The Role of Strategic Leadership in Creating Change for Construction Innovation: A North Cyprus Perspective

(1)

2

nd

Specialty Conference on

Leadership and Management in Construction

May 4-6, 2006

Grand Bahama Island, Bahamas

Editors

Anthony Songer

Paul Chinowsky

Patricia Carrillo

Organized by

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of Colorado

Loughborough University

Sponsored by

(2)

©2006 by PM Publishing, Louisville, Colorado, USA. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from the authors. The views expressed in the papers are of the individual authors. The editors are not liable to anyone for any loss or damage caused by any error or omission in the papers, whether such error or omission is the result of negligence or any other cause. All and such liability is disclaimed. May 2006

(3)

Committees

Organizing Committee

Paul Chinowsky, PhD, University of Colorado, USA Patricia Carrillo, PhD, Loughborough University, UK Tony Songer, PhD, Virginia Tech, USA

Scientific Committee

Kalle Kahkonen, PhD, VTT, Finland

(4)

Message From The Organizing Committee

On behalf of all the members of the organizing and scientific committees, let me welcome you to the 2nd Specialty Conference on Leadership and Management in Construction. Building on the momentum of the 2004 Hilton Head conference, the 2006 conference has expanded significantly. We are pleased to have CIB joining us as an official sponsor in addition to our ASCE

sponsorship. The global focus of this year’s conference is truly represented by delegates from Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America. We are looking forward to great presentations, opportunities for discussion both formal in the conference and informal during afternoons on the beach. Our conference format is once again focused on providing maximum presentation, discussion, and interaction time.

Please take the opportunity to make new friends, renew old friendships, and develop new collaborations. The research community is small and collaboration is the key to advancing our agenda. We need everybody to help in this pursuit.

We look forward to a great conference and building a foundation for many more successful conferences. Thank you again for all of your participation and assistance.

(5)

ASCE’s Raise the Bar Effort: Forward Progress

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (CAP^3) J. S. Russell1 and T. A. Lenox2

1_{Professor and Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of}

Wisconsin-Madison, 2205 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706; PH (608) 262-7244; email: russell@engr.wisc.edu

2_{Managing Director, ASCE, World Headquarters, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA} 20191; PH (703) 295-6025; email: tlenox@asce.org

Abstract

In October 2001, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) approved Policy Statement 465 entitled “Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice.” The underlying purpose of ASCE Policy Statement 465 is to prepare the civil engineering professional of the future. The Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (CAP^3) has been working to implement the policy for the past four years. The purpose of this paper is to describe the progress over the last year and the next steps for the implementation of Policy Statement 465.

Introduction

In October 2001, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Board of Direction

unanimously approved Policy Statement 465, entitled “Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice.” In October 2004, the policy was unanimously revised. This policy

supports “the attainment of the Body of Knowledge (BOK) for the entry into the practice of civil engineering at the professional level.” Under girding this policy is the belief that the BOK necessary to enter the practice of civil engineering at the professional level in the future will be beyond the scope of a traditional 4-year bachelor’s degree and required practical experience. While ASCE recognizes that implementation of Policy Statement 465 will not occur overnight, this policy has the potential to transform the practice of civil engineering, and positively

influence the safety, quality, efficiency, and sustainability of the built environment in the 21st Century. The purpose of this paper is to describe the progress over the last year and the next steps for the implementation of Policy Statement 465.

Background

(10)

new focus on the requisite areas of knowledge necessary for the professional practice of engineering in the future.

The overarching goal of CAP^3 is to develop, organize, and implement ASCE’s “Raise the Bar” initiative. To accomplish this multi-phased objective, CAP^3 has spread its efforts over several fronts including curricula, accreditation, licensure, and BOK fulfillment and validation, and levels of achievement. Efforts in each of these five fronts were carried out by a constituent committee.

There were 9 face-to-face meetings and 93 conference calls during Fiscal Year 2005. Through these engagements, the overall efforts and accomplishments of the five committees in Fiscal Year 2005 were as follows:

The Curricula Design Committee has been working in earnest for the past two years. The Curriculum Committee is evaluating the BOK, mapping the BOK against the curricula of 25 participating undergraduate programs, and making suggestions on inconsistencies and how to improve the BOK. The Curriculum Committee regularly corresponds with a wide group of stakeholders, and is leading the charge to engage CEE faculty and administrators.

