2.

Organizing for Project Management

2.1 What is Project Management?
The management of construction projects requires knowledge of modern management as well
as an understanding of the design and construction process. Construction projects have a
specific set of objectives and constraints such as a required time frame for completion. While
the relevant technology, institutional arrangements or processes will differ, the management
of such projects has much in common with the management of similar types of projects in
other specialty or technology domains such as aerospace, pharmaceutical and energy
developments.

Generally, project management is distinguished from the general management of corporations

by the mission-oriented nature of a project. A project organization will generally be
terminated when the mission is accomplished. According to the Project Management Institute,
the discipline of project management can be defined as follows: [1]

Project management is the art of directing and coordinating human and material resources
throughout the life of a project by using modern management techniques to achieve
predetermined objectives of scope, cost, time, quality and participation satisfaction.

By contrast, the general management of business and industrial corporations assumes a

broader outlook with greater continuity of operations. Nevertheless, there are sufficient
similarities as well as differences between the two so that modern management techniques
developed for general management may be adapted for project management.

The basic ingredients for a project management framework [2] may be represented
schematically in Figure 2-1. A working knowledge of general management and familiarity
with the special knowledge domain related to the project are indispensable. Supporting
disciplines such as computer science and decision science may also play an important role. In
fact, modern management practices and various special knowledge domains have absorbed
various techniques or tools which were once identified only with the supporting disciplines.
For example, computer-based information systems and decision support systems are now
common-place tools for general management. Similarly, many operations research techniques
such as linear programming and network analysis are now widely used in many knowledge or
application domains. Hence, the representation in Figure 2-1 reflects only the sources from
which the project management framework evolves.
 Figure 2-1: Basic Ingredients in Project Management

Specifically, project management in construction encompasses a set of objectives which may

be accomplished by implementing a series of operations subject to resource constraints. There
are potential conflicts between the stated objectives with regard to scope, cost, time and
quality, and the constraints imposed on human material and financial resources. These
conflicts should be resolved at the onset of a project by making the necessary tradeoffs or
creating new alternatives. Subsequently, the functions of project management for construction
generally include the following:

1. Specification of project objectives and plans including delineation of scope,

budgeting, scheduling, setting performance requirements, and selecting project
participants.
2. Maximization of efficient resource utilization through procurement of labor, materials
and equipment according to the prescribed schedule and plan.
3. Implementation of various operations through proper coordination and control of
planning, design, estimating, contracting and construction in the entire process.
4. Development of effective communications and mechanisms for resolving conflicts
among the various participants.

The Project Management Institute focuses on nine distinct areas requiring project manager
knowledge and attention:

1. Project integration management to ensure that the various project elements are
effectively coordinated.
2. Project scope management to ensure that all the work required (and only the required
work) is included.
3. Project time management to provide an effective project schedule.
4. Project cost management to identify needed resources and maintain budget control.
5. Project quality management to ensure functional requirements are met.
6. Project human resource management to development and effectively employ project
personnel.
7. Project communications management to ensure effective internal and external
communications.
 8. Project risk management to analyze and mitigate potential risks.
9. Project procurement management to obtain necessary resources from external sources.

These nine areas form the basis of the Project Management Institute's certification program
for project managers in any industry. Back to top

2.2 Trends in Modern Management

In recent years, major developments in management reflect the acceptance to various degrees
of the following elements: (1) the management process approach, (2) the management science
and decision support approach, (3) the behavioral science approach for human resource
development, and (4) sustainable competitive advantage. These four approaches complement
each other in current practice, and provide a useful groundwork for project management.

The management process approach emphasizes the systematic study of management by

identifying management functions in an organization and then examining each in detail. There
is general agreement regarding the functions of planning, organizing and controlling. A major
tenet is that by analyzing management along functional lines, a framework can be constructed
into which all new management activities can be placed. Thus, the manager's job is regarded
as coordinating a process of interrelated functions, which are neither totally random nor
rigidly predetermined, but are dynamic as the process evolves. Another tenet is that
management principles can be derived from an intellectual analysis of management functions.
By dividing the manager's job into functional components, principles based upon each
function can be extracted. Hence, management functions can be organized into a hierarchical
structure designed to improve operational efficiency, such as the example of the organization
for a manufacturing company shown in Figure 2-2. The basic management functions are
performed by all managers, regardless of enterprise, activity or hierarchical levels. Finally, the
development of a management philosophy results in helping the manager to establish
relationships between human and material resources. The outcome of following an established
philosophy of operation helps the manager win the support of the subordinates in achieving
organizational objectives.
 Figure 2-2: Illustrative Hierarchical Structure of Management Functions

The management science and decision support approach contributes to the development of a
body of quantitative methods designed to aid managers in making complex decisions related
to operations and production. In decision support systems, emphasis is placed on providing
managers with relevant information. In management science, a great deal of attention is given
to defining objectives and constraints, and to constructing mathematical analysis models in
solving complex problems of inventory, materials and production control, among others. A
topic of major interest in management science is the maximization of profit, or in the absence
of a workable model for the operation of the entire system, the suboptimization of the
operations of its components. The optimization or suboptimization is often achieved by the
use of operations research techniques, such as linear programming, quadratic programming,
graph theory, queuing theory and Monte Carlo simulation. In addition to the increasing use of
computers accompanied by the development of sophisticated mathematical models and
information systems, management science and decision support systems have played an
important role by looking more carefully at problem inputs and relationships and by
promoting goal formulation and measurement of performance. Artificial intelligence has also
begun to be applied to provide decision support systems for solving ill-structured problems in
management.

