Barrett, P and Barrett, L (2006) The 4Cs model of exemplary construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(2), pp. 201-215. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to highlight the key characteristics of the highest-performing construction projects, so that future procurement, briefing, design and construction management processes can be improved in the light of these experiences. Design/methodology/approach - Workshops were carried out in Australia, Singapore and the USA involving 40 senior participants, representing a good cross-section of the stakeholder interests around construction. These individuals were each asked to identify the best construction project with which they had been involved at any point in their careers and to identify the major reasons for its success. Findings - A synthesis is provided of the characteristics that characterise the exemplary projects cited by the workshop participants. These are typified by the "4Cs", namely constraints driving collaboration and creativity, ideally leading to community benefits. The 17 exemplars provided by the participants show project teams facing demands that act to break the dysfunctional paradigm of normal practice, so allowing refreshing and motivating actions to follow. This schema is reinforced by the three case study vignettes that illustrate in more detail the factors at work and their interactions. Linkage to prominent issues apparent in the literatures related to procurement, briefing, design and construction management are shown, together with pointers as to the connections between these issues as experienced in specific real world, project situations. In particular, the potentially pervasive impact of selective priority-setting is highlighted. Practical implications - This paper provides a glimpse of how construction operates at its best, the industry explicitly contributing to, and getting credit for, adding value to society economically, but also culturally, socially and environmentally. Originality/value - The work reported on here covers 17 mini-cases and three fuller cases, all drawn from three countries. Further work to build additional cases from a wider range of countries would test the broad outline of the 4Cs model and increase one's understanding of the dynamic mechanisms at work.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; community development; construction industry; construction operations; Singapore; United States of America |
| Index terms: | career, methodology, collaboration, construction project, briefing, society, community development, design and construction, paradigm, project team, interaction, construction industry, United States of America, case study, workshop, creativity, vignette, Singapore, Australia, construction operation, linkage |
| Subjects: | business, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, construction type, scope management, project delivery, construction operations, contractual arrangements, research methods, management, education and knowledge transfer, professional development, production management, Geography, behavioral psychology, innovation and creative processes, communities and social development, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Site Management, Organizational Design, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Procurement, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here