The Accreditation Committee has been formulating revised civil engineering program criteria, in concert with the ASCE accreditation community, for submission to the Engineering

Accreditation Commission of ABET, Inc. The goal of this endeavor is to incorporate primary elements of the BOK into civil engineering curricula via the basic level civil engineering

program criteria and the advanced level general criteria. In general, flexibility is being sought to allow universities to efficiently obtain accreditation of both undergraduate and graduate

programs of the same engineering discipline. Such flexibility does not exist within current interpretations of ABET policies.

The Licensure Committee has continued to provide input to CAP^3 and to each of its

committees from a licensure perspective. The Licensure Committee has closely monitored the activities of National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) regarding proposed modifications to the Model Law. Additionally, the Licensure Committee continues to seek and identify states that may wish to consider early implementation of additional engineering education requirements as a prerequisite for licensure.

The BOK Fulfillment and Validation Committee began work in the fall of 2004 on two fronts. They explored concepts to allow alternative education providers other than universities to

provide credible post-graduate engineering education. To become viable, such alternative

education channels must be equivalent in academic rigor and individual performance assessment to upper level undergraduate and graduate level education at traditional universities. This

committee also addressed how to assure that the requisite BOK is fulfilled through a combination of a bachelor’s degree and approximately 30 credits of courses in technical and professional practice topics. The committee was “sunsetted” on May 1, 2005.

(11)

ability) were difficult to apply in mapping the Body of Knowledge into existing curriculum. Thus, a committee was formed to address this issue. The committee completed their work in September 2005.

The Second Edition of the Body of Knowledge Committee was formed at the end of 2005 to develop the second edition of the ASCE BOK. Since the publication of the original BOK document in February 2004, there have been many papers written, talks presented and

discussions held on the BOK. The purpose of the new BOK-2 committee is to review all that has transpired and to update the BOK, as necessary to reflect the new information. The expected date of completion of this effort is February 2007.

The remainder of the paper will address at greater length the efforts and accomplishments of the curricula design committee, the accreditation committee, and the levels of achievement

committee.

Curricula Design Committee

The Curricula Design Committee has been working in earnest for the past year. The Curriculum committee’s primary activities have been evaluating the BOK, mapping the BOK against the curricula of 25 participating undergraduate programs, drafting curricula on paper that would fulfill the BOK, and making suggestions on how to improve the BOK. The Curriculum

Committee regularly corresponds with a wide group of stakeholders and is leading the effort to incorporate the BOK into the formal academic process (as applicable).

Activities and Accomplishments

• The committee conducted conference calls approximately every two weeks for the past year. The third face-to-face meeting of the committee was held on June 11, 2005 in Portland, Oregon.

• The committee formed a group of correspondents comprised of civil engineers and others interested in ASCE Policy Statement 465 and civil engineering education. This group

reviews draft materials, responds to questions, and otherwise provides ideas and information for consideration by the committee.

• The committee has authored or co-authored articles and papers and made numerous

presentations about its activities and progress for ASCE and other professional organizations such as the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). Currently, the committee is also compiling a bibliography of all published articles and reports related to education reform and “Raising the Bar.”

(12)

education master’s program to support the BOK. With time, other curriculum design partners are expected to implement BOK-based programs.

• The committee and its curricular design partners continue to review the outcomes and commentaries of the BOK. A related goal of this endeavor is to determine the appropriate location for the professional breadth outcomes (Outcomes 13, 14, and 15) in the curriculum as well as how they can be taught. At this point, it is assumed that Outcomes 13, 14, and 15 will be part of the undergraduate program.

• Work is being done to identify potential funding sources for BOK curricular development and implementation; to inform interested CE department heads, chairs, and faculty of such funding; and to encourage these parties to apply. One possible funding source is the U.S. Department of Education (DOE). The DOE solicits proposals annually. Although there are no substantive actions to report, the committee remains in communication with the DOE. • The committee also established a subcommittee to re-examine the attitude section presented

in the first edition of the BOK. The report is complete and will be forwarded to the Second Edition of the Body of Knowledge Committee for their consideration in preparing the next edition of the BOK.

Accreditation Committee

Thus far in 2005, the Accreditation Committee has drafted its primary work products, developed consensus for these documents within the civil engineering accreditation community, and has been communicating and coordinating with the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET, Inc.