The behavioral science approach for human resource development is important because
management entails getting things done through the actions of people. An effective manager
must understand the importance of human factors such as needs, drives, motivation,
leadership, personality, behavior, and work groups. Within this context, some place more
emphasis on interpersonal behavior which focuses on the individual and his/her motivations
as a socio-psychological being; others emphasize more group behavior in recognition of the
organized enterprise as a social organism, subject to all the attitudes, habits, pressures and
conflicts of the cultural environment of people. The major contributions made by the
behavioral scientists to the field of management include: (1) the formulation of concepts and
explanations about individual and group behavior in the organization, (2) the empirical testing
of these concepts methodically in many different experimental and field settings, and (3) the
establishment of actual managerial policies and decisions for operation based on the
conceptual and methodical frameworks.

Sustainable competitive advantage stems primarily from good management strategy. As

Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School argues:

Strategy is creating fit among a company's activities. The success of a strategy depends on
doing many things well - not just a few - and integrating among them. If there is no fit among
activites, there is no distinctive strategy and little sustainability.
In this view, successful firms must improve and align the many processes underway to their
strategic vision. Strategic positioning in this fashion requires:

• Creating a unique and valuable position.

• Making trade-offs compared to competitors
• Creating a "fit" among a company's activities.

Project managers should be aware of the strategic position of their own organization and the
other organizations involved in the project. The project manager faces the difficult task of
trying to align the goals and strategies of these various organizations to accomplish the project
goals. For example, the owner of an industrial project may define a strategic goal as being
first to market with new products. In this case, facilities development must be oriented to fast-
track, rapid construction. As another example, a contracting firm may see their strategic
advantage in new technologies and emphasize profit opportunities from value engineering (as
described in Chapter 3).
Back to top

2.3 Strategic Planning and Project Programming

The programming of capital projects is shaped by the strategic plan of an organization, which
is influenced by market demands and resources constraints. The programming process
associated with planning and feasibility studies sets the priorities and timing for initiating
various projects to meet the overall objectives of the organizations. However, once this
decision is made to initiate a project, market pressure may dictate early and timely completion
of the facility.

Among various types of construction, the influence of market pressure on the timing of
initiating a facility is most obvious in industrial construction. [3] Demand for an industrial
product may be short-lived, and if a company does not hit the market first, there may not be
demand for its product later. With intensive competition for national and international
markets, the trend of industrial construction moves toward shorter project life cycles,
particularly in technology intensive industries.

In order to gain time, some owners are willing to forego thorough planning and feasibility
study so as to proceed on a project with inadequate definition of the project scope. Invariably,
subsequent changes in project scope will increase construction costs; however, profits derived
from earlier facility operation often justify the increase in construction costs. Generally, if the
owner can derive reasonable profits from the operation of a completed facility, the project is
considered a success even if construction costs far exceed the estimate based on an inadequate
scope definition. This attitude may be attributed in large part to the uncertainties inherent in
construction projects. It is difficult to argue that profits might be even higher if construction
costs could be reduced without increasing the project duration. However, some projects,
notably some nuclear power plants, are clearly unsuccessful and abandoned before
completion, and their demise must be attributed at least in part to inadequate planning and
poor feasibility studies.

The owner or facility sponsor holds the key to influence the construction costs of a project
because any decision made at the beginning stage of a project life cycle has far greater
influence than those made at later stages, as shown schematically in Figure 2-3. Moreover, the
design and construction decisions will influence the continuing operating costs and, in many
cases, the revenues over the facility lifetime. Therefore, an owner should obtain the expertise
of professionals to provide adequate planning and feasibility studies. Many owners do not
maintain an in-house engineering and construction management capability, and they should
consider the establishment of an ongoing relationship with outside consultants in order to
respond quickly to requests. Even among those owners who maintain engineering and
construction divisions, many treat these divisions as reimbursable, independent organizations.
Such an arrangement should not discourage their legitimate use as false economies in
reimbursable costs from such divisions can indeed be very costly to the overall organization.

Figure 2-3: Ability to Influence Construction Cost Over Time

Finally, the initiation and execution of capital projects places demands on the resources of the
owner and the professionals and contractors to be engaged by the owner. For very large
projects, it may bid up the price of engineering services as well as the costs of materials and
equipment and the contract prices of all types. Consequently, such factors should be taken
into consideration in determining the timing of a project.

