classrooms was accepted.
The discussion continued on to discuss computer labs. The teachers described that a
lot of education occurs in computer teaching areas. The wish was to enable computer
work and normal class work with manuals, writing etc. to occur at the same time. The
vice- principal said that in future they would use laptops, which are more portable and
that normal classrooms should do also for internet work. This conversation created the
option to relocate temporal load from computer areas to normal lecture areas.
The Haahtela group then noted that the school had two big music workplace areas
with rather low utilizations (2 x 45 pupils (250 m2), 37 % + 37 % utilization degrees).
1
Here is an example of innovation on the part of Haahtela team. It created a scenario by which the need for
such a space can be verified into a feasible requirement. It demonstrated feasibility that the requirement can
be achieved in an alternative and cost effective way as opposed to providing a large and expensive
auditorium space.
185
Haahtela enquired whether it would be possible to manage with one area but
acknowledged utilization would be rather high (74%). The principal said that the school
speciality was to provide good music education, and he would prefer low use space
giving high flexibility to change.
The conversation then focused on the teachers workplaces. The vice-principal said
that all teachers wanted to have their own workplaces. Haahtela said that it would lead to
an even bigger net area. The principal responded by allowing a reduced teacher
workspace. Haahtela asked whether the teacher’s work area could function like a
computer classroom. The principal agreed. This conversation again illustrated a balance
between what was requested and what could be achieved.
Haahtela then moved the group discussion to the issue of supporting activities in the
school. They focused on the dining operations. They found that the school could remove
the kitchen operations and operate with a food distribution space only. The city
representatives and principal had earlier discussed bringing food from a city-run central
kitchen. A catering expert from the city was asked to the meeting. Together members of
the group defined a restaurant environment. They made new changes to the operation of
food preparation by planning for a distribution kitchen, and not a preparation kitchen;
serving of food could use line distribution only. A smaller eating area was regarded as
adequate for the users.
Once the first iteration was completed midway through the workshop, the principal
recapped their decisions and Haahtela transferred the measurement data to the Web-based
Workspace Planning system and then printed the results for review with the
representatives. The workplace plan was named Version. 4.
186
This workshop session produced a set of decisions. The following changes to core
teaching and learning activities were agreed upon at this stage: the need for the
auditorium was replaced with flexible spaces; the Music education areas were planned for
smaller groups; half of the biology education hours originally planned in the biology area
were transferred to a normal lecturing space; half of the education hours originally
planned in the computer areas were transferred to a normal lecturing area. The rationale
was that in 5 years the school could provide certain classrooms with wireless internet
technology.
The following changes to supporting and other operational activities were agreed
upon at this stage. One tutor would have to be added to the education staff to support
operations. Shelf storage was reduced to 10 m/teacher. The kitchen was planned for “line
distribution” capability and a smaller eating area. The adult high school original plan for
a children’s playroom (for 24 children) was reduced to accommodate 12 children. Finally
a shower/dressing area for teachers was planned.
Haahtela then made a new workplace planning calculation (version 4)2. The emergent
result was that the new net area was 6104 net m2. The result was closer to version 3.1 and
the group found that approximately 400 m2 could be added to the program to achieve the
negotiated target. Haahtela initiated a new set of dialogues to allocate new space. After
further discussion the group and the principal made new decisions3. Examination areas
were needed in the natural science education areas. Stores for student instruments were
added to the music area. Two normal classrooms were planned to support larger groups
2
Based on the group dialogues, the planner does not know the exact state of the new program. The
correlation between the magnitude of the decision and the timing of calculation is intuitive to the planner.
3
A new set of decisions are revealed in this dialogue. They do not correlate with earlier priorities and
perhaps reflects of the dynamic nature of groups and how the priority of the problem changes over the
course of the workshop.
187
and to add flexibility (32 pupils >>40). The vice-principal’s room was planned to have a
meeting area for 4 persons. A waiting area close to teachers, tutors and administration
was planned for students.
The group dialogues stopped as the group ran out of work time. Haahtela re-
calculated the model and established version 4.1. The net area was 6 272 m2. The group
could still add 236 m2. The principal sent e-mail correspondence to Haahtela requesting
the enlargement of normal lecturing rooms. The Haahtela team then finalized the
workplace planning (version 4.2)4.
7.4.5.1 The Original Program Planning Process
It was the experience of the city coordinator that architects have little control over budget
and client wishes. Typically the real estate group can only say that things are too
expensive and that they cannot find a means to judge one need over the other. They
recognize that they lack methods to decide rationally what needs should be included in
the program. The head of project management felt that the main problem was that
typically a client has too many “wishes”. The real estate group ”ends up being the
policeman”, trying to maximum the benefits of the available resources.
At this stage they often find themsleves at the mercy of the users and the architects.
The real estate group finds that when clients and architects work together, ”clients fall
love with their solution, and it is difficult to change their existing solution”. Architects
normally do not critique needs, and often lack knowledge on costs. The city coordinator
feels that architects lack the ability to tell clients that their demands are infeasible.
4
The research does not follow this process beyond at this point.
188
The architects did not see themselves as those responsible for establishing project needs.
They were expected to contribute to dialogues, but not be the primary needs developers.
They felt that they were to be aware of needs. The main architect personnally feels
sensitive about probing into client’s business processes. In general the architect prefers to
concentrate on design, as he thinks client briefing can be an awkward process. Traditional
programming does not control choice. The architect has difficulty making clients decide.
Sometimes the architect himself is in a decision role to make organizational decisions.
The archiect prefers working with more empowered clients that are capable of making
their own decisions.
The school principal felt the whole process in 1997 was traditional in terms of how
school adminstration thought about space and the activities going on within the spaces.
The school did not think deeply about how teaching was going to change. Teaching
methods had not changed very much over the past 100 years. The initial project planning
in 1997 lacked a vision from a student learning perspective. It was just a renovation
project of an existing building. The old school vision was part of the original program. It
had a negative feeling for teachers. The city initially wanted to go with the original plan,
but the teachers developed a new vision for the school. They always felt that they had a
strong vision of what is needed.
The new programming process in 2002 began to challenge the school staff as to how
they need to change for the future. The main idea or vision was that learning is not soley
happening in the class room. There needed to be different learning environments, and
more self-empowerment for students. The main change was to allow students to get
189
information easily. The teaching role would be changing also, and now more related with
mentoring and overseeing.
The idea to decentralize teaching and create a diverse education was the essence of
the new vision. This included a variety of new ideas. It would be a new learning
environment, but not in the traditional sense of a school facility. It envisoned students
spending their spare time in the facility. This created the initiative to create a vision for
education in next century. The school thought also about making the facility as a evening
adult education center. The school wanted to revive the local area which currently lacked
social activity. They sought to rejuvenate the area as a safe place.
The school had the challenge of how to tell the city what a plan for a future school
should be. The vision statement helped communicate that vision to the city. With respect
to the program, they were told by the city that a brand new school would be impossible to
develop. They then had to work within the constraints of the old school being renovated
and a building extension concept being developed.
The principal saw himself a driver for change. He mainly described himself as an
information sharer with the city, his teachers, and the department of education. While he
wanted the best for the school, he also had to think as a wider member of the
development team. The school found the city not to be very collaborative. The school felt
threatened by the city’s large scale plans to assess education across different levels. He
felt those in the city did not understand the role of the school. The city felt the school’s
vision looked too far into the future, whereas the principal saw the city department
looking too much back at history and what traditional education was. Yet he felt that he
had to balance the needs of the school with those needs in the city administration.
190
The principal felt that very few architects have a vision for teaching environments. They
did get understanding from the architect, who saw himself as a parent of students. Yet it
was difficult for the group to articulate the foreseeable changes in the present education
system. They felt the architect could have developed more plans and have taken a
stronger role in the process. Once the process again reached a stalemate, the city decided
to bring in Haahtela to see how they could proceed. This became the 3rd time now that the
school staff ended up going through this programming process. The staff were beginning
to feel tired of the process.
7.4.5.2 The Haahtela Workplace Planning Process
The motivating idea for the city real estate group was to get the project close to a
workable budget for further development. It was evident that the project management
group lacked methods to communicate effectively with the user groups and designers.
Their experience typifies common issues associated with dysfunctional project definition
organizations.
The city project manager felt that the Haahtela system was an effective management
tool. The manager did acknowledge that he did not know how the tool actually operates,
but from initial results, the tools have gained his trust. The Haahtela methodology acted
as a means to communicate with other project participants. The reliability of the project is
increased because ”the client can request everything in this world”, but now they feel that
they can trace the origin of the need and resolve it.
The architect felt that there was value in the Haahtela management system. Haahtela
has more control and can hold the client accountable. He made the point that it is difficult
to tell clients that they cannot have what they want. He remarked that: ”the ball is now
191
put in the client’s court”. Previously we (the architects) lacked a steering mechanism that
Haahtela now provides”. The architects felt their job becomes easier as they “can start
from here” (the program statement) once preliminary discussions are over. Balancing cost
with a good design solution is the potential benefit this management system provides.
The architects did not feel the program statement was constraining, but noted that the
space program cannot work in isolation to the site issues. Overall they felt that the project
was going the right direction, and that issues regarding the existing structure were
identified and constraints were established. The architects would like to be included in
the discussions regarding the site and existing facility. Should the future design
development contradict the final program statement, then the architects would feel it
necessary to voice the issues. If they get new value generating ideas, they will offer it to
the group, explore new special ideas, and perhaps generate new value.
Overall the school management felt that the process was effective. They felt that
Haahtela took more control of the process. Haahtela’s direct focus on the student as a
needs driver was a positive issue, an aspect on which they previously lacked explicit
focus. This issue is notable as teachers who serve students, lacked an operational focus
for the student and normally approached the problem from their teaching perspective.
When Haahtela came in, they asked questions who, when, where, how and
what. We found that it was good to formalize the needs of the students and
teachers by this process. We (the staff) were surprised by the initial results
from the program model and how the spaces were being used.
Articulating the vision and putting it into operation was difficult for the school staff. The
principal would have preferred to work visually and at times all these numbers were
difficult to work with and base decisions on. The vice principal felt that school groups
had initial difficulties to get Haahtela to understand them and they to understand the
192
Haahtela working language. They felt that perhaps Haahtela could articulate their system
better. They found terms difficult to understand at first. They also needed more time to
make Haahtela understand their special needs. Sometimes they felt it would be good to
visualize the hard values, through the use of design concepts. They found that a briefing
or learning session on the process would have been beneficial.
At the end of the workplace planning process, the teachers felt that the city and other
stakeholders had a good understanding of their needs. ”Everybody sees something they
need in the program and the city looks for costs. The city now has a rationale to work
with”. As an education group they themselves began to understand that their needs have
to combine themselves with money into a program.
The school management felt that overall cooperation in the process had not been great
between stakeholders. This was their third time going through the programming process.
Haahtela were brought in by the city and somewhat forced upon the teachers at a late
stage. The principal felt that the department of education also lacked knowledge about the
processes of construction. He felt he had to carry the burden of these issues. The principal
also felt he lacked time to make decisions. Normally between teaching and managing the
school, he had little time to make planning decisions. That is why the concentrated
planning sessions by Haahtela were really good. He felt that there was a need for Facility
Management for Education schools. The school district have now formed a group to offer
advice on this area in the future, so there are some positive organizational changes
occurring.
193
7.4.6 KEY FEATURES OF THE CASE STUDY
This case study reveals how, an earlier, traditional architectural programming process
failed to create a feasible program solution for project development. That process lacked
explicit methods to measure the performance of the workspace and associated costs.
The overall project management by the city is thought to have been fragmented and
there was an increasing need to have Haahtela act as a facilitator. The ability for the city
and the user to work within the Haahtela system reveals a collaborative capability on the
part of Haahtela. The planning dialogues reveal how the planner engaged with the school
stakeholders to make collective decisions on core education functions and supporting
operations functions. Innovative outcomes occurred with respect to operational changes
in the organization’s functions and activities.
194
7.5 ARCADA POLYTECHNIC HELSINKI
Arcada is a Swedish speaking education institution in Finland. It serves the needs of the
Swedish speaking community particularly in the Helsinki metropolitan area. The main
strategy for Arcada was to create a centralized campus area which would create a
cohesive identity for the Swedish education community. Prior to 2000, their real estate
stock was distributed over Helsinki.
The Arcada Strategic body is a board which comprises a collection of notable persons
in the Helsinki business community. This is a voluntary board that promotes the interests
of the Swedish speaking community in Helsinki. This body was tasked with developing a
central campus for the Arcada Polytechnic. Other stakeholders associated with the body
included the Swedish literature institution, the Swedish education friends and the
Swedish cultural association.
Arcada Polytechnic specializes in the education of Swedish speaking communities in
technical, business and health education sectors. The President of Arcada who leads the
academic organization was the initial client leader in the project development process. He
led the project development as main client sponsor in the early period. Later in the
development process in 2002 the role of real estate development and management was re-
assigned to another individual who assumed these responsibilities.
7.5.2 THE HAAHTELA PROCESS
Haahtela workplace planning started at in late 2000. At that time the project group did not
know where the Arcada campus site would be located. There were two sites in contention
at Espoo (a city region in the Helsinki area) or in Helsinki. The sites were under
195
negotiation at this time. In late 2000 Haahtela produced Version 1 of a workplace
planning model that required a 14100 m2 usable area for the Arcada Campus. Prior to this
stage Haahtela interviewed the people in the relevant sectors that included: technical
teaching, health and social work and business education.
Haahtela provided a set of observations to the Arcada Board. They reported that the
technical lab utilizations were good overall, although they found some labs in the
technical education sector were very expensive; e.g., a TV-studio (530 m2) and two sound
labs (each 100 m2). This combination of space was a 3 story high structure with high
performance demands in lighting, sound insulation, control, and logistics access. The
Health sector labs were deemed to be in poor utilization as shown in Table 7.5.
Table 7.5 Arcada Activity (select) Utilization Results
- anatomy and physiology, 60 m2 5%

