Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 2000 7  2, 141 – 153 Rethinking construction: the Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol MICHAIL KAGIOGLOU, RACHEL COOPER, GHASSAN AOUAD * & MARTIN SEXTON * Research Institute for Design and Manufacture, University of Salford, Centenary Building, Peru Street, Salford, M36EQ and * Research Centre for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford, Salford, M54WT, UK Abstract The complexity of construction projects and what is described in the manufacturing industry as the ‘fuzzy front end’. The participants in the process are the fragmentation of the construction industry undertak- described in terms of the activities that need to be ing those projects has effectively resulted in linear, unco- undertaken in order to achieve a successful project and ordinated and highly variable project processes in the UK construction sector. Research undertaken at the Univer- process execution. In addition, the decision-making mechanisms, from a client perspective, are illustrated sity of Salford resulted in the development of an im- proved project process, the Process Protocol, which and the foundations for a learning organization/industry are facilitated within a consistent Process Protocol. considers the whole lifecycle of a construction project whilst integrating its participants under a common frame- Keywords activity zones, design and construction, project process, process map, Process Protocol, stage work. The Process Protocol identifies the various phases gate of a construction project with particular emphasis on INTRODUCTION The construction industry in the UK is plagued with a number of problems, which have not disappeared in the last few decades. Those problems have been illus- trated by several government reports, including Simon (1944) and more recently the Latham (1994) and Egan (1998) reports. The findings are familiar practice to the majority of the industry, which is still striving towards improvements in a number of areas, but ap- parently with little success. There are three main areas for consideration: 1. development of a solution: including consultation with the client and development of product specifi- cations and design; 2. implementation of the solution: the construction or refurbishment of the facility that will satisfy the client needs and those of the project participants; and 3. the project process: the roadmap or framework that is used for undertaking the project activities and that delivers value to the supply chain parties. It is, however, almost impossible to consider any of the aforementioned areas in isolation as they are all interdependent and suboptimization does not guaran- tee project success. The Latham (1994) report reaffirmed the conclu- sions of all previous studies on the subject. The report focused on the fragmented nature of the industry as a major contributing factor to the poor communication between all parties working on a construction project. The main outcome and recommendation of the Latham report was its call for significant cost savings by the utilization and formulation of effective con- struction processes, which will in turn lead to in- creased performance. The recommendations of this report were reaffirmed in a recent report by Egan (1998), which reported to the deputy Prime Minister John Prescott on the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK construction. This report iden- tified the following five key drivers of change that need to set the agenda for the construction industry at large: 1. committed leadership; 2. focus on the customer; 3. integrated processes and teams; 4. quality-driven agenda; and 5. commitment to people. Within the focus for integrated processes and teams, four key elements were identified: product develop- ment; project implementation; partnering the supply chain; and production of components. Furthermore, the Egan (1998) report called for annual reductions of 10% in construction cost and time and an annual reduction of 20% in project defects. This total perfor- mance improvement of 30% requires significant im- provements in the way that the construction process is © 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd 141