Example 2-1: Setting priorities for projects

A department store planned to expand its operation by acquiring 20 acres of land in the
southeast of a metropolitan area which consists of well established suburbs for middle income
families. An architectural/engineering (A/E) firm was engaged to design a shopping center on
the 20-acre plot with the department store as its flagship plus a large number of storefronts for
tenants. One year later, the department store owner purchased 2,000 acres of farm land in the
northwest outskirts of the same metropolitan area and designated 20 acres of this land for a
shopping center. The A/E firm was again engaged to design a shopping center at this new
location.

The A/E firm was kept completely in the dark while the assemblage of the 2,000 acres of land
in the northwest quietly took place. When the plans and specifications for the southeast
shopping center were completed, the owner informed the A/E firm that it would not proceed
with the construction of the southeast shopping center for the time being. Instead, the owner
urged the A/E firm to produce a new set of similar plans and specifications for the northwest
shopping center as soon as possible, even at the sacrifice of cost saving measures. When the
plans and specifications for the northwest shopping center were ready, the owner immediately
authorized its construction. However, it took another three years before the southeast
shopping center was finally built.

The reason behind the change of plan was that the owner discovered the availability of the
farm land in the northwest which could be developed into residential real estate properties for
upper middle income families. The immediate construction of the northwest shopping center
would make the land development parcels more attractive to home buyers. Thus, the owner
was able to recoup enough cash flow in three years to construct the southeast shopping center
in addition to financing the construction of the northeast shopping center, as well as the land
development in its vicinity.

While the owner did not want the construction cost of the northwest shopping center to run
wild, it apparently was satisfied with the cost estimate based on the detailed plans of the
southeast shopping center. Thus, the owner had a general idea of what the construction cost of
the northwest shopping center would be, and did not wish to wait for a more refined cost
estimate until the detailed plans for that center were ready. To the owner, the timeliness of
completing the construction of the northwest shopping center was far more important than
reducing the construction cost in fulfilling its investment objectives.

Example 2-2: Resource Constraints for Mega Projects

A major problem with mega projects is the severe strain placed on the environment,
particularly on the resources in the immediate area of a construction project. "Mega" or
"macro" projects involve construction of very large facilities such as the Alaska pipeline
constructed in the 1970's or the Panama Canal constructed in the 1900's. The limitations in
some or all of the basic elements required for the successful completion of a mega project
include:

• engineering design professionals to provide sufficient manpower to complete the

design within a reasonable time limit.
• construction supervisors with capacity and experience to direct large projects.
• the number of construction workers with proper skills to do the work.
• the market to supply materials in sufficient quantities and of required quality on time.
• the ability of the local infrastructure to support the large number of workers over an
extended period of time, including housing, transportation and other services.

To compound the problem, mega projects are often constructed in remote environments away
from major population centers and subject to severe climate conditions. Consequently, special
features of each mega project must be evaluated carefully.

Back to top

2.4 Effects of Project Risks on Organization

The uncertainty in undertaking a construction project comes from many sources and often
involves many participants in the project. Since each participant tries to minimize its own
risk, the conflicts among various participants can be detrimental to the project. Only the
owner has the power to moderate such conflicts as it alone holds the key to risk assignment
through proper contractual relations with other participants. Failure to recognize this
responsibility by the owner often leads to undesirable results. In recent years, the concept of
"risk sharing/risk assignment" contracts has gained acceptance by the federal government. [4]
Since this type of contract acknowledges the responsibilities of the owners, the contract prices
are expected to be lower than those in which all risks are assigned to contractors.

In approaching the problem of uncertainty, it is important to recognize that incentives must be

provided if any of the participants is expected to take a greater risk. The willingness of a
participant to accept risks often reflects the professional competence of that participant as well
as its propensity to risk. However, society's perception of the potential liabilities of the
participant can affect the attitude of risk-taking for all participants. When a claim is made
against one of the participants, it is difficult for the public to know whether a fraud has been
committed, or simply that an accident has occurred.

Risks in construction projects may be classified in a number of ways. [5] One form of
classification is as follows:

1. Socioeconomic factors
o Environmental protection
o Public safety regulation
o Economic instability
o Exchange rate fluctuation
2. Organizational relationships
o Contractual relations
o Attitudes of participants
o Communication
 3. Technological problems
o Design assumptions
o Site conditions
o Construction procedures
o Construction occupational safety

The environmental protection movement has contributed to the uncertainty for construction
because of the inability to know what will be required and how long it will take to obtain
approval from the regulatory agencies. The requirements of continued re-evaluation of
problems and the lack of definitive criteria which are practical have also resulted in added
costs. Public safety regulations have similar effects, which have been most noticeable in the
energy field involving nuclear power plants and coal mining. The situation has created
constantly shifting guidelines for engineers, constructors and owners as projects move
through the stages of planning to construction. These moving targets add a significant new
dimension of uncertainty which can make it virtually impossible to schedule and complete
work at budgeted cost. Economic conditions of the past decade have further reinforced the
climate of uncertainty with high inflation and interest rates. The deregulation of financial
institutions has also generated unanticipated problems related to the financing of construction.