- music 70 m2 24 %
- drama 70 m2 23 %
- clinical treatment 260 m2 20 %
- exercising 60 m2 4%
- clinical treatment 40 m2 22 %
- polyclinic treatment 50 m2 8%
- maternity ward classroom 24 m2 15 %
- gymnasium 300 m2 6%
7.5.3 STRATEGIC CLIENT MEETING
Haahtela then met with the Arcada Board to make suggestions to lower building costs.
The usable area was then 14100 m2, and estimated building costs were 245 million FM
(Finnish Marks). The board informed Haahtela that the building costs should not exceed
200 million Finnish marks including the cost of the car parking facility. That meant that
the usable area should not exceed 11 000 m2 which corresponded to a 22 % reduction in
spatial area for the project. Haahtela made proposals to reduce the space demand by:
196
increasing space utilization, reducing the value of the organizational function drivers; and
removing functions or activities from the Arcada project.
7.5.4 IMPLEMENTING OPERATIONAL CHANGES
Based on these strategies a range of operational changes occurred. A new goal of 75 %
space utilization between 8 to 18hours (7.5 h/day) was set to increase utilization. The
former goal was for maximum utilization at 75 % between 8 to 16hours (6 h/day). By
increasing the facility operations time, the time strains by functions are accommodated.
The group specified spatial changes to courses such as Anatomy, Physiology and Music,
which were reset in normal lecture rooms. To support specialized education classes and
equipment, the group specified anatomy and physiology stores, and music stores nearby.
The space definition was thereby changed.
Healthcare education areas (ward-type) were combined (beds, workbenches, water
and supplies). These include Clinical treatment, Polyclinic treatment and Maternity ward
classrooms. The room size, (75 m2, 4 beds, storing capacity, and workbenches) were
adequate. The clinical treatment space was enlarged and gymnasium activities were
combined in that space. These changes were the result of a collaborative user-planner
effort in effect to define this environment.
In order to reduce the functional drivers, library volumes were reduced, teacher’s cafe
breaks were reduced, and student lockers were halved in size. In order to remove
activities from Arcada, the TV-studio work space was omitted. An external search by the
project team located a TV-studio close by in a university of art and design and Arcada
created a facility sharing agreement with them. A smaller multimedia studio was
specified in Arcada.
197
In the meantime, stakeholders identified new activities to include in the workplace
program. Stakeholder groups in the Arcada community felt they needed a forum for
larger community events. The idea did not come directly from the Haahtela process, but
from ongoing conversations in the community. Based on initial discussions among the
Arcada board and the president, the idea for an auditorium became important. A 300
person auditorium was finally included in the program. The Swedish speaking
community in Finland regard themselves as the “duck pond” or, as we understand it, as a
close social network. The Arcada board group normally negotiate financial concerns with
other groups. The real estate board loans money and then develops rental prices to get
returns for loan payback. The government also funds students in the Polytechnic.
The final result was that a 10 900 m2 usable area was required and the space program
was estimated to be within the target budget. Unresolved needs at this time were that the
operative managers would like to have a therapy pool and sacral room. These spaces
could not be added if Arcada wanted to maintain budget at this time.
7.5.5 EMERGING GROUP EVENTS
In mid 2001 Haahtela received a communication from the President of Arcada requesting
that program costs should be reduced further. The Arcada board could not get income and
expenses in balance. The president suggested operational changes, specifically that the
student’s club be removed. The function should be financed otherwise and built
somewhere else. Also he requested that the Teacher’s working places be placed in a
landscape configuration. The teachers did request their own workplace and did not like
workplaces in the landscape solution. They felt that students come and go disturbing the
workplace. Haahtela suggested the creation of meeting rooms near the landscape sector to
198
support teacher/student interaction. It was finally accepted. Finally half of the language
teaching time was removed from language labs to normal lecturing.
In the meantime, the heath sector managers contacted Haahtela regarding the
planning process developments. They were nervous because they did not get up to date
information from the president, and felt a lack of transparency in the process. The
President was having difficulties with the project direction. In particular he had to want
lower building costs and he wanted desperately that the Helsinki site be chosen. Helsinki
was very important to him as a site. It was seen as a vital image to portray for Arcada that
it was located in the Finnish capital. There was a conflict on the site location as Technical
sectors wanted to be in Espoo close to IT industries and Health sectors wanted to be in
Helsinki close to Health industries. The Helsinki site was also more expensive to build.
Along with the site decision, the president had to balance the needs of the working
environment. He did not maintain leadership with Haahtela, the operative managers and
the board. At this time Haahtela took a facilitative leadership role to regain confidence in
the process with the operations groups. The President was relieved of the project
pressures when a new Real Estate Manager was nominated by the Board to concentrate
on the development of the Arcada Campus. This new role assumed the president’s place
between the board and the operations managers. The President went back to
concentrating on managing education. The project architect was a well-known and
respected member of the Swedish speaking community. While he did not do design work
at that early stage, he was in close contact with the president regarding project issues. He
also influenced many decisions in these preliminary stages. He acted as a close and stable
member of the Swedish community and had the confidence of the stakeholder groups.
199
7.5.6 MILESTONE DECISIONS
At the beginning of 2001, the Board accepted version 5d of the workplace program. The
space required was 11 020 usable m2 and 14 560 net m2. Version 5d was mostly in
accordance with the program changes made earlier in the process. This program was
accepted which signalled the start of architectural design. The project architect was
selected at this time. Haahtela was chosen to be project manager during design and
construction. The building cost of 44 million euros was accepted (building costs,
furniture and machines, the site cost, and financing costs). Finally the Helsinki site was
chosen.
7.5.7 FACILITATING OUTSTANDING PROGRAM NEEDS
The health operative managers had requested therapy pool activities but did not get these
functions in the final program. There was a distributed ongoing group discussion within
the Arcada community about how to incorporate these needs. The group located an
organization willing to collaborate with Arcada on this issue. The Folkhälsan institute (a
senior citizens services organization) informed the project group that they were ready to
invest in the therapy pool activities in Arcada if they could use it also in their services.
This group provide senior citizen services; e.g., living communities and services.
Haahtela was asked to verify whether this new activity; i.e., the therapy pool activity,
could be added into the Arcada program even though design activity was ongoing.
Haahtela contacted the Folkhälsan Therapy operative manager and started workplace
planning. It took 3 versions of planning. The final version was 385 net m2 and 1,200 000
euros. The project was accepted in Folkhälsan.
200
Haahtela informed the Arcada board of the state of therapy activities that included: pool
activities, clothes changing, sauna, refreshment area and an office space. The supporting
activities were removed leaving only core activities. The teaching classes were to have
access to these facilities in education and practical training. Incorporating the new
function increased the Arcada building costs less than 1 million euros, but car parking
space was replaced by therapy activities. The board agreed to the loss of parking. Once
feasibility was established, the Board demanded commitment from Folkhälsan to support
the Therapy operations. In the commitment Folkhälsan promised to pay rent.
In the meantime the design team had run out of time to wait on the business
developments. If the commitment would not come true, the group would go on with the
present design situation. Eventually Folkhälsan committed to the business development
and the Board accepted the therapy activities into the Arcada program. Haahtela
introduced a new budget at the next meeting. The Board accepted the new budget in
which the therapy activities raised the budget by 740 000 euros. Once the design concept
was completed, Haahtela confirmed that the design solution was within the allocated
budget.
7.5.8.1 Viewpoints of the Arcada Real Estate Manager
The Arcada Real Estate Company was established to develop this campus area and is not
typical of a professional real estate company. Their mission was to provide education
facilities supportive of the Arcada education community. The group realize that they do
not always know what they want to build and so understanding the ultimate user is a
201
primary issue. They were not profiting on the Arcada campus project and typically the
return on investment is not large for the company projects.
The real estate manager felt that the Haahtela Planning system helped to build trust
through the constant dialogues. Constant reference to the Haahtela information supported
reliable decision making. In the real estate manager’s position, once a budget is set, he
feels more in control of the process. If the architect works solely with the client, project
needs can often expand beyond available resources. The manager feels that ”the
architectural process is very creative in one way but there needs to be a balance between
control and creativity”. Once the group dialogues about values are over, the real estate
manager needs hard figures to understand how the solutions can work. Otherwise the
board would not sanction the project idea. Currently the Arcada project is on time and
within budget and this reflects well for the Haahtela workplace planning system.
The real estate manager felt that the workplace planner facilitating the tools was quite
important. A risk in the Haahtela system is that people should not copy present activities
into future building programs. There is a risk that groups may simply copy what they do
today. The real estate manager thinks that there is an enormous potential to create
changes at the outset of a project and needs should always be questioned and challenged
through the course of project definition.
For a complex project with many stakeholders, each with their own decision
processes, it is vital to have a transparent system. The client leadership demands that the
budget is followed, but then the operations have many needs. Ideally client operations,
client leadership, the designer and Haahtela are all important to have in the group forum.
The real estate manager ideally likes to see that a price tag can be placed on the creative
202
ideas. He equally concerns himself with the needs of the users. He typically supports
creative ideas and realizes the opportunity in the value to build something new, but
always needs to see the economical consequences. He is interested in the flexibility in the
construction they build. Building a facility is a historical event in his view.
The demands on the Haahtela management system are high as the workplace planner
needs prior knowledge of client business practice or services. In certain instances, the real
estate manager would like more examples of new trends or benchmarks in the industry.
There are demands on his role to know how tomorrow’s world will need new systems.
Haahtela may have better value if they specialize on certain clients or have capacity to
access specialist knowledge about the client. Haahtela may benefit by developing clusters
of specialists or experts that can help benchmark developing trends. In education,
pedagogy is changing and education technology is changing. Facilities and spaces tend to
limit change. Changes are now very dramatic and specialist knowledge is vital to have
regarding the workplace and knowledge worker.
7.5.8.2 Facilitation of Innovation
The Therapy centre case was an innovative opportunity in the Arcada project. If the
Arcada board considered the therapy functions on costs alone, they would not have
incorporated the idea into the project. In the case of the Therapy Pool, the managing
director of Folkhälsan and the president of Arcada, who were stakeholders in the real
estate company, discussed the ideas. While it was sidelined initially, at a late stage they
decided to work on the idea. They looked at how Arcada would benefit and also how the
Therapy pool client would benefit. It brought one more value that the building would not
203
normally have. There was an economic risk as to how the well the facility would
perform.
A second case was elementary school education and the combination of child care on
the campus. The day care centre was also a new idea which helps support the campus.
The elementary school facility serves the campus working community, and there are
demands for integrating education with child care. The kindergarten was an example of
teaching and sharing of resources. With the case of the Kindergarten, Folkhälsan are the
service producers and sell to the municipality of Helsinki, who were an important interest
group. Typically there is little sharing of tax resources in private developments by the
city, and they needed to see where the costs originated. The transparency of the Haahtela
information was necessary in satisfying the supply chain of end beneficiaries.
Another innovative case was the Automotive Teaching facility. The Practicum
vocational campus was an adjoining facility to Arcada and also in the planning stages.
Both facilities share resources. In Practicum there was a very thorough project definition
process with leaders and teachers involved. A large vision statement was developed
within the program. They described needs and often out organizational visions were
changed based on our views of the space needs. Practicum was a new organization and
there was a great effort to establish a meaningful vision for the project. There was a large
effort to understand needs.
An innovation occurred in the practicum case in the area of automotive education.
Automotive Teaching was thought not be a cost effective solution initially. A vehicle
repair centre was deemed too expensive to build given its size and location on a site in
poor ground condition. Building a garage was not a cost effective solution. The centre
204
was thought to be dropped from the campus area. Due to a lack of time, the centre was
not included in the main building.
The initial premise was to have students educated in automotive repair centres outside
the campus. The downside was that when recruiting students, they would not appreciate
the issue of travelling outside the campus for practical training. The distribution of
education facilities meant little cohesion in the education system and so travelling was an
issue.
The Real Estate staff came up with an idea to see whether an automotive company,
Bile, could come on board. Bile is a car repair company that specializes in Swedish
manufactured cars and there was an initial search to collaborate with this company on the
development of the education centre. Bile eventually came into the development by
renting space in the centre and issuing normal business services. Bile became interested
and the project feasibility numbers were required from Haahtela. There is sharing of
teaching space and the business service area. Bile agreed to take students into their
operations in training schemes. Bile agreed to pay rent for their space for 5 years,
Practicum to pay for 10 years. Practicum contracted a cost effective rent price. Bile also
sponsored equipment for the centre. The real estate manager felt that the sharing of
resources would be beneficial to both.
In the future, a shortage of labour is expected in automotive repairs and Bile felt that
a close connection with education was necessary. Bile sees them as having a contact with
talented students. The risks to education would be that Bile would not bias the education
system with their training methods. There is also change occurring with the teaching
205
methods. Teachers now have to go out to industry to renew their skills. So to have Bile as
a close neighbour will allow teachers to be aware of new trends occurring in the industry.
7.5.8.3 Viewpoints of the Arcada & Practicum Architect
The architect has worked in partnership with the Haahtela group on a number of projects
over the past 15 years. He felt that the most important thing in projects is that the
architect is the main planner and must understand the project in its entirety. The architect
sees the Haahtela group as engineers that quantify items. He trusts the resulting
information and that it is reliable. Haahtela are an excellent partner to do checks on the
design. The Haahtela system gives the designer faster access to the problem definition.
The system defines needs and budget constraints. He remarked:
In architectural practice there is an element of artistic skill which merges

with technical and management knowledge. For the project architect,
Haahtela is an excellent co-driver. The need for a common language is
based on common purpose. There is absolute transparency in the Haahtela
process. They do not use information against us. They are engineers and
know their roles. They never control the process, but steer. They are
excellent in that they define the problem, but they ask the architect to
solve it. Some companies say designs are over budget and then lack
transparency in the details.
In Arcada, Haahtela and the project architect were involved in the initial negotiations. He
perceived Haahtela as the developers of technical specifications primarily. The architect
developed his own knowledge on the project based on a set of architectural questions and
then began to form a physical concept based on the client’s needs. The discussion
between the architect and the Swedish community has been quite close for this project.
The architect interviewed all the stakeholders that Haahtela interviewed. They did not
work together as he feels they ask different questions. The Haahtela planning system may
not define certain limitations on space and so the spatial layout concepts require further
analysis by the architect.
206
The architect felt that if he does not understand the client’s needs by himself then he
cannot understand what Haahtela have developed. He felt that the architect and Haahtela
look for different kinds of client information. He perceived that the Haahtela model is
based primarily on hard values. It is a basic ground or platform for the designer to play
on, but as the main designer of the building, he feels he needs to understand the feelings
and soft values of the client. The architect also participates in client sessions with
business innovations. He likes tight contact with the client and does not mind creating a
facility for new functions where possible. Regarding business innovations affecting the
design, he regularly facilitates this for clients.
He normally does not like management making changes on designs, especially when
they do not have any capability to solve the problems. The good project managers
manage problems, and focus on groups; they keep the goals and facts clean. He remarked
that:
The difference is that many project managers want to be between the

designer and the client. The information can be modified on occasion.
Haahtela do not filter and change the information.
The architect felt that a key function of Haahtela is to determine where the cost overrun
originates in the design solution and point it out to the architect in a timely manner. If he
gets feedback from Haahtela that the design is 15% over budget, then he quickly can
iterate on the design. It is much easier to make design decisions based on the allocated
budget.
207
This case study reveals the limited available resources for project development, and the
importance of workplace performance measurement to identify alternative needs
definitions. The case reveals the capability of the management system to facilitate
multiple dialogues with diverse stakeholders over the course of project development.
While the Haahtela system may not pro-actively develop innovative solutions, it does
contribute to the distributed dialogues ongoing in the project stakeholder network. The
Bile case instance reveals how the workplace information acted as a catalyst for the client
to rethink their education policy and to create alternative client solutions. The ability to
provide information early in the process provides the users of that information to take
action and generate new solutions to resolve their issues. The case provides evidence of
stakeholder satisfaction on the use of the management system.
208
7.6 SYNAPSIA REHABILITATION CENTRE
This Synapsia project is run by the Käpylä Rehabilitation Centre which in turn is owned
by Invalidiliitto ry, the Finnish Association of People with Mobility Disabilities.
Invalidiliitto ry is the strategic body governing for the project. The Invalidiliitto
organization has 40000 members. The Synapsia rehabilitation centre is intended to act as
a national, special rehabilitation centre for people with spinal cord injuries, traumatic or
other kinds of brain injuries, stroke or polio.
The centre’s services include tailored residential rehabilitation periods, rehabilitation
courses and programmes, assessment of rehabilitation possibilities and out-patient
services. The members of the rehabilitation team develop and do research on
rehabilitation methods and take part in scientific inquiry in different areas of medical,
social and vocational rehabilitation. The rehabilitation centre arranges training seminars
for personnel working in health care, social work and rehabilitation. International co-
operation is also part of the rehabilitation program.
The main strategic group is the Board of Invalidiliitto. The operational group consists
of managers of operational bodies (speech therapy, physiotherapy, ward chiefs etc.) This
group also included a number of actual patients participating in the workplace planning.
A number of auxiliary co-operative bodies were involved in the project including: RAY,
a Finnish lottery association, who provided about 50% of funding, Neuro, neurological
research centre, a neighbouring facility project under development who ultimately
collaborated to share mutual services, and Helsingin lääkärikeskus Oy, a private
enterprise that provides magnetic photo-tomography services to the medical industry.
209
7.6.2 THE HAAHTELA PROCESS
Originally there were two major plans developed before a third and final project plan.
The original planning occurred in the late 1980s. The second plan was investigated by
Haahtela regarding cost economics. The plan was good, but it was deemed too costly to
operate. There were also political reasons5 for this second plan not coming on board. In
the early stages of planning the project organization found a Helsinki city centre site that
had good city centre proximity and level geographical area for patient accessibility. This
became an established development site.
7.6.3 ORGANIZATIONAL DRIVERS FOR THE PROJECT
There was a large set of issues associated with rehabilitation and living conditions of
disabled citizens. Table 7.6 describes the levels of needs developed by Haahtela in the
early planning stages.
Table 7.6 Synapsia Project Drivers
Core activities: Sub activities: Supporting Systems

Rehabilitation of specialists in neurology
patients with and psychiatrics
Cord injury. Nursing care. Medical & Rehabilitation
Traumatic brain injury. Physiotherapy. Space.
Stroke. Occupational therapy. Accommodation Space (ward-
Polio. Speech therapy. type 1 or 2 person rooms) for
Clinical Neuro- mobility disabled patients
psychology. during rehabilitation.
Psychology. Principle activity driver is the
Social work. number of patient
Recreational activities. accommodation places (75
patients).
Recreational Space.
Education Space.
Dining Space.
5
The client representative did not want to elaborate on the issue other than to acknowledge the fact.
210
7.6.4 THIRD PHASE OF WORKPLACE PLANNING
The planning process entered a third phase of programming. Meanwhile some design
activity had also taken place. Understandably the operation staff were frustrated with
developing another program plan. The project team produced a workplace plan for the
client board.
The initial program was rejected by the board as being out of alignment with
expenditures. A set of revisions took place. Allocation of space was done by operative
managers in the leadership of the managing doctor of the centre. A final version was
accepted based on sizeable reduction of space. Table 7.7 describes the main iterations of
the program development.
Table 7.7 Synapsia Planning Iterations
First Workplace Revised Version 4 Final Version 6

planning
- 9 030 usable m2 - 8 293 usable m2 - 7 673 usable area m2
Client Feedback Workplace Change Final Program

