The Development of a Generic Design and Construction Process Rachel Cooper 1 , Michail Kagioglou 1 , Ghassan Aouad 2 , John Hinks 3 , Martin Sexton 2 & Darryl Sheath 4 University of Salford Salford, M5 4WT, England 1 Research Centre for Design, Manufacture & Marketing, University of Salford, UK 2 Research Centre for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford, UK 3 Department of Building Engineering and Surveying, Heriot-Watt University, UK 4 Agile Construction Initiative, University of Bath, UK 1. Abstract Increased globalised competition and the need to meet continuously changing customer requirements have forced the manufacturing industry to consider the way certain key activities were undertaken from a ‘process’ viewpoint. This has proven to have a number of advantages relative to the traditional functional/departmental structure of the industry. The traditionally, fragmented construction industry can be seen to embark on the same journey as the manufacturing industry in improving co-ordination between the different parties and adopting a ‘process view’. This paper briefly describes the research undertaken by the University of Salford, in the development of a Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol. The main principles of the Process Protocol, together with the methodology behind it. The work undertaken so far has proven that the development of a process map is gaining momentum within the construction industry as a whole. The Latham inspired CRISP (Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel) community has in principle adopted the Process Protocol as a basis for its activities in terms of promoting process thinking in the construction industry. 2. Introduction The need for improvement to the conventional design and construction process in the construction industry is well reported. Emmerson (1962), Banwell (1964), and Latham (1994) have all commented upon the need for change, and each highlight similar problem areas. Fundamentally, the need for improvement is related to the poor performance commonly associated with building projects. Typically, this performance is measured in terms of cost, time and/or quality. Unfortunately, it is the UK Construction Industry’s response to the need for change that has perpetuated and even perhaps fostered this problem. For example, Franks (1990) and Masterman (1992) presented the evolution of the range of procurement systems currently on offer to potential construction project clients as driven ultimately by the ‘product’ view, and the need to optimise cost, time and quality. Yet, whilst many of the more recent approaches to construction procurement (i.e. Design and Build, Construction Management) apparently attempt to address ‘process issues’, such as communication, in reality they fundamentally fail. In a survey conducted by Hibberd & Djebarni (1996), a sample of 64 respondents (representing both clients and consultants) demonstrated that contract time performance was a factor considered to be relatively insignificant, when compared to other problems commonly associated with construction projects as shown in table 2.1. Furthermore, Morledge & Sharif (1996) reported that from a total of 215 projects surveyed, 136 (63%) were delivered later than expected “...in terms of the dates fixed by the contract or the dates given to the client for completion.”