Uncertainty stemming from regulatory agencies, environmental issues and financial aspects of
construction should be at least mitigated or ideally eliminated. Owners are keenly interested
in achieving some form of breakthrough that will lower the costs of projects and mitigate or
eliminate lengthy delays. Such breakthroughs are seldom planned. Generally, they happen
when the right conditions exist, such as when innovation is permitted or when a basis for
incentive or reward exists. However, there is a long way to go before a true partnership of all
parties involved can be forged.

During periods of economic expansion, major capital expenditures are made by industries and
bid up the cost of construction. In order to control costs, some owners attempt to use fixed
price contracts so that the risks of unforeseen contingencies related to an overheated economy
are passed on to contractors. However, contractors will raise their prices to compensate for the
additional risks.

The risks related to organizational relationships may appear to be unnecessary but are quite
real. Strained relationships may develop between various organizations involved in the
design/construct process. When problems occur, discussions often center on responsibilities
rather than project needs at a time when the focus should be on solving the problems.
Cooperation and communication between the parties are discouraged for fear of the effects of
impending litigation. This barrier to communication results from the ill-conceived notion that
uncertainties resulting from technological problems can be eliminated by appropriate contract
terms. The net result has been an increase in the costs of constructed facilities.

The risks related to technological problems are familiar to the design/construct professions
which have some degree of control over this category. However, because of rapid advances in
new technologies which present new problems to designers and constructors, technological
risk has become greater in many instances. Certain design assumptions which have served the
professions well in the past may become obsolete in dealing with new types of facilities which
may have greater complexity or scale or both. Site conditions, particularly subsurface
conditions which always present some degree of uncertainty, can create an even greater
degree of uncertainty for facilities with heretofore unknown characteristics during operation.
Because construction procedures may not have been fully anticipated, the design may have to
be modified after construction has begun. An example of facilities which have encountered
such uncertainty is the nuclear power plant, and many owners, designers and contractors have
suffered for undertaking such projects.

If each of the problems cited above can cause uncertainty, the combination of such problems
is often regarded by all parties as being out of control and inherently risky. Thus, the issue of
liability has taken on major proportions and has influenced the practices of engineers and
constructors, who in turn have influenced the actions of the owners.

Many owners have begun to understand the problems of risks and are seeking to address some
of these problems. For example, some owners are turning to those organizations that offer
complete capabilities in planning, design, and construction, and tend to avoid breaking the
project into major components to be undertaken individually by specialty participants. Proper
coordination throughout the project duration and good organizational communication can
avoid delays and costs resulting from fragmentation of services, even though the components
from various services are eventually integrated.

Attitudes of cooperation can be readily applied to the private sector, but only in special
circumstances can they be applied to the public sector. The ability to deal with complex issues
is often precluded in the competitive bidding which is usually required in the public sector.
The situation becomes more difficult with the proliferation of regulatory requirements and
resulting delays in design and construction while awaiting approvals from government
officials who do not participate in the risks of the project.

Back to top

2.5 Organization of Project Participants

The top management of the owner sets the overall policy and selects the appropriate
organization to take charge of a proposed project. Its policy will dictate how the project life
cycle is divided among organizations and which professionals should be engaged. Decisions
by the top management of the owner will also influence the organization to be adopted for
project management. In general, there are many ways to decompose a project into stages. The
most typical ways are:

• Sequential processing whereby the project is divided into separate stages and each
stage is carried out successively in sequence.
• Parallel processing whereby the project is divided into independent parts such that all
stages are carried out simultaneously.
• Staggered processing whereby the stages may be overlapping, such as the use of
phased design-construct procedures for fast track operation.

It should be pointed out that some decompositions may work out better than others,
depending on the circumstances. In any case, the prevalence of decomposition makes the
subsequent integration particularly important. The critical issues involved in organization for
project management are:

• How many organizations are involved?

• What are the relationships among the organizations?
 • When are the various organizations brought into the project?

There are two basic approaches to organize for project implementation, even though many
variations may exist as a result of different contractual relationships adopted by the owner and
builder. These basic approaches are divided along the following lines:

1. Separation of organizations. Numerous organizations serve as consultants or

contractors to the owner, with different organizations handling design and construction
functions. Typical examples which involve different degrees of separation are:
o Traditional sequence of design and construction
o Professional construction management
2. Integration of organizations. A single or joint venture consisting of a number of
organizations with a single command undertakes both design and construction
functions. Two extremes may be cited as examples:
o Owner-builder operation in which all work will be handled in house by force
account.
o Turnkey operation in which all work is contracted to a vendor which is
responsible for delivering the completed project