Issues
- Board did not accept. - 11 135 m2 net area
Reason: too - Reduce occupational
expensive compared therapy workplaces - 164,100,000 (Finnish
to patient places. from 10 to 6 Marks)
Patient fees do not
cover the operation - Reduce Gymnasium - Accepted by Board
costs. size from 800m2 to
470m2
- Reduce social workers

room from 19 to16 m2
(interaction specialist +
4 customers around
workplace, no meeting
area in room)
211
7.6.5.1 Client Perspective - Managing doctor
The managing doctor of the facility felt he “had to take care of everything”. There was a
number of groups to manage and interact with, namely, the strategic board, and the user
groups. He felt his role was to chair the user group and bring these ideas to the strategic
client board. He was the main agent who transferred the voice of the users and staff to the
strategic board. He also had to consider the financial costs. There were strict rules set by
the board regarding expenditures, by which investment decisions made.
Overall he felt that there was active communication between Haahtela and the group.
The general feeling was that there was active listening and open communication on all
parts. The viewpoints of the staff were very important to consider. The organization
chose a staff representative to act as a client representative to have daily contact with the
planners. She did not know all the answers but knew other agents in the organization to
refer to. She represented Physiotherapy in particular. She often went to the experts and
asked for knowledge. The groups also discussed these issues at the user meetings. Two of
the group were patients and so represented the actual users. There were lengthy
discussions on how the patients’ needs were being addressed. Patients may not only
suffer from mobility issues. Special aspects of the patient were communicated; e.g., a
patient may suffer from a range of medical conditions all of which are equally important
to understand and incorporate in the functional workplace design.
7.6.5.2 Developing Core Values for the Project
The project team did not consider the facility as representative of a traditional hospital.
Normally there is no rehabilitation facility in typical hospitals. At the time there was no
212
other facility existing in Finland. The planners and client stakeholders had to travel
outside the country to find knowledge on the state of the art of such facilities. Along with
issues such as accessibility and the specific needs of the individual; i.e., medical
conditions, the core values of the project were to consider the patient as an individual, the
social aspects of the individual, and the individual’s private space.
How did the project groups hatch these core values in their plans? Typically the
groups reflected on these values in meetings. They developed a vision statement on the
project indicating the core values of the organization. Haahtela developed and
communicated these values at different phases of the project. While these values helped
shared understanding, the frequent communication at meetings helped engrain the project
values. The board met once a month and in these meetings they began to develop this
shared understanding. The client felt that the personal skills of the Haahtela project
manager aided the process quite well. The empathic nature of Haahtela’s inquiry process
was regarded as highly valued in the process of understanding the functional workplace.
The shared understanding was established around many specialists communicating about
a problem.
7.6.5.3 Collaboration with Outside Organizations
Neuro, a neurological research centre and a neighbouring facility project under
development became involved in function sharing. Neuro had a need for food preparation
facilities and therapy facilities. Equally Synapsia had a need for education facilities. The
resulting collaboration had Neuro building education facilities (an auditorium, meeting
space and a lobby) which Synapsia now shares. Synapsia built sauna and therapy pools.
213
Neuro patients have shared access to these facilities. Synapsia also sells food to Neuro
where Neuro has a distribution kitchen.
Another collaboration involved Helsingin lääkärikeskus Oy. This is a private
enterprise that provides magnetic photo-tomography services to the medical industry and
they were asked to join the facility. Thermo-machines are very expensive for Synapsia to
purchase individually. The private enterprise entered into a business arrangement to
provide services from the facility. This allowed good space utilization by marketing these
services. These collaborative outcomes produced viable operational decisions for both
organizations. The constraints of limited resources placed an impetus on the problem
solving group to search for solutions outside of the organization.
The case study demonstrates an ability by the Haahtela workplace planning system to
operate with a specialist client. The resource constraints placed on the project by the
client board meant that the team had to go through a range of program iterations to finally
converge on a satisfactory solution, and without compromising the core values of the
project. The ability to search outside the main organization to identify value generating
opportunities such as resource sharing meant that the project became a reality and finally
developed.
7.7 CASE STUDIES IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS RESEARCH
Each case study reveals different facets of the Haahtela workplace planning system. The
projects describe a range of complexities associated with the client environments. The
following chapter further establishes the capability of the management system and its
ability to create adaptive learning conditions in complex environments.
214
8
INTERPRETATION OF THE HAAHTELA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
8.1 INTRODUCTION
In my study so far, I have suggested that the Haahtela workplace planning system
effectively supports stakeholder collaboration. This chapter sets out to formalize a set of
capabilities found in the project case studies; capabilities of providing collaborative
conditions and provoking stakeholder collaboration.
The Haahtela workplace planning system acknowledges that facility owner
organizations are complex, and owner groups often operate in isolation from each other.
The workplace planning system demonstrates a capability to bring fragmented owner
groups together in a shared forum to discuss their needs and values.
The groups communicate primarily through a workplace planning language. The
workplace planner facilitates these owner group dialogues where common needs are
identified and the means to share resources are identified. He manages this process
through understanding the operations of the owner groups and then representing their
needs in a workplace model. The planner seeks to identify real needs and discount
unnecessary desires and wants that cannot be fulfilled with available resources.
The iterative problem solving approach is interactive, with the owner groups
providing frequent feedback. The workplace planner uses spatial performance
measurements to identify project constraints and to seek means of resolving the needs
within these constraints. Table 8.1 characterizes the management capabilities, specifies
their application, and provides supporting evidence from the case studies. In the
following, I discuss each of those characteristics.
215
Table 8.1 summary of collaborative capabilities
Category Process Capability Characteristics Evidence from Case Studies

Features
Complex Acknowledgement at project Stakeholders do not fully There is evidence that organizational
Environment outset that non-collaborative understand their own needs nor boundaries contribute to failure to share
stakeholder environments those of others – assumptions and spatial resources; e.g., Stadia polytechnic
exist. statements of need are voiced and shows evidence of fragmented workplace
shared. management.
Acknowledgement of self- Diverse and conflicting interests The process facilitates self-organizing groups
organization of stakeholder exist due to self organizing to reach consensus; e.g., Cygnaeus High
organizations. systems – interests are expressed school reveals conflicting interests that need
in a common workplace language. to be resolved.
Management Shared collaboration space. Workplace planning workshops Through use of the management system, the
System act as shared space for planner is able to convene stakeholders in
stakeholders to voice their needs collective group processes.
and values.
Access to organizations and Workplace planning process Through use of the management process, the
penetration of organizational penetrates organizational planner initiates dialogue inside and outside
boundaries. boundaries internally and the organization.
externally.
Common group language. Workplace language centered on Through use of the management process, the
client function, operations and user planner encourages stakeholders to voice their
actions. interests through the language of the
workplace.
216
Category Process Capability Characteristics Evidence from Case Studies
Features
Management Facilitation of multiple Workplace process facilitates The management processes engage with all
Facilitation dialogues. multiple group discussions in organizational divisions.
organization.
Stakeholder empathy. Workplace planner empathizes The planner empathizes with views of all
with the perspectives of client organizational personnel.
strategy, operations, and the users.
Integration with parallel Workplace quantification routines The management processes facilitate project
processes. integrate with client values. mission statement development.
Workplace processes and routines
transform soft values into hard
values.
Problem Steering the problem-seeking Focus on iterative cycles of The workplace planner develops early models
Seeking group. measurement and client feedback. of clients’ needs and gets quick feedback for
& Solving further development.
Adaptive learning. Planner engages in a search for The management processes facilitate search
Cycles of framing and re- solutions by changing client routines in the client functions and the
framing. functions and the workplace. workplace design. The processes facilitate
stakeholder reflection on the state of needs
and the project constraints.
Constraints analysis. Problem solving cycle identifies The management processes identify project
real project constraints for constraints and establish feasibility of the
resolution by project stakeholders. project requirements.
Processes link local needs issues
with global project issues.
Decision commitment. Planner seeks stakeholder Decisions are made explicit, agreement is
commitment on state of needs and sought and decisions are then documented in
resource allocation. program statements.
217
8.2 CLIENTS AS COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS
8.2.1 VARYING LEVELS OF COLLABORATION IN COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS
The Haahtela workplace planning system operates within facility owner environments
that display varying levels of collaboration. The Haahtela workplace planners
acknowledge that client organizations are often fragmented and have limited knowledge
as to how organizational units share facility resources. Client strategists and operations
management may not be capable of deciding on their space needs or of making decisions
on how best to allocate their budgets without the support of workplace management
methods.
The Stadia Polytechnic project is a good example. At the project outset there was
little consensus as to how well the workplaces performed, either at local levels or
globally. The stakeholders interacted little or not at all in managing their spatial
resources. Few departments were deeply aware of other departments’ operations. As the
appraisal process developed, it became evident that staff in the education programs had
little knowledge of how neighboring programs might benefit each other through the
sharing of spatial resources. The workplace planning process served to bridge between
the organizational divisions.
The Stadia case reveals how the needs of students and lecturers, and the supporting
workplace are in a state of change and conflict. To take but one example, Stadia lecturers
voiced concern over the way they teach now, and had difficulty predicting future teaching
methods, and consequently difficulty specifying workplace needs. The Haahtela process
of inquiry challenged stakeholders’ effective use of space and helped them reflect on
their work practices. Users began to reflect on how they were currently performing, and
218
how they could improve upon their own functions and activities in the future. The
lecturers made progress as they envisioned that the student learning methods would
become more project-based, and less instruction-based. Consequently the workplaces
would require functionality to support more group work, and less functionality similar to
that of the traditional classroom configuration. This dialogue produced a realization in the
group that the workplace would need to change to support the project learning concept.
The inquiry process used by the workplace planner promoted a reflection on the future of
student learning at Stadia and what the workplace may look like. While teaching methods
remained uncertain, the specification of group workplaces marked a policy decision
regarding the future education methodologies. This decision allowed the workplace
planner to create a model of the future workplace.
8.2.2 MANAGING SELF ORGANIZING STRATEGIES
Project stakeholders try to promote their own interests when engaged in project
definition. The Cygnaeus High School case study revealed the inability of management to
reconcile the self interests of stakeholders. Initial attempts at project definition ended in
stalemate and the project stalled due to excessive costs. The non-collaborative attitude of
the city management group was apparent in its failure to participate frequently in the
early programming workshops. The Haahtela process operates effectively in such
organizational environments.
In the case of Cygnaeus High School, Figure 8.1 illustrates the core interests of the
stakeholders that had to be integrated in the workplace planning process. This group
behavior inevitably came into conflict with the fact of shared resources (money; perhaps
219
space). These interest groups had to align with the global workplace strategy and satisfy
their interests within the larger environment in which they operate.
City Executive Department of

Resource Allocation Education
Development Strategy Education Strategy
Managing the
Shared Project
Vision
City Development
School
Budget Allocation
Operations & Users
Real Estate Business
Learning Environment
Metrics
Workspace Planner
Workplace Performance
Figure 8.1 Managing Multiple Interests at Cygnaeus High School
Management, architectural programmer and the users did not share a common
understanding of each other’s interests, nor the means to align these interests. The
original architect expressed reservations about how to best understand and manage the
user needs. The city’s project development process followed a traditional linear approach,
where important cost information was developed too late in the process to be effective in
the overall project definition. As a result, conflicts of interest did not get expressed in a
way that allowed them to be worked out earlier in the process.
Groups organize around self interests. A change in one part of the system affects the
other interacting agents in the system. For example, the city follows its real estate policy
and strategy, and the High School follows its education policy and strategy. Brought in
220
after the initial failure, Haahtela had to engage the stakeholder groups and re-define the
project mission statement. It is hardly surprising that the workplace strategy changed
after Haahtela’s intervention; indeed, it seems appropriate to say that there was no one
strategy previously.
The user’s perspective changed over time as they came to understand, or perhaps
better, as they created the real vision for the project. For example, the initial vision of a
standard renovation project changed to a vision of student learning in the next century.
The Haahtela management system facilitated the emergence of this shared vision and
interest and included them in the project definition.
In general, the self interests of stakeholder groups are discussed through the medium
of the workplace planning process. The workplace information is the basis for discussion.
The planner relates how workplace information directly affects the stakeholder interest.
The workplace planner can only ask about stakeholder interest and how it influences the
workplace planning model. The process of inquiry leads to new information which can
change the workplace model or perhaps change the stakeholder’s perception of need; e.g.,
by creating new ways of functioning for the stakeholder in the workplace.
8.3 FEATURES OF THE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
8.3.1 THE CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A SHARED PROBLEM-SOLVING FORUM
Stakeholders need a shared forum in which to express and discuss their interests. The
workspace planning system facilitates the sharing of workplace knowledge at each stage
in the planning process. In Chapter 6, Figure 6.10 illustrates the concept of a shared
problem-solving forum. This forum is where stakeholders, either face-to-face, or by
virtual means express their needs and values. The workplace planning process brings
221
relevant stakeholders together at appropriate decision points. The forum acts as a
collaborative space for stakeholders to voice their interests in the client functions, the
user actions, the performance of the workplace, and the use, or allocation of resources
towards achieving stakeholder needs.
At each stage there is a shared forum, which is facilitated by the workplace planner
using the workplace planning tools. The client groups have access to the forum, while the
planner controls any changes to the developing knowledge base; i.e., the workplace plan.
The organizational location of the forum depends on role and responsibility associated
with the decision process at a given stage; e.g., Stage 6 locates the shared forum among
the strategy and operations groups, and Stage 7 has the shared forum located among
operations and user groups. A series of documents are developed at each stage of the
process. The planner uses these documents to manage stakeholder commitment and
responsibilities.
8.3.2 ACCESS TO ORGANIZATIONS AND STANDARDIZED WORKPLACE INFORMATION
The process assumes that facility owner governance is structured as a hierarchy (See
Figure 6.10). The workplace planner can access all units of the client organization, and
can use the workplace planning process to penetrate organizational boundaries and to
facilitate information flow across these boundaries.
The workplace needs of each operations group is represented using the same
functional and spatial information. A standardized information structure allows
operations management to assess each other’s workplaces and trust the fact that each
stakeholder group undergoes the same rules of evaluation. The information structure also
allows the planner to view client function and spatial information horizontally within any
222
level of the hierarchy. By creating a transparent accounting structure in the workplace
model, the planner can create specific information relevant to the strategic owner group,
to operations groups, and finally to user groups.
The ability to search outside the organization is important as it allows the planner to
search for opportunities to share spatial resources. The planner may search outside the
client organization and locate external organizations that may collaborate to develop
alternative workplace strategies. The Synapsia Rehabilitation Center illustrates the use of
external organizations. This project successfully collaborated with a neighboring medical
organization to share facilities. The ability to search outside the organization was due in
part to knowing what was needed; i.e., a specific functional space. The transparent
accounting structure of the workplace information enabled the group to understand these
particular needs.
The purposes of each stakeholder group and the constraints they assume to exist on
their realization of purpose must be transparent. This transparency is necessary as it
allows the workplace planner to examine multiple operational functions and their uses of
space. This visibility of information allows dialogue to occur when the groups convene to
improve workplace performance. The workplace planner can identify opportunities to
share resources amongst stakeholders, the same resources that may not be currently
shared due to a lack of collaboration in the owner organization. A transparent information
structure also allows the workplace planner to provide benchmarking knowledge to the
client in terms of how other functions are performing both within and outside the
organization. Quite often facility owners may not be aware of the latest developments in
workplace design and performance.
223
8.3.3 A COMMON WORKPLACE PLANNING LANGUAGE
The workplace planner and project manager are faced with multiple working languages in
use within the facility owner organization and among specialists. If we consider the
multiple languages that make up the stakeholder group, we find that the planner has to be
proficient in the language of owner strategy, owner operations, and the language of the
user, as well as the language of the design specialist. Depending on the specialized nature
of client knowledge regarding its functions and activities, the planner’s role as translator
will be more or less complicated.
The stakeholders are in conversation with each other at specific times over the course
of the process. The effectiveness of the workspace planner depends on his ability to use a
common language, which in turn facilitates communication between specialists.
The planner has a specific workplace language that serves as the primary problem
solving language for the group. Section 6.6 described the micro-level dialogues that make
up this language. While the language is centered on the workplace, the planner supports
stakeholders in discussing the workplace from their own perspective. The workplace
planner supports the stakeholder to voice their concerns within their own contexts. These
particular contexts with respect to how they work are connected back with the workplace
language.
The Cygnaeus High School case shows the need for a common group language. Prior
to the Haahtela intervention in the project, stakeholders could not establish a common
way of working together. The city representatives could not understand the needs of the
school representatives, and it was impossible for the city management to judge one set of
needs above another, when attempting to reduce the space program to align it with a
224
workable budget. Equally the architect lacked the ability to contain the large number of
needs required by the school representatives, and to prioritize those needs for decision
making.
The Haahtela workplace process and the resulting program allowed the stakeholders
to identify their interests within a common frame. While there was an initial learning
curve for the stakeholders to adjust to the workplace language of operational functions,
core and supporting activities, function drivers, space utilization, and space dimensions,
this language enabled them to understand their own and each other’s needs and then
allowed them to make conscious decisions about functions and the related workplace.
Haahtela could equally communicate with strategic owner representatives at the city,
who were issuing directives to reduce the space program without knowing specifically
how to achieve that goal. Haahtela’s confidence that they could lower the project costs
without compromising the needs of the user created a trust on the side of the city.
Haahtela then had to develop the same level of trust with the users and see to it that their
needs were met.
The potential value of a common group language is that it reduces ambiguity
associated with stakeholder intent. It allows total group questioning of assumptions about
needs and constraints. It also promotes common group learning, ideation and innovation
opportunities. Stakeholders trust the process given that all groups’ needs are considered
by the same rules of evaluation. Once the rules are understood then it allows group
decision making to become more reliable and stakeholders to become more satisfied with
the quality of their decision making process.
225
8.4 MANAGEMENT FACILITATION
8.4.1 USE OF APPROPRIATE INFORMATION
Since the amount of time stakeholders can give to project definition is limited, the
workplace planner must be selective in using appropriate information. The need to avoid
information overload is well recognized, as is the fact that clients have limited problem
solving resources. The workplace information structure is designed to concentrate on
important variables such as client function, workplace definition and resource use to
define the project purpose.
The Haahtela approach is to build fast models of needs and get feedback1 on the state
of the problem from the facility owner groups. Models of client resources, budgets and
project estimates must be created quickly. The planner’s attempt to provide fast problem
definitions for client feedback acknowledges the different worldviews in existence and
the need for iterative learning about the problem.
Managing programming information for large-scale multi-faceted owner
organizations such as Stadia Polytechnic requires an effective information management
system. The programming process should have an ability to filter information for the
appropriate decision agent(s); i.e., user, operations and strategic management, and the
building professional. Information should be appropriately structured based on the role
and responsibilities of the stakeholder.
Haahtela have made a decision to separate the process of conceptual design from the
process of programming. Their process does incorporate design solutions at a high level
in order to test their feasibility. For example, Haahtela propose generic spatial layouts to
1
This is also a feature of the IDEO product development process (Thomke and Nimgade, 2000) which
emphasizes an iterative learning process. IDEO adopt the mantra: “fail often fail early”.
226
verify to a stakeholder the workplace environment. They use workplace concepts for the
purposes of showing alternatives to the stakeholder. The example of the auditorium in the
Cygnaeus High School case shows how an alternative solution can be accepted once
conceptualized for the stakeholder. The result was a cost effective proposal of flexible
classrooms with adaptable wall structures.
8.4.2 IMPORTANCE OF PARTICIPATIVE STAKEHOLDER METHODS
The use of participative approaches to define the problem gives all stakeholders a means
to contribute to the definition of the problem. The workplace planning process promotes
learning about the stakeholder’s needs and the workplace environment in parallel. The
participative method allows client groups to describe how they perform their functions
and activities, which in turn are transformed into activity and spatial definitions.
The workspace planner develops his own understanding of the vision statements
issued by the user groups. The planner internalizes the vision of the operations and users
by reading their statements and querying their functions and activities in group
workshops. The planner must understand the vision of the various stakeholder groups in
order to help them set priorities and select from competing alternatives. The ability to
integrate soft stakeholder values with hard operations-based values that the workplace
planning tools produce is paramount.
While the workplace planning processes do not contribute directly to the development
of stakeholder vision statements, it does act as the transformation point for
operationalizing the qualitative values of the groups. The workplace planner and the
stakeholder groups have to agree on quantitative values and make sure these values are
aligned with the soft values as defined in their vision statements. The Synapsia case
227
reveals how the core values of the primary users; i.e., the patients, directed all subsequent
conversations and decisions about the workplace environment.
8.4.3 FACILITATING NEW AND EMERGING PURPOSES
The workplace planning process was able to facilitate the development of new project
needs late in the project definition process. The Arcada project shows how the process
facilitated innovations. The therapy center was a desirable function requested by the
health education program early in the workplace planning. Initially the function was
excluded because of excessive costs and a lack of appropriate funding. Later in the
project development process, a new initiative came about to have the functions included
in the facility.
By using the workspace planning process, the planner managed to get the therapy
center included in the plan, even though the idea emerged late in the process of
conceptual design. Figure 8.2 illustrates the multiple interests of the Therapy Centre.
Therapy Health Arcada Client

Services Group Board
Business Case Strategic Values

Service Definition Workplace Service value to the
Revenue Model Planner Dialogues Arcada community
Operation Costs Facility Costs
Designer Workplace Strategy Education

Activity Function Operations
Space Performance
Conceptual Design Cost Budget
Technological Education
Feasibility Teaching and Training
Design Quality values
Figure 8.2 Arcada Therapy Health Service Stakeholder Needs & Values
228
The importance of accurate measurement of information is notable in this example. The
workplace information supported the stakeholders championing the innovation’s
feasibility. The Arcada board required spatial and cost information to establish business
feasibility models. The architect equally required the spatial information to test the
feasibility of including the functions in the overall design concept.
Initially the innovative idea did not emerge from direct dialogue within the workplace
planning framework, but through the social interaction of the Arcada Board. While not
directly instigating the innovation, nonetheless the workplace planning process
encouraged creativity within the Arcada community.
8.5 PROBLEM SEEKING CAPABILITY
8.5.1 FEASIBILITY OF SYSTEM WIDE CONSTRAINTS
The workplace planning process has the ability to uncover project constraints early and
reveal them to the stakeholders for consideration and resolution. Constraints arise in the
form of cost limitations, spatial issues, and organizational and functional issues in the
owner organization. The workplace planning process relatively quickly generates
information about the user functions, the physical workplace and associated costs, and the
owner budget. This allows the owner groups to face the implications of their desires
early, and the process allows them enough time to re-consider alternatives.
The Vantaa Police project illustrates how the workplace planning process established
project constraints. This case study revealed the issues with which the strategic owner
group is concerned. The project goal was to understand the capacity of the site and how it
could support their real estate customers. The problem solving dialogues covered broad
229
areas of feasibility study; e.g., the dialogues explored the feasibility of meeting user
needs within constraints such as the site spatial capacity.
The existence of constraints is continually brought up and results in a list of actions to
further test feasibility. Next stage actions showed developments on multiple dimensions
of the problem; e.g., the need to understand user satisfaction, assess the financial capacity
of the user organizations, assess the site conditions and the city development zoning laws.
The workplace information provides a basis to identify and assess the constraints within
the current facility and surrounding site. While each issue can be investigated separately,
the dialogue centered on the workplace planning model, which ties together the strategic
rationale for further action. Should Haahtela not adequately test the feasibility of needs at
the local user level, and also at the global project level, then the project definition would
remain ill-defined.
8.5.2 PROBLEM SEEKING IN THE WORKPLACE MODEL AND IN USER FUNCTIONS
According to Haahtela, groups usually come to realize that their needs cannot be fulfilled
solely by changing the workplace. They must rather adapt and align their functions and
activities with the possible workplace options. The owner groups are forced to rethink
their operational functions and activities when spatial and monetary resources are
exceeded. The constant dialogue between purpose, criteria, and solutions engages the
group to identify their real needs and decide what they can achieve within the project
constraints. The problem solving dialogue is central to getting owner groups to
understand their purposes and the implications of those purposes. The facilitation of this
dialogue by the workplace planner is one of the most important capabilities of the
Haahtela process.
230
It is worthwhile to re-examine the generic problem-solving strategies (as described in
Section 6.6.), and how they are facilitated in the group meetings. These strategies are
employed in the group dialogues that seek ways to align stakeholder needs with available
resources. The workplace strategies are used once the workplace planner identifies a
space or an activity that can be improved upon to support the overall directive; e.g., to
reduce the space program to within a specific cost target.
Typically the strategies are used in combination. Figure 8.3 illustrates a decision
process for scenarios where the workplace needs and resources are misaligned. The
workplace planner focuses the group on identifying ways to improve the performance of
the workplace and also to reduce the size of the space program. For example, the
workplace planner may identify a space with low utilization and suggest means to
improve upon the performance. The dialogue may then progress to combining or
removing activities, reducing the function drivers (e.g., the number of users), and
changing the spatial configurations. The dialogue moves through the search cycle which
the workplace planner uses to query each stakeholder and get their feedback as to how a
change in the workplace model impacts their interests.
After a set of workplace scenarios have been agreed, the workplace planner
recalculates the new space program. The planner then identifies the necessity to reiterate
the problem-solving cycle and seeks new problem cues to focus on. The new workplace
calculations may show that the cost target is achieved and asks the group whether they
are satisfied with the new workplace model, or whether they would like to continue to
search for improved solutions.
231
Typical Workplace Strategy Scenario: Can we increase the By placing more
To balance the use of space without utilization of the How? activities in the What
compromising owner functions space? space Activities?
Can we reduce the How? By removing high

Workplace planner Queries cost of the space? performance What
Identifies cues for issued to activities in the Activities?
further analysis; e.g., owner groups Can we reduce the space
Low space utilization. How?
driver number?
High cost spaces. By changing the
activity method or What
Large function drivers
the need for large Activities?
Yes – Issue No - driver numbers?
Program Statement Renew
Search What are the impacts Are there other
Change
on the owner’s means of performing
Activity
operations? the function with
less drivers?
Is result
satisfactory Where can these Can we remove
? Change
activities be located? these activities to
Location
elsewhere or
entirely?
What is Recalculate How does the space Can we combine
Change
condition of Space have to change to these activities from
Space
Local / Global Variables accommodate these this function to go in
workplace? new activities? this space?
Figure 8.3 Problem Solving Cycle for Workplace Planning
232
8.5.3 STEERING THE PROBLEM
Figures 8.4 and 8.5 illustrate how the workplace planner steered the group dialogues
toward a negotiated program target for the Cygnaeus High School and Arcada campus
projects respectively. In both cases the overall objective was to reduce the space program
to work within a strict budget. To achieve the intended space target, the planner initiated
a cycle of client dialogues and workplace measurement. The group dialogues centered
about understanding changes in the workplace performance, and owner functions and
activities. Through operations and workplace redesign, along with measurement of the
decision impacts, the group finally converged on solutions that were satisfactory to all
stakeholders.
Tables 8.2 and 8.3 associate the problem-solving approaches with the change in the
space quantity for each case study. The selection of the approach is dependent on the
nature of the problem and the preferences of the stakeholder groups. Use of the
workplace strategies as inquiry tools creates greater understanding of the problem.
Once the workplace planner identifies constraints with the group, this triggers a
subsequent search to work with the constraint. The search process typically extends
across the boundaries of the organization horizontally, vertically and external to the
organizational boundary. The workplace planner facilitates this group process when
discussing means of changing their organizational function and workplace strategy.
For example, in the Cygnaeus High School study, the workplace planner initiated a
number of stakeholder discussions on ways of working within budget constraints. The
workplace planner continued a line of inquiry to resolve the space issue at hand. This line
of inquiry led to new innovations not considered before, and subsequently allow valuable
233
space to be reassigned to other purposes. The process often produced new ways of
working for the owner groups. The high school case showed positive changes in teaching
operations; e.g., changes in computer education, and in supporting functions, such as a
new delivery method for food preparation.
Normally the workplace planner uses a combination of approaches to reduce the
overall space quantity. The decision process may be difficult to steer precisely towards an
exact target, given the unpredictability of the group’s feedback on a specific space issue.
In the Cygnaeus High School case (See Figure 8.4: version 3 and version 4), the
workplace planner and the group made significant changes to individual workspaces.
When the workplace planner made a calculation of the total workplace, they found that
they were below the intended target, and subsequently made new changes to increase the
space quantity.
The timing of measuring (space calculation) was dependant on the magnitude of the
group decision, or rather the workplace planner’s assessment of that magnitude. The
owner groups may make decisions that can have great affect on the overall space
quantification. Yet the combination of their decisions may increase space in some parts of
the workplace program or decrease space in other areas. The workplace planner must
calculate the entire model to understand the outcomes.
234
Square Meters Space Targets
10000
9000
8000
7000
Target Area
6000
Space Changes
5000
4000
Original Revised Haahtela 1st Haahtela Alt. Group Group Group
Program Program Proposal Suggestion Workshop Workshop Workshop
Version 4 Version 4.1 Version 4.2
Planning Stages
Figure 8.4 Cygnaeus High School Space Developments
235
Table 8.2 Cygnaeus High School Workplace Program Changes
Outcome of Problem Solving Changes to Functions and Workplace

Group Workshop Strategy Core Activities Supporting Activities
Version 4 Reduce Drivers Removed an auditorium space for 217 Reduction of storage space
Combine Activities students Omitted food preparation
Change Space Layout Specified adaptable wall structures to Changed dining arrangement
Relocate Activities support changeable functions and student Reduced number of children in
numbers kindergarten
Transferred teaching functions to general
classrooms
Version 4.1 Increase Drivers General Classroom sizes increased to Increased storage area for Music
Change Space Layout support larger group sizes Student and teaching waiting areas
Examination areas added to natural science increased
laboratories
Version 4.2 Change Space Layout Increased size of general classrooms to

support larger group sizes.
236
Square Meters Arcada Campus Space Development
15000
14000
13000
Space Changes
12000
11000
10000
Version 1 Owner Target Version 2 Version 3 Version 4
Planning Stages
Figure 8.5 Arcada Campus Space Developments
237
Table 8.3 Arcada Polytechnic Workplace Program Changes
Outcome of Problem Solving Changes to Functions and Workplace

Group Workshop Strategy Core Activities Supporting Activities
Version 2 Increase Space 75% space utilization set as a goal Specialized equipment
Utilization Facility operating time increased stores specified nearby
Increase Operation Time Teaching lectures transferred to normal classrooms classroom areas
Change Space Layout Healthcare spaces changed to support new functions
Reduce Drivers Multimedia studio omitted and relocated to external
Relocate Activities organization
Version 3 Increase Drivers 300 person auditorium added

Change Space Layout
Version 4 Remove Activities Student Club functions removed
Change Space Layout Language Lectures removed to normal classrooms
Landscape design specified for Teachers workplace
Version 5 Increase Drivers Therapy functions added Storage space reduced