Since construction projects may be managed by a spectrum of participants in a variety of

combinations, the organization for the management of such projects may vary from case to
case. On one extreme, each project may be staffed by existing personnel in the functional
divisions of the organization on an ad-hoc basis as shown in Figure 2-4 until the project is
completed. This arrangement is referred to as the matrix organization as each project manager
must negotiate all resources for the project from the existing organizational framework. On
the other hand, the organization may consist of a small central functional staff for the
exclusive purpose of supporting various projects, each of which has its functional divisions as
shown in Figure 2-5. This decentralized set-up is referred to as the project oriented
organization as each project manager has autonomy in managing the project. There are many
variations of management style between these two extremes, depending on the objectives of
the organization and the nature of the construction project. For example, a large chemical
company with in-house staff for planning, design and construction of facilities for new
product lines will naturally adopt the matrix organization. On the other hand, a construction
company whose existence depends entirely on the management of certain types of
construction projects may find the project-oriented organization particularly attractive. While
organizations may differ, the same basic principles of management structure are applicable to
most situations.
 Figure 2-4: A Matrix Organization

Figure 2-5: A Project-Oriented Organization

To illustrate various types of organizations for project management, we shall consider two
examples, the first one representing an owner organization while the second one representing
the organization of a construction management consultant under the direct supervision of the
owner.

Example 2-3: Matrix Organization of an Engineering Division

The Engineering Division of an Electric Power and Light Company has functional
departments as shown in Figure 2-6. When small scale projects such as the addition of a
transmission tower or a sub-station are authorized, a matrix organization is used to carry out
such projects. For example, in the design of a transmission tower, the professional skill of a
structural engineer is most important. Consequently, the leader of the project team will be
selected from the Structural Engineering Department while the remaining team members are
selected from all departments as dictated by the manpower requirements. On the other hand,
in the design of a new sub-station, the professional skill of an electrical engineer is most
important. Hence, the leader of the project team will be selected from the Electrical
Engineering Department.

Figure 2-6: The Matrix Organization in an Engineering Division

Example 2-4: Example of Construction Management Consultant Organization

When the same Electric Power and Light Company in the previous example decided to build a
new nuclear power plant, it engaged a construction management consultant to take charge of
the design and construction completely. However, the company also assigned a project team
to coordinate with the construction management consultant as shown in Figure 2-7.
 Figure 2-7: Coordination between Owner and Consultant

Since the company eventually will operate the power plant upon its completion, it is highly
important for its staff to monitor the design and construction of the plant. Such coordination
allows the owner not only to assure the quality of construction but also to be familiar with the
design to facilitate future operation and maintenance. Note the close direct relationships of
various departments of the owner and the consultant. Since the project will last for many
years before its completion, the staff members assigned to the project team are not expected to
rejoin the Engineering Department but will probably be involved in the future operation of the
new plant. Thus, the project team can act independently toward its designated mission.

Back to top

2.6 Traditional Designer-Constructor Sequence

For ordinary projects of moderate size and complexity, the owner often employs a designer
(an architectural/engineering firm) which prepares the detailed plans and specifications for the
constructor (a general contractor). The designer also acts on behalf of the owner to oversee
the project implementation during construction. The general contractor is responsible for the
construction itself even though the work may actually be undertaken by a number of specialty
subcontractors.

The owner usually negotiates the fee for service with the architectural/engineering (A/E) firm.
In addition to the responsibilities of designing the facility, the A/E firm also exercises to some
degree supervision of the construction as stipulated by the owner. Traditionally, the A/E firm
regards itself as design professionals representing the owner who should not communicate
with potential contractors to avoid collusion or conflict of interest. Field inspectors working
for an A/E firm usually follow through the implementation of a project after the design is
completed and seldom have extensive input in the design itself. Because of the litigation
climate in the last two decades, most A/E firms only provide observers rather than inspectors
in the field. Even the shop drawings of fabrication or construction schemes submitted by the
contractors for approval are reviewed with a disclaimer of responsibility by the A/E firms.

The owner may select a general constructor either through competitive bidding or through
negotiation. Public agencies are required to use the competitive bidding mode, while private
organizations may choose either mode of operation. In using competitive bidding, the owner
is forced to use the designer-constructor sequence since detailed plans and specifications must
be ready before inviting bidders to submit their bids. If the owner chooses to use a negotiated
contract, it is free to use phased construction if it so desires.

The general contractor may choose to perform all or part of the construction work, or act only
as a manager by subcontracting all the construction to subcontractors. The general contractor
may also select the subcontractors through competitive bidding or negotiated contracts. The
general contractor may ask a number of subcontractors to quote prices for the subcontracts
before submitting its bid to the owner. However, the subcontractors often cannot force the
winning general contractor to use them on the project. This situation may lead to practices
known as bid shopping and bid peddling. Bid shopping refers to the situation when the
general contractor approaches subcontractors other than those whose quoted prices were used
in the winning contract in order to seek lower priced subcontracts. Bid peddling refers to the
actions of subcontractors who offer lower priced subcontracts to the winning general
subcontractors in order to dislodge the subcontractors who originally quoted prices to the
general contractor prior to its bid submittal. In both cases, the quality of construction may be
sacrificed, and some state statutes forbid these practices for public projects.