Change Space Layout Supporting therapy functions removed
Remove Activities
238
8.5.4 PROBLEM SEEKING AND SOLVING PATTERNS
Appendix B and C each present a discourse analysis of a workplace planning group
workshop. The dialogue was taken from an observed discussion regarding the workplace
needs of a particular education program; i.e., an automotive engineering program at
Stadia Polytechnic. The group interacted with a preliminary workplace model presented
in a document. The meeting began by discussing the education program driver or driving
variable; i.e., the number of students. The process moved to discussing the current
utilization of space in the education program. A set of further problems and possible
solutions emerged from the meeting.
Figure B.2 displays the speech acts as they developed over the course of the
workshop. The speech act pattern reveals the workplace planner’s search pattern. The
speech act map shows a steady rate of analysis of local needs throughout the process. The
dialogue tends to move to different action spaces, but relies on the needs analysis as the
driver for group problem solving. It also reveals an active cycle from local needs analysis
to synthesis of possible requirements at the local and global levels. “Requirements
dialogues” are conversations that deal with potential solutions to the needs in question.
The cluster analysis (See Figure B.3b) reveals that there is a balance of actions, not to
be mistaken for the frequency of communicative acts. In the local needs analysis space,
there is evidence of a steady time cycle. The planner keeps the conversation focused on
the space utilization issues. The dialogue analysis reveals how the meeting agenda
revolves around space utilization, with movement to discuss related issues.
The ability of the planner to create reflective and generative conditions for developing
project purpose is a key skill. Specifically, the ability to transition from local needs to
239
global project issues allows the group to identify new constraints or satisfy existing
constraints.
This discourse analysis is one validation method to show that the role of the
workplace planner is important in steering the problem solving workshop. It is important
that the workplace planner steer owner groups to first reflect on their purposes and then
to consider possible means for realizing purposes. The discourse analysis shows these
cycles of reflection and solution generation over the course of a workplace planning
workshop.
8.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE HAAHTELA PROCESS
It should now be apparent that the Haahtela workspace planning system effectively
generates owner and stakeholder purpose. The workplace planning system is designed
primarily from an operations management perspective in that it produces high quality
information on client functions, spatial quantification and associated costs. I have argued
that the management process supports collaboration well beyond the quantification
methods for which it is primarily designed.
The Haahtela process has primarily been applied to public institutions. Its clients are
from the education, government, law and security, and healthcare sectors. Satisfied
clients provide some evidence of Haahtela’s capacity to manage a range of diverse client
types operating with different organizational strategies and operational goals. The generic
language of workplace activity, performance and resource allocation allows the planner
to manage diverse organizations.
The research does not address the question as to whether the Haahtela process is
applicable beyond the domain of public institutions. Private clients such as manufacturing
240
businesses may also benefit from the use of the Haahtela process, particularly when they
would like to understand their functions in relation to workplace costs.
The case studies do show evidence that clients may require specialist programming
knowledge, particularly where the client is unsure of future needs. Stakeholders in the
Arcada project suggested the use of specialist workplace planners within the Haahtela
process that may guide them in future planning of their organization. Clients might like to
have specialist knowledge to guide them with organizational and business development.
The Haahtela process operates effectively where the empathic skills of the planner are
utilized to understand the needs of the client. The inquiry skills of the planner are
important to identify with client’s needs. The planner often identified situations where
they had to access knowledge outside the project group to find a solution to their needs.
Where the planner sees his role as no more than space quantification, then the process
may become limited in promoting group learning about the holistic concerns of the
project. While the Haahtela process can be facilitated by a construction professional, the
process can equally benefit from the presence of a uniquely skilled workspace planner.
Stakeholders in the Cygnaeus High School project voiced their need to understand
better how the Haahtela process worked in terms of decision-making and problem-
solving. This implied that the Haahtela process could be more transparent to the project
participants, so they could better position themselves in the decision process and
understand the rationale behind workplace decisions. A client education module may well
improve stakeholder understanding of the Haahtela problem-solving process.
241
9
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
9.1 INTRODUCTION
In this dissertation, I explored the process of project definition and specifically of
defining client purpose. My main argument of the research is that defining purpose is an
act of creation, driven by group learning, and not merely a process of discovery or
mechanistic compromise. The construction industry must dismiss the notion that project
purpose is pre-existent, accept responsibility for facilitating its creation, and work to
develop robust management methods for creating collective purpose among diverse and
often competing project stakeholders.
I have researched the project definition process in two phases. In the first, exploratory
phase, I studied three case studies in a public educational institution and sought to
understand the role of project management and its ability to manage the process of
purpose development. I found that multi-faceted facility owners have multiple
perspectives as to what the purpose of a project may be, and finally I highlighted how the
facilitation of multiple perspectives, or lack thereof, can impact the framing of purpose
by stakeholders.
In the second phase, I studied a project definition process that is able to manage
clients with diverse and competing needs. This process is structured and executed on the
assumption that construction owners can reconcile conflicting needs within budget
constraints; indeed, the process helps them do so. In this research phase, I described and
categorized the management characteristics that enable effective stakeholder
collaboration for the workplace planning problem. This evidence, although limited to
242
workplace planning, does support the hypothesis that project definition is a complex
adaptive process.
9.2 RESEARCH SUMMARY
9.2.1 THE EXPLORATORY CASE STUDIES
The education institution, the University of California at Berkeley, is an example of a
facility owner that is multi-faceted with diverse stakeholder groups. The Hearst Memorial
Mining Building project was one of the most complex and difficult capital projects to be
undertaken on the University campus. User functions created high performance demands
which, coupled with seismic safety performance requirements and historic preservation
criteria, made the project technologically very complex and financially demanding.
The key finding from reconstructing the project definition process was an effective
process of collaboration. It illustrates how effective project definition may be carried out.
First stakeholder interests were determined, and then their implications were explored.
The case also highlights the value and necessity of design exploration as a means of
testing stakeholder needs and values.
The Clark Kerr Campus Renewal study was developed so the owner could understand
how best to invest in maintenance and systems renewal for the facility. The project
definition process was enacted primarily through a facility conditions assessment. The
main finding from this case study was how the project definition group conditioned the
project purpose from one dominant stakeholder perspective, namely, a facility
maintenance perspective. It raises the issue of problem framing and how a specific
problem solving approach may obscure the purpose of the project and work against
further exploration of the problem from other stakeholder perspectives. It raises the
243
challenge for project managers to support multiple viewpoints of the project purpose
without prematurely choosing a decision path.
The Underhill green design process was part of a mid-rise housing development
project. The process was initiated when the housing owner requested the designer to
investigate the potential of incorporating green design systems in the project. The key
finding from this study was the lost opportunity for the design team to reflect deeply on
the owner’s needs and values with respect to sustainability. The implication for
management is how to select problem solving methodologies that explicitly develop
purposes.
9.2.2 THE HAAHTELA WORKPLACE PLANNING SYSTEM
Haahtela is a project management services company that provides workplace planning
services to real estate owners. The Haahtela workplace planning system is designed to
measure owner needs such as user functions, spatial performance and associated costs.
The process seeks early and frequent feedback from facility owner groups to establish
new information about the state of needs and values. The feedback is based on focused
dialogue with the stakeholder groups and the workplace planner.
The key finding from this management process is that a set of management principles
exist to support the collaborative development of purpose. The management process is
designed to acknowledge that client organizations are complex and adaptive. The applied
process has produced effective agreements on project programs in owner environments
which were once regarded as non-collaborative.
The management system facilitates collaborative action through the development of a
shared forum and promotes transparency through the use of a common workplace
244
language. Frequent facilitation of stakeholder feedback by the workplace planner
promotes new learning about the state of project needs. The workplace planner is
instrumental at instigating creative group problem-solving. The research suggests that the
workplace planner is able to consider local needs together with holistic project needs and
constraints. The planner’s challenging of stakeholder needs often produces innovations in
the way organizations are structured and in the way they practice their functions and
activities.
The workplace planning process frequently identifies real constraints that inhibit
stakeholders from fulfilling their needs. The identification of constraints gives the group
an impetus to search for ways to remove the constraint or develop means to work with it,
and thus encourages groups to reflect on their basic assumptions about organizational
purposes, functions and needs.
9.3 CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE
9.3.1 SUMMARY OF CONTRIBUTIONS
The contributions to knowledge developed from the University of California case studies
are summarized as follows:
• Project definition is a developmental process requiring the continuous testing of
project purpose through needs identification and their assessment with conceptual
design solutions;
• Design solutions can provide project stakeholders with tangible evidence of the
implications of fulfilling purpose, namely in the form of constraints;
• Project purpose can be re-defined through group reflection on the stakeholder
needs and the constraints enabling or impeding their fulfillment;
245
• The role of project manager, if perceived solely as an administrator of project
planning documents can limit the creative opportunities to generate value for the
client;
• The process that project managers design to define project purpose can be
impacted should one stakeholder perspective dominate over another;
• Facilitating the sharing of multiple perspectives of stakeholder needs early in the
process can increase the likelihood that a common purpose can be established.
The University of California case studies revealed the complexity and “wicked” nature of
project definition. These studies highlight the importance of managing multiple
stakeholder’s needs and values, and the necessity to understand how project managers
can effectively facilitate stakeholder purpose. The relationship of purpose with the
project constraints is imperative for project managers to understand. The case studies
show that project managers have to be aware of how purpose is framed by stakeholder
groups, and to be able to take steps to ensure that the purpose is fulfilling or necessary,
and that it is feasible within project constraints. The studies provide evidence that clients
may receive less than achievable value from a project, should the project manager not
create collaborative process conditions to facilitate diverse stakeholder perspectives.
The contributions to knowledge developed from the Haahtela case studies are
summarized as follows:
• An adaptive process can produce effective definitions of project purpose in
complex client environments;
246
• Close alignment between the needs analyst (in this case, the workplace planner)
and project management is necessary to steer the creative process of purpose
development;
• The role of the workplace planner is instrumental in steering the group process to
understand local needs and constraints, along with the global project needs and
constraints;
• The workplace planning process demonstrates effective group learning in that it
engages the client groups to first reflect on their needs, and then generates
alternative means of fulfilling their needs;
• New understanding of a stakeholder’s own purpose and the purposes of their
project counterparts can be developed using participative group methods;
• Innovations in the workplace can develop along with new collaborative
partnerships among project stakeholders; and
• Stakeholder needs and values along with the product specifications (concept
solutions) undergo parallel changes, so to create alignment and subsequently a
feasible project.
The second phase of study, on the Haahtela workplace planning system, established new
knowledge about the role of the workplace planner and the process of defining purpose
within limited project resources. This study documented the phases of a learning process
that measures purpose variables and manages group dialogues between stakeholders. The
Haahtela project case studies support the effectiveness of this learning process by
demonstrating that purposes were created, and stakeholders were satisfied with outcomes
of these purpose definitions. The collaborative effects of the process are new additions to
247
knowledge with respect to the operation of the workplace planning system. This research
has aided in documenting the collaborative features of the process, which was not
extensively researched by the designers of the workplace planning system.
The Haahtela project case studies reveal the dynamics of stakeholder interests and
how changes in project purpose occurred throughout the course of project definition. The
cases provide evidence of changes in purpose, a phenomenon that has not been
extensively researched prior to this study. The changes to the stakeholder needs are
steered by the workplace planner, who is guiding the search for a solution that satisfies
purpose within project constraints. The changes in purpose reveal the learning taking
place within the stakeholder groups. These changes show an increased level of
understanding by the groups regarding the purpose-constraint relationship.
The case studies show innovation in how owner groups perform their functions and
how their workplaces are re-configured to support their work practices. The planning
process promotes positive change in the client organization. The studies describe the
social action within the groups that led to realization of workplace problems and the
subsequent search to resolve the issues.
The discourse analysis of a workplace planning group session reveals effective
problem seeking and solving by the workplace planner. The planner’s pattern of action
provides insight into the cycle of analysis and synthesis ongoing in the group dialogues.
The inquiry process used by the workplace planner engages the stakeholders in the
dialogue, and their participation provides important input to purpose development.
248
9.3.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT
This research develops project management theory in that:
1. It challenges the belief that purpose pre-exists in project planning and instead the
research advocates that purpose must be actively defined and created by a group of
stakeholders with diverse worldviews that often operate with competing interests;
2. It advocates the role of project management as a process manager in the project
definition phase. It advances the notion of adaptive management and iterative
problem solving about project purpose;
3. It advocates group dialogue as a means for developing shared understanding about
purpose; and
4. It supports the belief that project managers are responsible for creating effective
conditions for collaborative process to occur in purpose development.
This research assumes that client and project organizations are constantly changing.
Project management has to realize that client organizations will continue to operate in
environments that are in a state of dynamic change. Inherently the project organizations
that shape the project purpose are also in a continuous state of change. With this explicit
assumption and acceptance, project management has to develop means of managing a
dynamic project definition process.
The exploratory evidence suggests that project managers lack effective methods and
tools to get stakeholders collaboratively engaged and then to maintain their engagement
in the development of project purposes. The construction professional tasked with
developing project purposes is operating in, and will in the future continue to steer
project development groups in changing environments. While this research acknowledges
249
the challenges managing in changing environments, project management must establish
means of effectively operating with change when developing project purposes. The
project manager can no longer continue to disassociate from poorly functioning
organizations that constantly change the project goals or assign blame to stakeholders that
do not know what they want in their projects.
Project managers are expected to achieve an efficient level of collaborative process.
Issues such as identifying all the necessary stakeholders, creating and maintaining open
and transparent communication channels should be accepted as achievable levels of
process quality. Facilitating group process is another standard level of quality to be
expected. Without good process design and facilitation, the dynamic complexity of
purpose development will only be compounded by learning impediments such as
infrequent feedback, poor organizational support structures, and biased decisions.
9.4 FURTHER RESEARCH IN PROCESS MANAGEMENT
I propose future research to understand the management of project definition in the
following areas:
• Industrial field research on the project manager’s steering of the process, and the
impacts of the owner’s organizational structures and practices in capital
investment decisions;
• Educating project managers in collaborative process; and
• Group experimentation in project definition methodologies.
9.4.1 INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
Future research may perform further qualitative study into management action and its
performance. There is a need to understand further how management effectively steers
250
the process. In particular, the relationship of management intervention with that of group
learning needs to be better understood. These studies can develop patterns of purpose
emergence and identify change patterns with agency action. Longitudinal studies within
project definition processes can determine stakeholder learning and changes in their
perception of purpose. The studies may also trace process performance into the larger
stakeholder networks and identify value generation and innovations.
Project managers function through, and with the organizations involved in a project.
With respect to client institutions, I see opportunity to research the capital investment
approval process and organizational structures1. Developing positive change in these
structures depends on the learning exchanged between the project level and the
organizational structures. The notion of adaptation in client institutions offers new
understanding as to how clients learn and change their structures, policies, strategies and
routines to deliver value from their capital facilities. To determine factors relating to
successful and poor process at the capital investment decision stage may be beneficial to
project management. To focus on the capital investment decision allows the opportunity
to perform reasons analysis on the process outcomes.
9.4.2 EDUCATION IN COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
Project managers need to be taught collaboration theory and how to promote
collaboration in project teams. Researchers in engineering education; e.g., Bucciarelli,
have been longtime advocates for teaching social-based design process methods.
1
In the case of UC Berkeley, a project manager noted the lost opportunity to create new value due to the
capital project approval structures and the way projects are currently defined and judged for further
development. Also stakeholders in the Cygnaeus High School project (the Haahtela Case study) remarked
on the low success rate for capital approval at project planning stages by the Client institution.
251
Similarly in project management, managing specialists and non-specialists require
understanding how collaborative processes can be designed and managed effectively.
Understanding the specialist language of the client is another area for research.
Clients are becoming increasingly specialized, in particular users of high performance
workplaces. While design researchers; e.g., Nigel Cross, have recently developed insights
into the “voice of the designer”, there is a need to further understand the “voice of the
client.” Such research may support new courses in collaborative group work where
“translation of professional languages and perspectives” is a central theme of
understanding project definition. Prior to understanding and ultimately creating “a
common language,” understanding how to translate the multitude of professional
languages is fundamental for project managers.
Project management theorists may well benefit by developing closer research
collaborations with schools of the Built Environment such as Real Estate Business,
Facility Management, City Planning and Architecture, and Engineering to understand
how project management can better support stakeholders operating in the definition phase
of capital projects. Further advancement in process knowledge can be developed by
drawing on these disciplines.
9.4.3 LEARNING ABOUT PROCESS MANAGEMENT THROUGH GROUP EXPERIMENTS
Researching the collaborative aspects of group process can also take advantage of
laboratory environments where practitioners or students may perform process
experiments. There are opportunities to explore the emergence of purpose and how it is
influenced by the group structure, process designs and the choice of problem-solving
methodology.
252
There is a need to compare different project definition methodologies and how they
perform. Group experiments can support this research objective. For example, the
formalized Haahtela workplace planning methodology can now be compared with
another pre-established architectural programming methodology; e.g., the work of Peña
and Parshall (2001). Metrics can be created to evaluate the group learning process, and
also to assess the outcomes of each methodology and how they produce different
representations of purpose and concept solutions. Appendix D outline a set of principles
are centered on learning about process issues. Figure D-1 in Appendix D illustrates how
the principles relate to the project definition environment. The principles focus on project
management primarily and how they can support project managers in purpose
development.
253
REFERENCES
Altschuld, J. and Witkin, B. (2000). From Needs Assessment to Action: Transforming
Needs into Solution Strategies. Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning. Blackwell Business, Massachusetts,
USA.
Axelrod, R. and Cohen, M. D. (1999). Harnessing Complexity, Organizational
Implications of a Scientific Frontier. The Free Press, New York.
Ballard, G. and Zabelle, T. (2000). “Project definition.” White paper #9, Lean
Construction Institute, USA. Available at: http://www.leanconstruction.org.
Ballard, G. (2003). “Value Generation.” Personal Communication. University of
California. Berkeley.
Barton, R. (2000). “Soft Value Management Methodology for Use in Project Initiation –
a Learning Journey”. Journal of Construction Research, 1 109-122. Hong Kong.
Barrett P.S., Hudson J. and Stanley C. (1998). “Good Practice in Briefing: the Limits of
Rationality”. Automation in Construction, 8 633-642. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Barrett, P. and Stanley, C. (1999). Better Construction Briefing. Blackwell Science, UK.
Beach, L. (1997). The Psychology of Decision-Making, People in Organizations. SAGE
Publications, USA.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. Anchor Books.
New York.
Beheshti, R. (1993). “Design Decisions and Uncertainty”. Design Studies, 14(1),
Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, UK.
254
Bilello, J. (1993). Deciding to Build: University Organization and the Design of
Academic Buildings. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bruce, M. and Cooper, R. (2OOO). Creative Product Design: a Practical Guide to
Requirements Capture Management. Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK.
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1988). “An Ethnographic Perspective on Engineering Design”. Design
Studies, 9(3) 159-168, Butterworth & Co. Ltd., London.
Buenano, G. (1999). The Becoming of Problems in Design: Knowledge in Action to
Frame Wicked Problems. PhD Dissertation, Department of Architecture, University
of California, Berkeley, CA.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A. and Salas, E. (2001). “Reflections on Shared Cognition”. Journal