Although the designer-constructor sequence is still widely used because of the public
perception of fairness in competitive bidding, many private owners recognize the
disadvantages of using this approach when the project is large and complex and when market
pressures require a shorter project duration than that which can be accomplished by using this
traditional method.

Back to top

2.7 Professional Construction Management

Professional construction management refers to a project management team consisting of a
professional construction manager and other participants who will carry out the tasks of
project planning, design and construction in an integrated manner. Contractual relationships
among members of the team are intended to minimize adversarial relationships and contribute
to greater response within the management group. A professional construction manager is a
firm specialized in the practice of professional construction management which includes:

• Work with owner and the A/E firms from the beginning and make recommendations
on design improvements, construction technology, schedules and construction
economy.
 • Propose design and construction alternatives if appropriate, and analyze the effects of
the alternatives on the project cost and schedule.
• Monitor subsequent development of the project in order that these targets are not
exceeded without the knowledge of the owner.
• Coordinate procurement of material and equipment and the work of all construction
contractors, and monthly payments to contractors, changes, claims and inspection for
conforming design requirements.
• Perform other project related services as required by owners.

Professional construction management is usually used when a project is very large or

complex. The organizational features that are characteristics of mega-projects can be
summarized as follows:[6]

• The overall organizational approach for the project will change as the project
advances. The "functional" organization may change to a "matrix" which may change
to a "project" organization (not necessarily in this order).
• Within the overall organization, there will probably be functional, project, and matrix
suborganizations all at the same time. This feature greatly complicates the theory and
the practice of management, yet is essential for overall cost effectiveness.
• Successful giant, complex organizations usually have a strong matrix-type
suborganization at the level where basic cost and schedule control responsibility is
assigned. This suborganization is referred to as a "cost center" or as a "project" and is
headed by a project manager. The cost center matrix may have participants assigned
from many different functional groups. In turn, these functional groups may have
technical reporting responsibilities to several different and higher tiers in the
organization. The key to a cost effective effort is the development of this project
suborganization into a single team under the leadership of a strong project manager.
• The extent to which decision-making will be centralized or decentralized is crucial to
the organization of the mega-project.

Consequently, it is important to recognize the changing nature of the organizational structure

as a project is carried out in various stages.

Example 2-5: Managing of the Alaska Pipeline Project

The Alaska Pipeline Project was the largest, most expensive private construction project in
the 1970's, which encompassed 800 miles, thousands of employees, and 10 billion dollars.

At the planning stage, the owner (a consortium) employed a Construction Management

Contractor (CMC) to direct the pipeline portion, but retained centralized decision making to
assure single direction and to integrate the effort of the CMC with the pump stations and the
terminals performed by another contractor. The CMC also centralized its decision making in
directing over 400 subcontractors and thousands of vendors. Because there were 19 different
construction camps and hundreds of different construction sites, this centralization caused
delays in decision making.

At about the 15% point of physical completion, the owner decided to reorganize the decision
making process and change the role of the CMC. The new organization was a combination of
owner and CMC personnel assigned within an integrated organization. The objective was to
develop a single project team responsible for controlling all subcontractors. Instead of having
nine tiers of organization from the General Manager of the CMC to the subcontractors, the
new organization had only four tiers from the Senior Project Manager of the owner to
subcontractors. Besides unified direction and coordination, this reduction in tiers of
organization greatly improved communications and the ability to make and implement
decisions. The new organization also allowed decentralization of decision making by treating
five sections of the pipeline at different geographic locations as separate projects, with a
section manager responsible for all functions of the section as a profit center.

At about 98% point of physical completion, all remaining activities were to be consolidated to
identify single bottom-line responsibility, to reduce duplication in management staff, and to
unify coordination of remaining work. Thus, the project was first handled by separate
organizations but later was run by an integrated organization with decentralized profit centers.
Finally, the organization in effect became small and was ready to be phased out of operation.

Example 2-6: Managing the Channel Tunnel Construction from Britain to France

The underground railroad tunnel from Britain to France is commonly called the Channel
Tunnel or Chunnel. It was built by tunneling from each side. Starting in 1987, the tunnels had
a breakthough in 1990.

Management turmoil dogged the project from the start. In 1989, seven of the eight top people
in the construction organization left. There was a built in conflict between the contractors and
government overseers: "The fundamental thing wrong is that the constractors own less than
6% of Eurotunnel. Their interest is to build and sell the project at a profit. (Eurotunnel's)
interest is for it to operate economically, safely and reliably for the next 50 years." (Alastair
Morton, Eurotunnel CEO, quoted in ENR, 12/10/90, p. 56).

Back to top

2.8 Owner-Builder Operation

In this approach an owner must have a steady flow of on-going projects in order to maintain a
large work force for in-house operation. However, the owner may choose to subcontract a
substantial portion of the project to outside consultants and contractors for both design and
construction, even though it retains centralized decision making to integrate all efforts in
project implementation.

Example 2-7: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Organization

The District Engineer's Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be viewed as a
typical example of an owner-builder approach as shown in Figure 2-8.
 Figure 2-8: Organization of a District of Corps of Engineers

In the District Engineer's Office of the U.S. Corps of Engineers, there usually exist an
Engineering Division and an Operations Division, and, in a large district, a Construction
Division. Under each division, there are several branches. Since the authorization of a project
is usually initiated by the U.S. Congress, the planning and design functions are separated in
order to facilitate operations. Since the authorization of the feasibility study of a project may
precede the authorization of the design by many years, each stage can best be handled by a
different branch in the Engineering Division. If construction is ultimately authorized, the
work may be handled by the Construction Division or by outside contractors. The Operations
Division handles the operation of locks and other facilities which require routine attention and
maintenance.

When a project is authorized, a project manager is selected from the most appropriate branch
to head the project, together with a group of staff drawn from various branches to form the
project team. When the project is completed, all members of the team including the project
manager will return to their regular posts in various branches and divisions until the next
project assignment. Thus, a matrix organization is used in managing each project.

Back to top

2.9 Turnkey Operation

Some owners wish to delegate all responsibilities of design and construction to outside
consultants in a turnkey project arrangement. A contractor agrees to provide the completed
facility on the basis of performance specifications set forth by the owner. The contractor may
even assume the responsibility of operating the project if the owner so desires. In order for a
turnkey operation to succeed, the owner must be able to provide a set of unambiguous
performance specifications to the contractor and must have complete confidence in the
capability of the contractor to carry out the mission.

This approach is the direct opposite of the owner-builder approach in which the owner wishes
to retain the maximum amount of control for the design-construction process.
Example 2-8: An Example of a Turnkey Organization

A 150-Mw power plant was proposed in 1985 by the Texas-New Mexico Power Company of
Fort Worth, Texas, which would make use of the turnkey operation. [7] Upon approval by the
Texas Utility Commission, a consortium consisting of H.B. Zachry Co., Westinghouse
Electric Co., and Combustion Engineering, Inc. would design, build and finance the power
plant for completion in 1990 for an estimated construction cost of $200 million in 1990
dollars. The consortium would assume total liability during construction, including debt
service costs, and thereby eliminate the risks of cost escalation to rate payers, stockholders
and the utility company management.

Back to top

2.10 Leadership and Motivation for the Project Team

The project manager, in the broadest sense of the term, is the most important person for the
success or failure of a project. The project manager is responsible for planning, organizing
and controlling the project. In turn, the project manager receives authority from the
management of the organization to mobilize the necessary resources to complete a project.

The project manager must be able to exert interpersonal influence in order to lead the project
team. The project manager often gains the support of his/her team through a combination of
the following:

• Formal authority resulting from an official capacity which is empowered to issue

orders.
• Reward and/or penalty power resulting from his/her capacity to dispense directly or
indirectly valued organization rewards or penalties.
• Expert power when the project manager is perceived as possessing special knowledge
or expertise for the job.
• Attractive power because the project manager has a personality or other characteristics
to convince others.

In a matrix organization, the members of the functional departments may be accustomed to a

single reporting line in a hierarchical structure, but the project manager coordinates the
activities of the team members drawn from functional departments. The functional structure
within the matrix organization is responsible for priorities, coordination, administration and
final decisions pertaining to project implementation. Thus, there are potential conflicts
between functional divisions and project teams. The project manager must be given the
responsibility and authority to resolve various conflicts such that the established project
policy and quality standards will not be jeopardized. When contending issues of a more
fundamental nature are developed, they must be brought to the attention of a high level in the
management and be resolved expeditiously.

In general, the project manager's authority must be clearly documented as well as defined,
particularly in a matrix organization where the functional division managers often retain
certain authority over the personnel temporarily assigned to a project. The following
principles should be observed:
 • The interface between the project manager and the functional division managers
should be kept as simple as possible.
• The project manager must gain control over those elements of the project which may
overlap with functional division managers.
• The project manager should encourage problem solving rather than role playing of
team members drawn from various functional divisions.

Back to otp

2.11 Interpersonal Behavior in Project Organizations

While a successful project manager must be a good leader, other members of the project team
must also learn to work together, whether they are assembled from different divisions of the
same organization or even from different organizations. Some problems of interaction may
arise initially when the team members are unfamiliar with their own roles in the project team,
particularly for a large and complex project. These problems must be resolved quickly in
order to develop an effective, functioning team.

Many of the major issues in construction projects require effective interventions by

individuals, groups and organizations. The fundamental challenge is to enhance
communication among individuals, groups and organizations so that obstacles in the way of
improving interpersonal relations may be removed. Some behavior science concepts are
helpful in overcoming communication difficulties that block cooperation and coordination. In
very large projects, professional behavior scientists may be necessary in diagnosing the
problems and advising the personnel working on the project. The power of the organization
should be used judiciously in resolving conflicts.