of Organizational Behavior. 22, 195 – 202, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Carroll, J.M. (2001). “Scenario-based Design: a Brief History and Rationale.” in: Design
Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, Eastman, C., McCracken,
M., and Newstetter, W. (eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Cartwright, S. (2002). “Double-Loop Learning: A Concept and Process for Leadership
Educators.” Journal of Leadership Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, Association of
Leadership Educators. Available at: http://www.fhsu.edu/jole/issues/01-
01/CartwrightFinal.pdf.
CII (1995). “Pre-project Planning Handbook.” Special publication 39-2. Construction
Industry Institute, Pre-Project Planning Research Team, University of Texas at
Austin.
255
CII (1999). “PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index for Building Projects.”
Implementation Resource 155-2, Construction Industry Institute, Pre-Project Planning
Research Team, University of Texas at Austin.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1999). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley,
Chichester, UK.
Cherry, E. (1999). Programming for Design: from Theory to Practice. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York.
Cohen, S.G., Mohrman, S.A., and Mohrman Jr., A.M. (1999). “We Can’t Get There
Unless We Know Where We Are Going: Direction Setting for Knowledge Work
Teams.” in Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Mannix, E.A., and Neale,
M.A. (eds.), Vol. 2, 1-31, JAI Press Inc., Connecticut.
Corning, P. (2002). “The Re-emergence of “Emergence: A Venerable Concept in Search
of a Theory.” in: Complexity, 7, 8, 18-30, Wiley Interscience.
Cross, N. (2001). “Design Cognition: Results from Protocol and other Empirical Studies
of Design Activity.” in: Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design
Education, Eastman, C., McCracken, M., and Newstetter, W. (eds.), Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative
Research in Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. 2nd edition, Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln,
Y.S. (eds.), Sage Publications, London.
Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking Construction. Department of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions, London. Report of the Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime
256
Minister John Prescott on the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK
construction [http://www.dti.gov.uk/construction/rethink/report/index.htm].
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to
Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Eodice, M. (2000). A Theory of Requirements Definition in Engineering Design. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University.
Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation. Routledge, London.
Ganeshan, R., Garrett, J.H. Jr., and Finger, S. (1994). “A Framework for Representing
Design Intent.” Journal of Design Studies, 15, 1, 59-84, Butterworth Scientific
Limited, UK.
Gann, D., Salter A., and Whyte, J. (2003). “Design Quality Indicator as a Tool for
Thinking.” Building Research & Information, 31(5), 318–333, Spon Press, UK.
Gero, J. and Mc Neil, T. (1998). “An Approach to the Analysis of Design Protocols.”
Journal of Design Studies, 19, 1, 21-61, Elsevier Science Ltd., UK.
Gibson, G. and Gebken, R. (2003). “Design Quality in Pre-project Planning: Applications
of the Project Definition Rating Index.” Building Research & Information, 31(5),
346–356, Spon Press. UK.
Goldratt, E.M., (1990). Theory of Constraints. North River Press, Croton-On-Hudson,
NY.
Graham, A. and Kruger, L. (2002). “Research in Adaptive Management: Working
Relations and the Research Process.” Research Paper PNW-RP-538, United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
257
Green, S. D. (1994). “Beyond Value Engineering: SMART Value Management for
Building Projects.” International Journal of Project Management. 12, (1) 49-56,
Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.
Green, S.D. (1996). “A Metaphorical Analysis of Client Organizations and the Briefing
Process.” Construction Management and Economics, 14, 155-164, E. & F.N. Spon,
UK.
Green, S.D. and Simister, S.J. (1999). “Modeling Client Business Processes as an Aid to
Strategic Briefing.” Construction Management and Economics, 17, 63-76, E. & F.N.
Spon, UK.
Griffin, A. & Hauser, J. (1993). “The Voice of the Customer.” Marketing Science, 12, 1,
1-27, JSTOR.
Grundy, T. (1998). “Strategy Implementation and Project Management.” International
Journal of Project Management, 16, 1, 43-50. Elsevier Science Ltd & IPMA. UK.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Batton, P. (1991). Getting to Yes. New York: Penguin Books.
Hale, J.P. (1995). “The Theory and Practice of Dialogue in Organizational Settings.”
CSWT Papers, Center for the Study of Work Teams, University of North Texas.
Halman, J. and Burger, G. (2002). “Evaluating Effectiveness of Project Start-ups: an
Exploratory Study.” International Journal of Project Management, 20 81-89,
Elsevier. UK.
Hansen, K.L. and Vanegas, J.A. (2003). “Improving Design Quality through Briefing
Automation.” Building Research & Information, 31(5) 379–386, Spon Press.UK.
Hershberger, R.G. (1999). Architectural Programming and Predesign Manager.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
258
Hook, I.F. and Farry, A.K. (2001). Customer-Centered Products: Creating Successful
Product through Smart Requirements Management. AMACON, New York.
Horgen, T., Joroff, M., Porter, W., and Schon, D. (1999). Excellence by Design:
Transforming Workplace and Work Practice. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
Hudson, J. (1999). “Briefing and Design: the Role of Creativity.” In the Challenge of
Change: Construction and Building for the New Millennium COBRA/ RICS
Construction and Building Research Conference, Baldry, D. and Ruddock, L. (eds.),
284-289, RICS/University of Salford, London.
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999). “Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive
Systems: a Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning.” Journal of the
American Planning Association, 65(4) 412-422, American Planning Association,
Chicago, IL.
Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Currency, New York.
Kaglioglou, M., Cooper, R. and Aouad, G. (1999). “The Process Protocol: Improving the
Front End of the Design and Construction Process for the UK Industry.” In Harmony
& Profit, CIB Working Commission W92, Procurement Systems Seminar, Chiang
Mai, Thailand, January 25-28, 1999, (Available electronically at
http://pp2.dct.salford.ac.uk/pdf/cibw92.pdf).
Kähkönen, K. (1999). “Multi-Character Model of the Construction Project Definition
Process.” Automation in Construction, 8, 625–632, Elsevier Science Ltd, Amsterdam.
Kalay, Y. (1999) "Performance-Based Design." Automation in Construction, 8, 395-409,
Elsevier Science Ltd, Amsterdam.
259
Kalay, Y. (2000). “Multidisciplinary Collaborative Design.” Course Syllabus,
Department of Architecture, University of California at Berkeley.
Kamara, J., Anumba, C. and Evbuomwan, N. (2000). “Establishing and Processing Client
Requirements - a Key Aspect of Concurrent Engineering in Construction.” Journal of
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 7(1)15-28, Blackwell
Science Ltd. UK,
Kamara, J. and Anumba, C. (2001). “A Critical Appraisal of the Briefing Process in
Construction.” Journal of Construction Research, 1(2) 13-24, World Scientific, Hong
Kong.
Kelly, J., MacPherson, S. and Male, S. (1992). The Briefing Process. Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors, London.
Kenny, J. (2003). “Effective Project Management for Strategic Innovation and Change in
an Organizational Context.” Project Management Journal. 34(1), Project
Management Institute.
Koskela, L. (2000). “An Exploration towards a Production Theory and its Application to
Construction.” VTT Publications; 408, 296 p., VTT Building Technology, Espoo,
Finland.
Lawson, B. (1980). How Designers Think. 213pp, The Architectural Press Ltd, London.
Lambert, S., Poteete, J., and Waltch, A., (2000). Generating High-Performance
Corporate Real Estate Service. MIT, USA.
Liu, A. and Leung, M. (2002). “Developing a Soft Value Management Model.”
International Journal of Project Management, 20, 341-349, Elsevier.
260
Love, P.E., Holt, G. D. and Heng, L. (2002). “Triangulation in Construction Management
Research.” Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
9(4) 294-303, Blackwell Science Ltd, UK.
MacMillan, S., Steele, J., Austin, S., Kirby, P. and Spence, R. (2001). “Development and
Verification of a Generic Framework for Conceptual Design.” Design studies,
22(2), 169-191, Elsevier Science Ltd., UK.
Manning, P. and Mattar, S. (1994). “A Preliminary to Development of Expert Systems
for Total Design of Entire Buildings.” in Principles of Computer-Aided Design:
Evaluating and Predicting Design Performance, Edited by Yehuda E. Kalay, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA.
March, J.G. (1983). The Technology of Foolishness, Ambiguity and Choice in
Organizations, by March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P., Universitetsforlaget, Norway.
Mayer, R.J., Painter, M.K., and Lingineni, M. (1995). Information Integration for
Concurrent Engineering (IICE) towards a Method for Business Constraint Discovery
(IDEF9). Human Resources Directorate Logistics Research Division, Knowledge
Based Systems, Inc. Texas. Available at http://www/idef.com.
Melgrati, A. and Damiani, M. (2002). “Rethinking the Project Management Framework:
New Epistemology, New Insights”. Proceedings of PMI Research Conference
(2002), Seattle.
Miles, L.D. (1972). Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering. 2nd Edition,
McGraw-Hill, USA.
Murman, E. and Allen, T. (2002). Lean Enterprise Value: Insights from MIT’s Lean
Aerospace Initiative. Palgrave. New York.
261
Nishiguchi, T. (2001). “Coevolution of Interorganizational Relations.” in Knowledge
Emergence: Social, Technical and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation,
Eds. Nonaka, I., Nishiguchi, T., Oxford University Press, New York.
Nutt, B. (1993). “The Strategic Brief.” Facilities, 11(9) 28-32, MCB University Press,
Bradford, West Yorkshire, England.
Peña, W.M., and Parshall, S.A. (2001). Problem Seeking, An Architectural Programming
Primer. 4TH Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY, USA.
Pennanen, A. (forthcoming 2004). User Activity-Based Workspace Definition as an
Instrument for Workplace Management in Multi-user Organizations. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Architecture, University of Tampere, Finland.
Preiser, W.F.E. (1993). Professional Practice in Facility Programming. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
PMI Standards Committee (1996). A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge. Slyva, Project Management Institute.
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1972). “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.”
Working paper no. 72 - 194, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Rittel, H.W.J. (1984). “Second Generation Design Methods.” In Developments in Design
Methodology, Cross, N. (ed.), 317-327, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Rosenhead, J. and Mingers, J. (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World
Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict.
2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New York.
Rowe, P.G. (1987). Design Thinking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
262
Ruitenbeek, J. and Cartier, C. (2001). “The Invisible Wand: Adaptive Co-Management as
an Emergent Strategy.” Complex Bio-Economic Systems, Occasional Paper No. 34,
Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia.
Russo, J.E., and Shoemaker, P.J.H. (1990). Decision Traps: The Ten Barriers to Brilliant
Decision Making and How to Overcome Them. Simon & Schuster Inc., New York.
Russo, J.E., and Shoemaker, P.J.H. (2002). Winning Decisions: Getting it Right the First
Time. Currency Doubleday, New York.
Scharmer, R. (2000). “Self-transcending Knowledge: Organizing around Emerging
Realities.” In Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization,
Nonaka I. and Teece D. (eds.), 68-90, SAGE Publications, London,
Schon, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action.
Basic Books, Inc., New York.
Scriver, A.R., Ball, L.J., and Woodcock, A. (2000). Collaborative Design. Springer,
London.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization.
Doubleday, New York.
Simon, H.A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Simon, H. A. (1984). “The Structure of Ill-structured Problems.” in Developments in
Design Methodology, N. Cross (ed.), 317-327, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Smith, J., Kenley, R. and Wyatt, R. (1998). “Evaluating the Client Briefing Problem: an
Exploratory Study.” Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 5, 4, 387-398, Blackwell Science Ltd, UK.
263
Smith, J. and Jackson, N. (2000). “Strategic Needs Analysis: its Role in Brief
Development.” Facilities, 18 (13/14), MCB University Press, Bradford, West
Yorkshire, England.
Stacey, R. (1999). Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge
of Complexity. 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, London.
Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business Dynamics, Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex
World. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Straus, D. (2002). How to Make Collaboration Work. BK, San Francisco.
Stumpf, S.C. and McDonnell, J.T. (2002). “Talking about Team Framing: Using
Argumentation to Analyse and Support Experimental Learning in Early design
Episodes.” Design Studies, 23(1) 5-23, Elsevier, London.
Teicholz, E. (2001). Facility Design and Management Handbook. McGraw-Hill, NY.
Thomke, S., and Nimgade, A. (2000). “IDEO Product Development.” Harvard Business
Review, Ref No. 600-143, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA, USA.
Tompkins, J.A., White, J.A., Bozer, Y.A., Frazelle, E.H., and Tanchoco, J.M.A. (1996).
Facilities Planning. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Thomson, D.S., Austin, S.A., Wright, H.D., and Mills, G.R. (2003). “Managing Value
and Quality in Design.” Building Research & Information, 31(5) 334–345, Spon
Press, UK.
Ulrich, K., and Eppinger, S. (2000). Product Design and Development. 2nd Edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
University of Salford, (1995). Process Protocol. Available at:
http://pp2.dct.salford.ac.uk/homepage.htm.
264
Van Der Merwe, A. (2002). “Project Management and Business Development:
Integrating Strategy, Structure, Processes and Projects.” International Journal of
Project Management, 20, 401-411, Elsevier.
Verger, M.D., and Kaderlan, N. (1994). Connective Planning. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Winch, G., Usmani, A. and Edkins, A. (1998). Towards Total Project Quality: a Gap
Analysis Approach.” Construction Management and Economics, 16, 193 – 207, E. &
F.N. Spon, UK.
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (1996). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in
your Corporation. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Woodhead, R.M. (1999). The Influence of Paradigms and Perspectives on the Decision
to Build Undertaken by Large Experienced Clients of the UK Construction
Industry. PhD Dissertation, School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds,
Leeds, UK.
Yin, R. (1993). Applications of Case Study Research. Applied Social Research Methods
Series Volume 34, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd Edition, Applied Social
Research Methods Series Volume 5, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
265
APPENDIX A
HAAHTELA PROJECT CASES - INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
266
The objective of the interview was to develop the primary stakeholders’ perspective
about the management process. A set of semi-structured interviews was developed to
elicit facts concerning the project background, the role of the stakeholder in the project,
their needs, how the project events unfolded and what the sticking points or conflicts
were, what methods of need analysis was carried out, how these methods differed and
what the benefits and limitations of each method were.
Semi-structured Interview Questions to project stakeholders
1. Brief background.
a. Describe your role and responsibility in the project organization
b. From your perspective, what was the basic project outline in terms of
events and time?
2. Who are the primary stakeholders involved in project definitions?
a. What is the role of:
i. Client Strategy;
ii. Operations Management;
iii. User.
b. Who manages the interaction of the above?
3. Relationship of owner need and facility management.
I am interested in the management system that functions between owner strategy,
operations personnel, facility users and other relevant interest groups.
a. What are the methodologies for integrating the Organization's Business &
Real Estate Strategy?
b. What are the general methods and tools for establishing the above drivers?
267
c. What were the main drivers or needs for the project?
d. What were the main difficulties in realizing your needs?
e. How do you align multiple stakeholder needs in project development?
f. What do you see as the most important challenges in getting alignment of
stakeholder needs?
g. How do you resolve conflict in the group process?
h. In your opinion what is the role of project management in managing the
group process (in project planning)?
4. If we consider that needs are in a constant state of change, how are these changing
needs of stakeholders identified and set out for project development?
a. Do you integrate needs analysis or programming with design activity
(concepts and schemes of workplaces) in project planning?
i. If so, what benefits does "Design Activity" have in this phase?
5. What are the mechanisms in use in your development process that supports:
i. Process transparency?
ii. Group shared understanding?
b. In terms of decision making can you identify when transparency is
important to have in a process, and when it is less important to have?
6. I focus on the idea of "common group language" in the alignment process of
owner strategy, user needs and project constraints (e.g., resources).
a. What is your common language in a typical project planning session?
b. Can you give examples of this working language in operation?
268
7. What mechanisms do you put in place to question "group assumptions" and
promote new learning about ever changing workplace needs and business
strategies?
a. How does the process facilitate learning and change as new issues
emerge?
8. Comparison of Haahtela Process and other Programming Methodologies
a. What was requested of the initial programming service provider? Outline
the deliverables.
b. What is your approach in developing a programming statement with a
service provider/client?
c. What are the difficulties in working with traditional programmers/clients
when doing programming?
d. In your opinion, why did the client not work with the final programming
statement?
e. Do you know the difference in approach between the original
programming methods and those (Haahtela services) chosen to re-evaluate
the clients needs?
f. Did you make decisions in a different manner for each method? If so
describe.
g. How does the stakeholder benefit from the programming statement that is
provided by the Haahtela management methods?
h. Are there benefits in developing a hybrid of traditional architectural
programming and those of the Haahtela Management System?
269
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT STEERING IN GROUP DIALOGUES
270
B1. INTRODUCTION
To further understand the steering process used in the workplace planning dialogues, I
have carried out a discourse analysis of a client-planner workshop. The dialogue was
taken from an observed workplace planning meeting. The aim of this work is to provide
supporting evidence on how process management is operating in this process. The
research objectives are primarily to:
1. Reveal the pattern of problem solving that typifies the Haahtela workplace
planning dialogue.
2. Define the principle actions from the group process with a focus of the role of the
workplace planner.
3. Relate the emergent issues of project purpose with group action.
The dialogue was extracted from a workplace planning meeting with the workplace
planner and the operations manager at Stadia Automotive Engineering Program.
B1.1 CONTEXT OF WORKPLACE PLANNING DIALOGUE
The meeting was held between Haahtela and the Head of Automotive Engineering at
Stadia Polytechnic in Helsinki. The workshop discussed the needs of a particular
operations space program.
The primary function of the meeting was to verify the accuracy of information in the
workplace model. The program statement was presented in document format to the group
and it acted as the main focus object for facilitating the discourse. The group interacted
with a workplace model that was represented in this document.
The meeting began with the Haahtela workplace planner discussing the drivers for the
organization, which is the number of students in the program. The process moved to
271
discuss the utilization performance of the spaces. A set of solution strategies emerged
from the meeting. The meeting concluded with a reflective conversation on the state of
the needs and further actions to understand the workplace problem.
B2. RESEARCH METHOD
The dialogue was chosen for analysis for the following reasons:
1. The forum-based dialogue represented the clarification phase (3) of the workplace
planning process. This phase focused on an initial representation of client needs,
thereby creating an object for group learning and a means to create shared
understanding.
2. The process forum served to share with operation management details on the
initial state of the system; i.e., space utilization performance.
3. The planner sought feedback on the accuracy of the model from operations
management.
4. The workplace planner provided operations management with an initial model of
the spatial needs and their performance with respect to utilization performance.
5. Client operations were served with a representation of their needs. In this co-
creation process, both the workplace planner and operations developed a
consensus on the state of the needs model and proposed strategies to improve
definition of the client requirements.
272
B2.1 CODIFYING THE COMMUNICATIVE SPEECH ACTS
In order to understand the group action in the workplace planning meeting, protocol
analysis (Gero and Mc Neil 1998) was used to capture the thinking process in the group.
The research adopted a micro-perspective to understand the fine grained behavior of
group action. Group communication was completely recorded and analyzed sentence-by-
sentence. See Appendix B. Utterances were broken down into communicative acts, and
defined as a statement concerning a specific subject. If a speaker changed subjects
throughout the course of a longer speech, the speech has been broken down into several
communicative acts.
Based on the assumption that communication provided a prime access to the thinking
and problem-solving process of design teams, a multi-level coding system was developed
for the analysis of the recorded data. The analysis required a codification system to
identify how the speech acts correspond to action. Table B-1 summarizes the definitions
of each action perspective. On the highest level, the coding system reflects the two main
focuses of activity, “content” and “process”.
273
Table B.1 Codification of Speech Acts
Process based action
• Process Definition
- Global action: The communicative act refers to process based issues at a global
project level; e.g., how workplace planning is carried out.
- Local Action: The communicative act refers to process based issues at a local project
level; e.g., how a need is analyzed.
Content Based Action
• Needs Analysis
- Global Needs: The communicative act refers to analysis content based issues at a
global project level; e.g., analysis details on the needs of an operations group.
- Local Needs: The communicative act refers to analysis of content based issues at a
local project level; e.g., analysis details on the needs of an individual or space.
• Requirements Synthesis
- Global requirements: The communicative act refers to synthesis of content based
issues at a global project level; e.g., synthesis details on the needs of an operations
group.
- Local Requirements: The communicative act refers to synthesis of content based
issues at a local project level; e.g., synthesis details on the needs of an individual or
space.
274
B2.2 ACTION ANALYSIS
Communicative acts were analyzed in three ways:
• Analysis of frequencies: Analyzing the frequencies in which the different
communicative acts occur provided a basic understanding of the role of the different
problem-solving steps in the group process.
• Process analysis under a macro-perspective: The problem-solving steps that occurred
over the whole period of the group work provided insights into the order, in which the
different steps occurred during different stages of the collective group process.
• Process analysis under a micro-perspective: Analyzing transitions between different
problem-solving steps sentence-by-sentence provided insight into the basic thinking
process of the observed group.
B3. RESULTS
The speech acts were transcribed and codified according to Table B.1. Appendix Tables
C.1 and C.2 describe the speech acts. Based on the formatted speech acts, a set of
graphical analyses were carried out. The results show the:
• Frequency of communicative acts in graph format.
• Pattern of problem solving plotted on action space and time.
• Dialogue clusters on Pattern Graph – Horizontal flow.
• Steering Points on the pattern graph.
• Dialogue Clusters on Pattern Graph – Vertical flow.
275
B3.1 FREQUENCY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTS
Figure B.1 illustrates the frequency of each principal action in the group process. The
communicative acts concerning the global process were most frequent. The dialogues
concerning needs analysis at the local level were then most common. This was followed
by synthesis of the client requirements at the global level. Communication regarding the
process at the local level was least common to occur. In all, the process-based acts make
up over one third of communicative acts. The content-based activities make up the other
two thirds of the acts.
B3.2 PROBLEM SOLVING PATTERN
Figure B.2 illustrates the sequence of group action that occurred over the group meeting.
The three primary actions: process analysis, needs analysis and requirements synthesis
are represented. The graph shows the communicative acts plotted in the appropriate
action space over time (of the group meeting).
276
Frequency of Communicative Acts
Requirements Synthesis Local
Requirements Synthesis Global