The major symptoms of interpersonal behavior problems can be detected by experienced

observers, and they are often the sources of serious communication difficulties among
participants in a project. For example, members of a project team may avoid each other and
withdraw from active interactions about differences that need to be dealt with. They may
attempt to criticize and blame other individuals or groups when things go wrong. They may
resent suggestions for improvement, and become defensive to minimize culpability rather
than take the initiative to maximize achievements. All these actions are detrimental to the
project organization.

While these symptoms can occur to individuals at any organization, they are compounded if
the project team consists of individuals who are put together from different organizations.
Invariably, different organizations have different cultures or modes of operation. Individuals
from different groups may not have a common loyalty and may prefer to expand their energy
in the directions most advantageous to themselves instead of the project team. Therefore, no
one should take it for granted that a project team will work together harmoniously just
because its members are placed physically together in one location. On the contrary, it must
be assumed that good communication can be achieved only through the deliberate effort of
the top management of each organization contributing to the joint venture.

Back to top

2.12 Perceptions of Owners and Contractors

Although owners and contractors may have different perceptions on project management for
construction, they have a common interest in creating an environment leading to successful
projects in which performance quality, completion time and final costs are within prescribed
limits and tolerances. It is interesting therefore to note the opinions of some leading
contractors and owners who were interviewed in 1984. [8]

From the responses of six contractors, the key factors cited for successful projects are:

• well defined scope

• extensive early planning
• good leadership, management and first line supervision
• positive client relationship with client involvement
• proper project team chemistry
• quick response to changes
• engineering managers concerned with the total project, not just the engineering
elements.

Conversely, the key factors cited for unsuccessful projects are:

• ill-defined scope
• poor management
• poor planning
• breakdown in communication between engineering and construction
• unrealistic scope, schedules and budgets
• many changes at various stages of progress
• lack of good project control

The responses of eight owners indicated that they did not always understand the concerns of
the contractors although they generally agreed with some of the key factors for successful and
unsuccessful projects cited by the contractors. The significant findings of the interviews with
owners are summarized as follows:

• All owners have the same perception of their own role, but they differ significantly in
assuming that role in practice.
• The owners also differ dramatically in the amount of early planning and in providing
information in bid packages.
• There is a trend toward breaking a project into several smaller projects as the projects
become larger and more complex.
• Most owners recognize the importance of schedule, but they adopt different
requirements in controlling the schedule.
• All agree that people are the key to project success.

From the results of these interviews, it is obvious that owners must be more aware and
involved in the process in order to generate favorable conditions for successful projects.
Design professionals and construction contractors must provide better communication with
each other and with the owner in project implementation.

Back to top

2.13 References
 1. Barrie, Donald S. and Boyd C. Paulson, Jr., Professional Construction Management,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2nd Ed., 1984.
2. Halpin, Daniel W. and Ronald W. Woodhead, Construction Management, John Wiley
and Sons, 1980.
3. Hodgetts, R.M., Management: Theory, Process and Practice, W.B. Saunders Co.,
Philadelphia, PA, 1979.
4. Kerzner, H. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and
Controlling. 2nd. Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1984.
5. Levitt, R.E., R.D. Logcher and N.H. Quaddumi, "Impact of Owner-Engineer Risk
Sharing on Design Conservatism," ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering, Vol. 110, 1984, pp. 157-167.
6. Moolin, F.P., Jr., and F.A. McCoy: "Managing the Alaska Pipeline Project," Civil
Engineering, November 1981, pp. 51-54.
7. Murray, L., E. Gallardo, S. Aggarwal and R. Waywitka, "Marketing Construction
Management Services," ASCE Journal of Construction Division, Vol. 107, 1981, pp.
665-677.
8. Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, 2000.

Back to top

2.14 Footnotes
1. See R. M. Wideman, "The PMBOK Report -- PMI Body of Knowledge Standard,"
Project Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, August l986, pp. l5-24. Back
2. See L. C. Stuckenbruck, "Project Management Framework," Project Management
Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, August 1986, pp. 25-30. Back
3. See, for example, O'Connor, J.T., and Vickory, C.G., Control of Construction Project
Scope, A Report to the Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at
Austin, December 1985. Back
4. See, for example, Federal Form 23-A and EPA's Appendix C-2 clauses. Back
5. See E. D'Appolonia, "Coping with Uncertainty in Geotechnical Engineering and
Construction," Special Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 4, 1979, pp. 1-18. Back
6. These features and the following example are described in F.P. Moolin, Jr. and F.A.
McCoy, "Managing the Alaska Pipeline Project," Civil Engineering, November 1981,
pp. 51-54. Back
7. "Private Money Finances Texas Utility's Power Plant" Engineering News Record: July
25, 1985, p. 13. Back
8. See J.E. Diekmann and K.B. Thrush, Project Control in Design Engineering, A
Report to the Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin,
Texas, May 1986.