Communicative Acts
Needs Analysis Local
Needs Analysis Global
Process Local
Process Global
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

% Occurrence
Figure B.1 Frequencies of Communicative Acts
277
Problem Solving Pattern
Global
Requirements
Planner & Client - Interaction Activity Space
Synthesis
Local
Global
Needs Analysis
Local
Global
Process Analysis
Local
Action Code
0
2.12
3.25
4.32
5.52
6.35
7.4
8.55
10.3
11.3
12.3
13.2
14.4
16.3
17.6
19.2
21.4
22.4
23.4
24.3
25.4
26.5
27.6
29.3
30.3
31.4
33.1
34.2
35.2
36.4
38.1
40
40.5
41.5
Group Meeting Time - Minutes
Figure B.2 Problem-Solving Pattern
278
B3.3 CLUSTERING OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTS
Figure B.3a and B.3b illustrates the number of clusters of dialogue that occur in each
action space. The definition of a cluster is a set of communicative acts that occur
sequentially in a space. For example there are twelve incidents of “needs analysis” at the
local level. These clusters can be simply counted in the action space along the horizontal
time plane. The cluster count reveals that there is a narrow range of six clusters in the
Needs analysis – Global and twelve clusters in the Needs Analysis – Local. The other
actions lie within this range.
The cluster analysis reveals that there is a balance of actions, and not to be mistaken
with the frequency of communicative acts. While Global Process acts accounted for 25%
of total communicative acts, the activity cluster analysis reveals that “local needs
analysis” is the primary focus of the group process. In the local needs analysis space,
there is evidence of a steady time cycle. This result verifies how the planner focuses the
meeting agenda on local needs of the client operations. The dialogue tends to move to
different action spaces, but relies on the needs analysis as the focus for group problem
solving. The dialogue analysis reveals how the meeting agenda revolves around space
utilization, and discussions of related issues.
At the micro-level, Figures B.4 and B.5 illustrate the transitions of action from one space
to another. A select number of steering points have been shown to identify the steering
process. Figure B.5 graphically shows approximate patterns of transition across from
space to space. The transitions reveal steady cycles of analysis and synthesis of the
problem. A simple line construct demonstrates the direction of the problem solving
pattern across the problem spaces.
279
Global
Requirements
Synthesis
Local
Global
Needs Analysis
Local
Global
Process Analysis
Local
0
2.12
3.25
4.32
5.52
6.35
7.4
8.55
10.3
11.3
12.3
13.2
14.4
16.3
17.6
19.2
21.4
22.4
23.4
24.3
25.4
26.5
27.6
29.3
30.3
31.4
33.1
34.2
35.2
36.4
38.1
40
40.5
41.5
Horizontal Cluster
Figure B.3a Cluster Analysis
280
Cluster Analysis
14
12
10
No of Occurences
0
Process Global Process Local Needs Analysis Global Needs Analysis Local Requirements Requirements
Synthesis Global Synthesis Local
Communicative Acts
Figure B.3b Cluster Analysis of Dialogues
281
Global
Requirements
Synthesis
Local
Global
Needs Analysis
Local
Global
Process Analysis
Local
Action Code
0
2.12
3.25
4.32
5.52
6.35
7.4
8.55
10.3
11.3
12.3
13.2
14.4
16.3
17.6
19.2
21.4
22.4
23.4
24.3
25.4
26.5
27.6
29.3
30.3
31.4
33.1
34.2
35.2
36.4
38.1
40
40.5
41.5
Steering Point
Figure B.4 Planner Steering Points
282
Global
Requirements
Synthesis
Local
Global
Needs Analysis
Local
Global
Process Analysis
Local
Action Code
0
2.12
3.25
4.32
5.52
6.35
7.4
8.55
10.3
11.3
12.3
13.2
14.4
16.3
17.6
19.2
21.4
22.4
23.4
24.3
25.4
26.5
27.6
29.3
30.3
31.4
33.1
34.2
35.2
36.4
38.1
40
40.5
41.5
Figure B.5 Transitions of Action Cycles
283
APPENDIX C
SPEECH ACT ANALYSIS
284
Table C.1 Discourse Analysis Codification Scheme
Codification Element Code
Stakeholder Agent Planner P
Client C
Speech Act Process - Local PL
Process – Global PG
Needs Analysis - Local NL
Needs Analysis - Global NG
Requirements Synthesis - RL
Local
Requirements Synthesis - RG
Global
285
Table C.2 Speech Act Analysis
Index Time Agent Speech Act Action Researcher comment on Action
No Codification
1 0 WpPl The driver is the number of students that
are present in the school. There is a little
less the 400 students present. We have to
add Auto Electrics which is? NG Planner clarifies the governing variable or driver
2 0.2 ClOp At this time it is 25 student per group
Client provides an answer
3 0.4 WpPl We skip off from the basis studies for now
and here we mention all the professional Planner positions client into a new frame of problem solving - it
studies for now PL is a local transition point
4 1.1 WpPl We describe the hours of each studies and
the spaces that are used.
Planner describes the document results and layout
5 1.2 WpPl This section mentions the study spaces.
The spaces that you need are general
teaching rooms, computer labs. Planner describes the room definition
6 1.3 WpPl The next phase describes the special labs
or space needed e.g. theme areas such as
Automotive Technical lab. ditto
7 1.55 WpPl The problem is if you look at the right,
that if we describe your teaching
operations like this, some labs will be in
very low use. Well all of the labs are in
very low use. NL The focus changes to delivering a result of the utilization results
8 2.12 ClOp Yes, but some of these labs are combined
with courses and students from Client responds with a feeling that mechanical eng data has not
mechanical eng. been included.
9 2.3 WpPl That’s right, but e.g. auto brake systems
are not going to be in common use?
Planner responds by saying that the lab is a special lab
10 2.4 ClOp No, but some times you are teaching
brakes, and other times, we teach more
general subjects. Client gives his impression of how current space is used
286
Index Time Agent Speech Act Issue Cluster Researcher comment on Action
No
11 3.1 WpPl So you can steer general lecturing there to
this class? Planner queries a new meaning: that the space is in common
RG use?
12 3.12 ClOp yes
Client validates this use case
13 3.15 WpPl So we could describe this as a general
class room with some little area with Planner creates a synthesis of the need by specifying a space
special teaching space for brake systems layout and adjacency criteria
14 3.21 ClOp yes
The client validates this specification.
15 3.25 WpPl We could say that this 3% utilization is
only for a 10 space meter area which is
the brake system The planner further analyzes the performance of the space
16 3.4 ClOp Yes - What does this look like?
RL The client queries the make up of the space
17 3.5 WpPl This space can be described as a normal
class room with special space for wheels
and brakes. The planner synthesizes the space layout
18 4.1 ClOp Yes
The client acknowledges the definition thus far.
4.15 WpPl Could this be 3m long and 2.5 meter
wide?
The planner queries the possible space dimensions
19 4.2 ClOp It might be 2 meter
The client proposes a space dimension
20 4.25 WpPl It might be 10 m2
The planner summarizes the square footage without specifying
the specific dimensions
21 4.32 WpPl We can describe it as normal class room
and this area as a special space: brake
systems.
The planner synthesizes the requirement
287
No
22 4.38 WpPl When we describe brake system teaching,
they are studied in both spaces.
The planner describes the activities associated with the space
23 5.1 WpPl When we want normal lecturing we can
use this space. We divide these actions
into two. It means that the theme room is
in low use, but we have reduced the space The planner summarizes the performance of the space
size by quite much. utilization
24 5.3 WpPl If we look at Stadia Auto Energy Lab?
The planner switches the focus onto the next lab that he wishes
PL to focus on
25 5.35 ClOp This is the lab of Mechanical Eng also
The client asserts that it is also a shared lab of Mech Eng
5.44 WpPl So together with mechanical eng…so we
can increase the utilization of the space The planner states that utilization of the space will increase from
some more. RL this figure by incorporating the Mech Eng data.
26 5.5 ClOp yes
The client agrees
27 5.52 WpPl Auto material eng lab?
NL The planner moves to analyze another lab
28 6 ClOp Also we are talking about what we do
today and not yet in the future. This is also The planner is concerned about what information is being used
a lab of mechanical eng. i.e. information relating to today’s practice or in the future
29 6.1 WpPl It is in common use with mech eng now?
The planner seeks clarification on the use of the space by parties
30 6.12 ClOp yes
The client asserts that it is also a shared lab of Mech Eng
31 6.18 WpPl And will it be in the future? NG The client is concerned about what information is being used i.e.
information relating to today’s practice or in the future
288
No
32 6.2 ClOp Hard to say….we would like them to move The client reveals some uncertainty on the location of their
under our department also. neighboring education partner: Mech eng
33 6.3 WpPl Would you like to offer them a space
because it is in low use also?
The planner makes an offer to share the space with Mech eng.
34 6.35 ClOp If we study in the same location it is
possible, but if they are removed to a new The client assesses the location issue revealing uncertainty
location, then it is not about sharing resources.
35 6.42 WpPl Then you will have a lab in very low use.
NL The planner makes an assessment of the space performance
36 6.5 ClOp Yes
The client agrees
37 7 WpPl We checked the utilization for your
activities only, so if mechanical eng is not
in the same location, then you will have The planner acknowledges that the utilization model does not
low utilization in this lab. include the Mech eng activities.
38 7.1 ClOp Ah, yes there is a problem regarding final
theses work and project work. The client sees a conflict in the activities modeled by noting the
PL lack of project work activity
39 7.3 WpPl Yes, that’s correct
The planner acknowledges the omission.
40 7.35 ClOp I do not see it here?
The client continues in the point of a lack of data
41 7.4 WpPl Yes, well we will input this later, the final
theses load, the hours they use, we can
guess this, Not all students use the labs, The planner acknowledges the activity, but states there is
some may do projects at a jobsite PG uncertainty with respect to the level of use.
42 8 C yes The client agrees
289
No
43 8.1 W Maybe 10% of students use the labs, we
can show these working environments for
them later The planner thinks that not all students use the lab
44 8.15 W We give you a first impression now.
The section reveals that the planner wants to give the client a
first impression of the activity model and its performances
45 8.2 W Now Automotive lab 24% use?
NL The planner moves to analyze another lab
46 8.4 C Yes, this is our lab is it is about right,
without the project work. The client agrees, but includes an acknowledgement of a lack of
activity data
47 8.45 W So about right, ok.
The planner agrees
48 8.55 R So trying to understand further about
project work…people have free time to
come and go…..there maybe always one The planner seeks more understanding of the project work
person in there. PG activity
49 9.1 W Well yes, it is a question of education
policy; I mean if there was no space then
nobody would be here, if there is space,
then it is a question of policy of how to use
the space. How much money we have to The planner reflects as to what the space use policy of the
offer space. institution will be
50 9.33 C Yes.
The client agrees
51 9.35 W And we have to make a common policy on

that. Every program has to send a idea on The planner feels that levels of need should be established to
what the level of need is. Here the need is inform policy making
probably greater, young guys may want to
do something in auto motive issues in the
evening, rather than construction.
290
No
52 10 R It may depend on nature of the project
also.
The planner reflects on the project work activity
53 10.1 W Yes.
The planner agrees
54 10.15 W But we have to show the result of straight
education which is low utilization. It can The planner changes the focus back to the model and general
be told so. education needs
55 10.3 W And some labs might be used for projects
and final theses…. The planner acknowledge the multiple activities occurring in the
RG spaces
56 10.4 W And sometimes we have to rise utilization
by combining labs.
The planner synthesizes an approach to the raise utilization
57 10.5 W And sometimes we accept that we have
low use, so everything is possible. The planner makes the point that we may have to accept low
performance
58 11 W First though we need to know the state
somehow, how it is and what it costs. The planner shows consideration for process by describing the
PG direction of problem solving
59 11.05 C Yes
The client agrees
60 11.08 W So, electric lab. …17%, this may rise when
we add the electric line, but there are so
few studying this, it will rise to The planner redirects the conversation by analyzing a new space
perhaps…23% or so. NL lab
61 11.25 C Ya..
The client agrees
62 11.28 WpPl Motor Techniques theme lab….29%.
The planner assesses a new space
63 11.35 C Maybe quite alright.
The client agrees with the performance result
291
No
64 11.4 W Then we have very low ones. Welding
labs, these are not in use almost at all? The planner summarizes the performance of some remaining
labs
65 11.5 C Yes, mmm, this is because…ahh, actually
we don’t have it now as we want in the
future, if we had this lab we would use it The client responds with the feeling that they would use the lab
now very much in project works, but … more for project works in the future
66 12.1 R So does it exist?
The planner queries whether the space exists
67 12.15 C Ahh it is not in our control, it is also from
mechanical engineering department, The client reveals new knowledge regarding the sharing of the
space
68 R ok
The planner acknowledges the shared space
69 12.25 W After Sales Car Lab.
RL The planner introduces a new lab for analysis
70 12.35 C This is also not existing now but one we
wish to have in the future
The client reveals that this lab is not existing
71 12.38 W But the plant use may not be very high?
The planner asserts that the lab will be highly utilized
72 12.48 C Actually it will be in full time use.
The client feels that the lab will be utilized with other activities
73 12.55 C When it is commercial
The client proposes the new activities
74 13.05 W Ahh, you will give commercial services?,
so but for education?
RG The Planner get new information on new activities
75 13.1 C We are doing for education, but by
commercial means, so lets say, it could be The client suggests an activity support possibility
a FORD company.
292
No
76 13.18 W So you would like a someone selling cars
to come there to give services.
The planner seeks verification on activity support
77 13.4 C There would be our students doing almost
all the work, but the devices, computers
etc, technical material would come from
instance Ford. The client assess the activity strategy
78 13.48 W Yep
The planner acknowledges the possibility
79 14.1 R Is there a collaboration existing for this?
The planner queries the existence of a relationship
80 14.15 C Ahh we are planning, 5 years or
something like The client gives an ambiguous answer to the strategic
relationship
81 14.2 W So the Hydraulic Lab, we talked about the
Brake systems lab and now the auto
hydraulic lab? NL The planner moves to analyze another lab
82 14.32 C The Hydraulic lab., I think it is in the
Mechanical eng dept, and it is called
hydraulic lab and energy lab, it is the
same lab The client confirms it is part of Mech Eng also
83 14.4 W So this is held there and can be combined.
The planner acknowledges that the lab can be combined with
Mech Eng
84 15 W And Auto transportation lab?
The planner moves to analyze another lab
85 15.1 C No we don’t have it now, (missed voice)
The client informs the planner that they do not have the lab
86 15.15 W Ok
The planner acknowledges this issue
87 15.24 W We have dynamics theme class room The planner moves to analyze another lab
which is low utilization, and that fuel
classroom cannot be normal classroom RL
293
No
88 15.28 C This auto dynamics theme class must be
the same as the brake system lab. So there
you have brake systems and suspension The client assess the labs and tells the planner that these labs
systems here. must be combined
89 16 W So these can be combined
The planner confirms that the model should show this
combination
90 16.25 So we can develop a device area and then
a class room, which can be multi-purpose.
The planner synthesizes a solution
91 C So if you have time, I can show what we
have in these spaces.
The client offers to show the physical labs
92 16.38 W Ok yes.
The planner accepts his offers
93 16.45 W Ok, I think even though, if we add the
electric line, which is not a big volume,
and show the project work, utilization
degrees still remain quite low, in general,
because through the line, they are quite
low. It means that there will not be a huge
increase once we describe the other
activities. RG The planner evaluates the state of the system
94 16.5 W So it is a question of policy, because we
have to be somehow honest as how we
describe the use of education. I can
improve it to make it better fitting your The planner reminds the client of the need for transparency and
uses. accuracy
95 17.35 C Ahh, from where are these?
PG The client is concerned about what information is being used
96 17.5 W You gave us these figure, what you want to The planner reminds the client of the information source
teach and how you want to teach.
294
No
97 17.55 C Yes The client acknowledges this source
98 18 W And how teaching hours and it is The planner reiterates the approach of modeling activities and
compared to how many weeks and days it space use
is in use per year. So it means Sometimes
it is in very heavy use, but then it not used,
normally it is that there is a course that is
in heavy use, and the course ends and then
you start to use another lab, and then it
remains in low use.
99 18.02 C Yes The client acknowledges the approach
100 18.35 W And I think we have the same discussion in
every faculty. Normally it leads to a
discussion that can lead to combining The planner puts the client at ease with regard to the global
activities and then higher utilization scale of the problem of low space use
101 18.4 C So if this is 100%, then it means 8 hrs per
day
NG The client continues to check the model
102 19 W Yes, 8 per day, 32 weeks per year.
The planner confirms the approach
103 19.15 W Normally 100% is impossible,
The planner describes the difficulty in achieving very high
performance
104 19.2 W Normally it is possible to handle
classroom with 75% utilization, with 25%
free. then it allows a flexible timetable. The planner set typical performance criteria
105 19.3 W An if the utilization is 10%, it means that
with 32 weeks, 8 hours perday, if by The planner exemplifies the meaning of a utilization result
accident open the door 100 times, there is
something inside 10 time. 90% of the times
there is nothing inside.
106 19.5 C Yes, yes. The client agrees
295
No
107 20.15 W But it is true that some of activities are
held with mechanical engineering, but still
some of them are in low use, and so we
have a need to increase the space with
more room for car spaces. The planner summarizes the system state
108 20.2 C Mmm?
The client acknowledges a problem
109 20.45 W So, ahh, I am not sure how to discuss
on….
PL The planner is reflecting on where to turn to next
110 20.48 W So the load from mechanical eng. is not
here at all. The planner mentions the model has omitted the Mech eng
activities
111 21.4 C ya
The client acknowledges this source
112 21.55 W It means that materials eng lab is held
somewhere else?
The planner recognizes that a lab is located elsewhere
113 21.56 C yes
The client acknowledges this
114 21.58 W This is not a problem, this is a problem -
automotive lab, and theme classes are in
low use, also auto electric lab will be low
once we add this line. NL The planner locates items of concern
115 22 C Ya, but also there is this commercial use
for instance in this automotive lab The client is concerned with the commercial activities that are
not modeled
116 22.18 W Ye it has been described, and we have to The planner acknowledges the issue
show that the education use is this much
and the commercial use is this much. It
has to be told that way in the final report.
but ah..
296
No
117 22.28 C Yes
The planner recognizes that it has been acknowledged
118 22.4 W Is there a possibility to create more
flexible lab space to fit with multiple lab
space. RG The planner triggers a question to improve space performance
119 22.48 C Somehow yes, but there are some big
devices that you cannot move, and you
only need them now and then. The client feel that certain constraints exists
120 23 W Ye
The planner agrees
121 23.1 C And not all the time,
The client continues his thought on the constraints
122 23.12 W Ya
The planner acknowledges this issue
123 23.18 C It is very difficult in some labs, you can’t
do anything you want, you can only do one
thing. The client feel that certain labs are specialized
124 23.2 W Yes
The planner agrees
125 23.35 W There are many of those labs that need
devices that are portable; there are those
kinds of lab? The planner suggests that lab equipment maybe portable
126 23.38 C Yes
The planner agrees
127 23.42 W Could it be possible to create a flexible lab
and all those that need devices that they be The planner proposes a solution to the theme labs
stored, nearby and it can be used for many
purposes. The devices can be brought
there. The theme class room would be one
classroom and the theme movements are
around that room.
297
No
128 23.44 C Yes that is possible.
The client agrees
129 24.08 W So that everything that is mentioned as
theme could be a normal classroom
surrounded by stores. And maybe the
classroom is a little rougher, maybe work
benches than tables. The planner continues with the solution proposal
130 24.1 C Yes that may be possible
The client agrees
131 24.25 W That could rise utilization by that means in
theme labs
The planner sees the performance of the solution rising
132 24.3 Wr Are they portable, is most of the equipment
portable?
The planner checks on the amount of portable equipment
133 24.36 C Most of them are yes.
The client acknowledges the most equipment is portable
134 24.4 Wr Alright The planner recognizes this
135 24.45 W This is not ready yet, so I do not put this The planner states that the model is not ready
forward to anyway, we come back with the
real sizes, because once we have the real
sizes, we know how expensive they are. PG
136 25 W Here we have for instance this is how it The planner jumps to another lab issue
counts….Auto Energy Eng lab..... this is
yours?
NL
137 25.18 C Yes The client agrees
298
No
138 25.35 W It means that you use this for this
education, so these courses use that, and if
we add all the hours, that use, these ones,
we use the teaching hours then and divide The planner uses the example to describe low utilization
by time they are available, we get a result
as that NG
139 25.4 C Ya…
The client agrees
140 25.55 W So it means that they use really short
times, maybe a 2 week period, and then
you stop using that. The planner exemplifies the meaning of a utilization result
141 26 W It is a problem everywhere, when you do
not have very specific teaching areas and
not very many students, if you have 1000
thousand students and you have several
and teachers more,… then you need 3 of
them (?) The planner draws attention to the scale of the problem
142 26.15 C Yes…
The client agrees
143 26.3 W If we have to somehow make it more The planner makes the client aware of the operating costs
efficient then it is a question of money.
144 26.4 C Mmm (agreeing)

The client agrees
145 26.5 W It is not a question of function, but of
money, if we have to make it more The planner proposes a solution to the theme labs
efficient, one is where we make areas
more flexible, which can be used as a
multipurpose lab RG
146 26.52 C Yes The client agrees
299
No
147 27.1 W And then it would be your task to share its
time, another way would be that we would
put the activity somewhere else to the
mechanical lab or outside or use other
methods, if it is in very low use and you do
that in? The planner proposes a solution to the theme labs
148 27.12 C Logistics
NL The client offer an example
149 27.4 W Ya …Logistics would be very expensive, it
would be several hundreds of square
meters The planner agrees and describes its issues
150 27.42 C Ya, ya it would be very expensive
The client acknowledges the example
151 27.47 W And 3% use, and already you have an idea
that you cannot have it.
The planner continues with problem of having a logistics lab
152 27.5 C Ya
The client agrees
153 27.58 W But ah, to make it more flexible is to out-
source it somehow, one is that you do not
get it at all, it means you don’t teach like
that, it is also one possibility, so to rethink
your teaching, it means that you have
something here that you don’t have yet,
but you want to have it, it means you
something here that you don’t have yet,
but you want to have it. It means now you
do it some other way and you now want to
change your action. RG The planner offers other means to satisfy the problem
154 28 C Yes, I think these theme class rooms are
how we want to move ahead The client returns to the solution of flexible classrooms
300
No
155 28.25 W Ye, well for theme class rooms, the idea
would be that we make very flexible
classrooms and collect just stores
surrounding it, and if you have in a theme
classroom something that is not portable,
then you do not get it, it means simply you
change your actions or put it in a heavy
lab somewhere else, in a corner, and when
you need that you go there, The planner verifies its solution
156 28.35 C Yes
The client agrees
157 28.5 W And use only portable ones surrounding
this area, could it be?
The planner continues with solution details
158 28.54 W It could be a solution for the theme
classrooms to put them in a cheap way.
The planner sees the solution as possible
159 29.1 W But the others, I do not know, I simply
don’t know, we have to put the actions and
try to find our how big they are and how
expensive they are, and then you have to
figure it all out again, it is your choice The planner admits he does not know the answer yet to the other
what is important and what is not. NG labs
160 29.25 C mmm
The client agrees
161 29.4 W Does it?
The planner requests a response
162 30 C Ya
The client acknowledges the issues
163 30.05 Wr These external labs, are they sponsored or The planner requests information on a lab
they paid for by the department?
NL
301
No
164 30.1 C Ya we are paying for them, it is like a
visiting.
The client describes that the labs are paid for
165 30.15 Wr It is like a site visit?
The client assesses the labs format
166 30.2 C Ya..
The client agrees
167 30.28 Wr Ok
The planner acknowledges the issue
168 30.3 W I think that, in Auto the problem they need
a lot of space in labs. They are expensive
anyhow. NG The planner gives system wide analysis of the system types
169 30.35 C Yes, Electrical labs, we would like to have
there 5 cars
NL The client continues with an example of the expensive labs
170 31 W And it takes space, and in that way there
are in low use, it is very big, in low use
and cannot be used for anything else. The planner analyses the state of the lab
171 31.15 C Err Yes
The client feels that the lab will be utilized with other activities
172 31.2 W Cannot it be used?, ahh, you have also
other labs, where you lift cars up, what
was that lab? RL The planner proposes a solution to the auto car lab
173 31.3 C It was this ahh, this After Sales Car Lab
The client confirms the lab name
174 31.4 W Why don’t you, can you combine them, I The planner queries whether activities can be combined
mean can you do the same lab for both.
175 31.5 C Yes we could……

The client agrees
302
No
176 31.52 W This could be a great saving?
The planner feels that the performance will improve
177 31.55 C This is in the future?
The client reminds the planner that the activities is not what is
going on now
178 32 W If you built a new one, could it be used,
Sometimes you rise up cars, and then at
times you do not, you use it a while for
that and then you use it for another
purpose, and the utilizations are very low
here for After Sales Research Lab, even
both of them, together both of them the
utilization will not exceed 30%, so it still
mainly without use. NL The planner analyses the state of the lab
179 32.34 C Ya but there is a problem that these
numbers are now from what we are doing
now, and when we don’t have this lab. PL The client conflicts with the planner on the activities
180 32.5 W But we tried to express together how we
act in future last time, we tried to find out.
This is a description of the future, a
problem, maybe not the best one, but The planner reiterates the approach of modeling activities and
probably. space use
181 33.1 C Our students have this exercise, and they
are then working there all the time and
continuously, and it is not now in here at
this time. The client re-affirms the non-existence of the project work
182 33.3 W No No The planner accepts this issue
183 W This is pure education, how do you call it?
The planner returns to what the model is describing
184 33.38 Wr Coursework only, Instruction The planner re-affirms it is coursework only
185 33.4 C Ye
The client agrees
303
No
186 33.42 W I know by experience that this does not
rise by very much, of course it rises if you
think that one or two persons are there
always in the evening, it means it is full
100% in use but really only partly, such a
huge lab there only 2 guys are there only The planner puts his experience to base his opinion on low
as they have time. utilization
187 34.1 C Ye
188 34.15 W Then I think when we describe this as
whole, first you are interested in the
courses and the very effective education,
and then some persons get even better The planner returns to how the process will evaluate the needs
results, like coming there, PG of the client
189 34.3 W Modeling is never fact, but it models the
information we get.
The planner asserts that the information is never fully accurate
190 34.35 W There is always the problem when a lab is
in use it is 100% in use, then you cannot
use it for other purposes, then it might be
suitable more empty. The planner describes a problem
191 34.4 C mmm
192 34.5 W From teachers point of view when it is
100% in use it is overloaded, and when it
is empty, nobody is there to see that. The planner continues describing the state of the system
193 35 C Hahaha (Laughter)
The client is amused
194 35.05 W It is like Plato’s problem, ah does the tree
make noise in the forest when there is The planner draws on philosophical social constructivism to
nobody there to listen describe the phenomenon
195 35.2 C (Laughter) That is a problem!
The client is amused
304
No
196 35.25 W And that it why they want to measure this The planner discusses the systems level approach
for the whole of Stadia, all faculties, to
find out what is the state as whole, the
president does not know.
197 35.42 C Yaa

The client agrees
198 35.5 W But we do not have to make decisions now The planner assures the client that decisions are not being made
but it is information now
199 35.55 C I think these are almost the right number The client feels that the numbers are accurate
when we are talking only about these
courses. RG
200 36.1 W Ya, but I am not the decision maker, but The planner makes it known that he does not make decisions,
even though with practicing etc. about but models information and suggests how to improve workplace
30% utilization is necessary mainly, performance
because if we start from 8%, it is not so..
ah there might be discussion to make it
more efficient, well I know that there is.
PG
201 36.36 C Yes
202 36.4 W I am not the decision maker, but I bring
the information before anywhere else, and
we can adjust it in a way that you feel that
it is proper
The planner further describes his facilitative role
305
No
203 37 C mmm
204 37.02 W They have told the workplace strategy
making that we have to make flexible
working areas. That many courses can be
taught there, and maybe all those where
you need cars inside should be in one lab,
and the lab might be a little bigger, have
more devices so you can do electric
installations, lift cars up, and do
something else in the same lab, and you
just have to share the time wisely. The planner states that the strategy is to develop flexible spaces
205 37.4 C Yes
The client agrees
206 37.42 W And the reason why I talk about that now,
is because they are the biggest ones, car The planner recognizes that the current client has big labs and
labs are big, PL will be further scrutinized later
207 37.5 W Theme labs, I think there are not very big
problem, their stores are tiny, that if we
make normal classroom and them stores,
it is not a problem at all, it will support
your education well and it is not too
expensive The planner describes the satisfactory needs
208 38.05 C Yes
The client agrees
209 38.1 W And then it is also possible that other
faculties can use your labs, that they are
so flexible that they will run courses in
your labs. I don’t know how possible that
is? RG The planner proposes the sharing of space
210 38.2 C Ya it is possible, for instance we talked The client exemplifies a lab to share
about this Electric lab with the Electrical
Department, that we use it together RL
306
No
211 38.34 W Ya, so that means I should see the courses
that use this lab and model it this way, so
that means that you are responsible for
this decision because you do not get more
space, they loose space and you have to
give it. The planner agrees
212 39.1 C Yes, but ahh, it is also how near or how
far in the future we can get the Electric
lab? The client issues uncertainty about the future
213 39.15 W Ya well, we are asked to make a
workplace planning for the whole
polytechnics PG The planner goes back to the high level process
214 39.3 Wr Do you?, I take it you and electrical
engineering you are close, you talk a lot,
you collaborate, you are creating this
course together and sharing the teaching
load. Do you have a policy to say we need
to be together. PL The planner enquires of the relationship between stakeholders
215 39.5 C Yes Yes we have that kind of agreement,
but we should have more time to discuss The client acknowledges a relationship but agrees that it needs
this agreement with each other. further work
216 40 Wr mm
The planner acknowledges the issue
217 40.1 W With these papers, I can get everything
from every faculty, so I can show every
faculties activities and also the labs, PG The planner re-iterates the direction of the process
218 40.15 C Yes
The client agrees
219 40.2 W And then we have time, or least we have
tools to to… I can see the similarities of The planner reveals that the information will allow transparency
the labs and I can ask you to contact each
other
307
No
220 40.3 W Maybe the President has an interest to
collect you to talk if he sees problems. The planner mentions that the strategy should collect the
stakeholders
221 40.4 C Ye, I think he should collect us.
The client agrees
222 40.44 W Maybe this workplace planning project is
a tool for that.
The planner suggests that the planning tools can facilitate this
223 40.5 C Ye
The client agrees
224 40.55 W Ok so this is for your knowledge, nobody
else, it is not there yet. The planner confirms that the model is not complete and not to
be distributed as yet.
225 41 C Yes
226 41.05 W We talk about that later, when I have
everything ready, and soon we get also the
other faculties ready and everyone can see
every one else’s workplace use and so on,
well that’s the problem, if they are open
minded you are other labs and others can
see yours and so on. The planner describes the next stage
227 41.26 C Ye, I think we should be so open minded
and discuss with each other these things.
The client agrees that stakeholders need to collaborate
228 41.4 WpPl Ok then let’s have a look at these labs.
The planner requests a look at some labs
229 41.45 C Ok.
The client agrees
230 41.48 Wr Ok.
The planner agrees
308
APPENDIX D
PROJECT DEFINITION PROCESS LEARNING MODULES
309
The following process-based principles are proposed for further research in the
management of the project definition process:
D.1 Choosing Appropriate Problem Seeking & Solving Methods
The problem seeking and solving perspective is the central and most important aspect of
the learning principles. The purpose of this element is to support project management in
the design of the problem solving strategy. Management need to be in a position to
evaluate the performance of the problem solving approach as the initial problem
statement changes based on new learning about the problem. The problem
seeking/solving method is purpose-oriented in that it constantly questions the process by
which it defines purpose.
D.2 Conscious Group Process Design and Facilitation
The operations perspective is to support the design of group process. The purpose of this
element is to give process transparency and to aid management in the selection of group
facilitation tools and methods. Central to this framework is a generative mechanism that
facilitates stakeholder dialogue. The process view locates local group process in the
global project definition process.
D.3 Promoting Organizational Transparency
The organizational perspective provides management with a profile of stakeholder
organization and their relationships. The organizational view allows management to
identify stakeholder role and responsibility, relationships and interdependencies. The
organizational profile allows appropriate transparency and filtering of information to
support decisions about project purpose.
310
D.4 Formalizing the Definition and Quantification of Purpose
The purpose model perspective is the outcome developed by the project definition group.
The purpose model is a definition of the evolving project purpose. For example in
workplace planning it is the space program statement. The model may describe
performance criteria and solution concepts. The purpose model is the central object from
which group dialogue is created and action occurs. The purpose model, as seen in the
Haahtela workplace planning system, engages the stakeholder in purpose-based issues. It
constantly develops a dialogue regarding needs and constraints, subsequent to which
there is increased potential for problem synthesis and innovation to realize purpose.
D.5 Understanding Stakeholder Frames
The purpose of the “stakeholder frame” element is to allow management to identify
issues of need and value as felt necessary by the stakeholder in question. It allows for
analysis and synthesis of purpose. It allows transparency in stakeholder conflicts and
resolution processes. The perspective focuses on purpose oriented dialogue. It engages
the stakeholder with the purpose model to identify constraints and value generating
opportunity. While the stakeholder language is couched in the profession that he/she may
represent, management requires that a common language representing purpose is evident
in the framing perspective. The framing perspective of the stakeholder is socially-
embedded and emphasizes the language of their interests.
D.6 Managing Purpose Emergence and Change
It is vital for project managers to trace patterns of change. The “change view” allows
management to identify changes in the purpose model and trace these changes to actions
of the group. This enables learning about the project context. It also allows learning about
311
the definition process. Emergence of new issues must be realized by management and the
relevant stakeholders. The states of change that occur in the purpose model require
communication and commitment by stakeholders. The “change” element supports this
learning rationale as change occurs.
312
Purpose Concept Client
Strategy Specialist Stakeholder
Operations Hierarchy Hierarchy

Criteria
Users
Client Frame Specialist Frame Stakeholder Frame

Perspective - Interest Perspective - Interest Perspective - Interest
Problem Solving Approach
Strategic and Tactical choice of
problem solving approach
Meta-planning Process
Where is the need originating from? Change Perspective
What is driving the need?
Is it a user issue? Purpose Model Purpose Emergence
Is it an operations problem?
Is it a client strategy issue? Mission Statement Change Patterns
Is it a regulatory issue or other Stakeholder view
external stakeholder issue? Purpose Model
Operations View: Process Definition – Process Protocol - Meeting Design & Facilitation
Group Process Design: Structure: Search – Analyses Needs & Values – Create: Syntheses – Agree: Choice Decisions Consensus
Figure D.1 Elements of the Project Definition Process Learning Modules
313

Project Construction PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Project Construction PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Development of Purpose in the Project Definition Phase of Construction Projects

Michael Gerard Whelton

B.E. (University College Cork, Ireland) 1996

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree of

Engineering - Civil & Environmental Engineering

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Professor Glenn Ballard, Chair

Michael Gerard Whelton

The Development of Purpose in the Project Definition Phase of Construction Projects

Michael Gerard Whelton

Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering – Civil & Environmental Engineering

University of California, Berkeley

Professor Glenn Ballard, Chair

Project purposes are constructed through the interconnected relationships of stakeholder

resources to fulfill all stakeholder interests. While researchers have developed

methodologies to systematically process needs into project requirements through

examines three building construction projects at a public educational institution. The

project managers is instrumental in developing a collaborative process to support the

manager’s choice of problem-solving methodology to develop project purpose is an

important consideration in process design.

satisfactory outcomes are achieved. This study demonstrates a set of management

characteristics that engage multiple stakeholders in collaboration. This collaboration

shows evidence of resolving the purpose of projects, often in environments where

along with innovations in the workplaces they require.

collaboration and learning.

1.1.1 Significance of Project and Facility Management……………2

1.1.2 Significance of Project Definition............................................. 3

1.2 Managing the Project Definition Process ……………………………... 9

1.3 Purpose Development and this Research………………………………. 12

1.4 Research Questions…………………………………………………….. 14

1.5 Research Approach…………………………………………………….. 15

1.6 The Structure of the Dissertation..…………………………………….. 17

2 Purpose Development in Project Definition – A Review of the Literature…. 18

2.2 Purpose Development in Project Definition…………………………… 19

2.2.1 Working Definition……………………………………………19

2.2.2 Purpose Development and Customer Value…………………. 20

2.2.2.1 Dominance of Economic-based value……………… 21

2.2.2.2 Purpose-based Value………………………………. 22

2.2.3 Purpose Development and Needs……………………………. 23

2.3 Developing Needs into Project Requirements…………………………. 25

2.3.2 Systematic Requirements Processing………………………… 25

2.3.3 Limitations of Systematic Requirements Processing………… 27

2.4 Importance of Design in Purpose Development……………………….. 29

2.4.2 Design and Wicked Problems………………………………... 30

2.5 Project Definition Process Management……………………………….. 33

2.5.1 Process Protocols for Project Definition…………………….. 33

2.5.2 Project Performance Indicators……………………………... 35

2.5.3 Architectural Programming………………………………….. 36

2.5.4 Common Organizational Barriers in Project Definition…….. 37

2.5.5 Leadership Roles in Project Definition……………………….38

3 Purpose Development Through Collaboration and Learning……………….. 42

3.2 Characterizing Project Groups as Complex Systems………………….. 43

3.2.1 The Project Environment…………………………………….. 43

3.2.2 Detailed Complexity…………………………………………. 44

3.2.3 Stakeholder Interaction………………………………………. 45

3.2.4 Impediments to Learning in Complex Systems………………. 46

3.3 Purpose Development through Collaboration………………………….. 48

3.3.1 Collaborative Process………………………………………... 48

3.3.2 Directive versus Adaptive Management……………………... 49

3.4 Facilitating the Emergence of Project Purpose………………………… 53

3.4.1 Purpose as an Emergent Product of Group Development…... 53

3.4.2 Fostering Shared Understanding…………………………….. 55