The Accreditation Committee, has drafted proposed revised ABET basic level civil engineering program criteria to incorporate the appropriate components of the BOK into the undergraduate civil engineering curricula -- and incorporate Bloom’s taxonomy into the description of

achievement levels. The Accreditation Committee has also been working with the EAC of ABET on modifications to the ABET advanced level general criteria, to provide assurance that holders of an accredited master’s degree in civil engineering have satisfied the full civil engineering body of knowledge, and to facilitate the ABET accreditation of engineering master’s programs in the U.S. To allow the latter, flexibility is being sought to allow universities to efficiently obtain accreditation of both undergraduate and graduate programs of the same engineering discipline. Such flexibility does not currently exist in engineering within current interpretations of ABET policies. Finally, the Accreditation Committee is working on modifications to a draft

commentary on the proposed BOK-compliant accreditation criteria. Activities and Accomplishments:

• The Accreditation Committee continued its internal communications activities with bi-weekly telephone conferences.

• The committee updated its membership in 2005 to maintain a roster that includes a key member(s) from each of the following groups:

(13)

o ABET Board of Directors

o Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC)

o Committee on Curricula & Accreditation (CC&A) of ASCE’s Educational Activities o Committee (EdAC)

o Department Heads Council Executive Committee (DHCEC) of ASCE’s EdAC. o Body of Knowledge Committee of CAP^3

o Curricula Committee of CAP^3 o Licensing Committee of CAP^3

• The committee regularly updated its draft Accreditation Master Plan to incorporate those changes needed in response to a changing environment. The Accreditation Master Plan lays out in detail how the committee will work to publish approved criteria in the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC)/ABET document titled Criteria for Accrediting

Engineering Programs (effective for evaluations conducted during the 2008-2009 accreditation cycle) that fulfill the formal educational requirements for entry into the

professional practice of civil engineering (i.e., licensure) as specified in the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century.

• The committee conducted a session dedicated to ASCE’s accreditation effort at the 2005 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

• The committee successfully worked to have the EAC of ABET withdraw its previous (July 2004) proposal for a new Advanced Level General Criteria. That version of the proposed Advanced Level General Criteria would have been detrimental to the ASCE Policy Statement 465 initiative. The Criteria Committee of EAC subsequently drafted a new proposal for modifying the Advanced Level General Criteria. This latest draft drew heavily from the committee’s recommended language, but differs in one significant aspect from the proposal put forward by the accreditation committee. The committee is now working through ABET channels to seek further modification of EAC’s latest draft criteria.

• The committee conducted telephone conferences of the entire “ASCE Accreditation Community” on a 6-week schedule throughout most of 2005. This community consists of ALL of the members of the following groups:

o Accreditation Committee of CAP^3

o CC&A of ASCE’s Educational Activities Committee (EdAC) o ASCE Representatives on the EAC of ABET

o ASCE Representatives on the ABET Board of Directors

o Department Heads Council Executive Committee (DHCEC) of ASCE’s EdAC • The committee developed draft Basic Level Civil Engineering Program Criteria and draft

advanced Level General Criteria that are aligned with the formal educational requirements for entry into the professional practice of civil engineering (i.e., licensure) consistent with the BOK.

(14)

• On May 21, 2005, the committee presented its draft Basic Level Civil Engineering Program Criteria and its draft Advanced Level General Criteria at the ASCE National Department Heads’ Meeting in Salt Lake City, UT. The outcome was very positive and generated support for implementation of the draft criteria.

• The committee met with the EAC Criteria Committee on July 13, 2005, and explained the committee’s overall initiative and plans. The committee also provided crucial comment to the EAC on proposed Advanced Level General Criteria, leading to the probable adoption of much, but not all, of the committee’s suggested language. Finally, the committee participated in EAC discussions leading up to a decision by the EAC to openly evaluate lifting of the prohibition against dual level accreditation.

• The committee met with the DHCEC, CTC&A, and the CC&A on October 1, 2005 and thoroughly briefed these key stakeholders on its draft accreditation products.

Levels of Achievement Committee

The Body of Knowledge (BOK) is defined in ASCE Policy Statement 465 as “the necessary depth and breadth of knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of an individual entering the practice of civil engineering at the professional level in the 21st Century.” As noted earlier, the foundational role of the BOK in implementing ASCE PS 465 resulted in the 2004 publication by ASCE of the report Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century. The BOK is presented in that

report in accordance with these three themes: 1) what should be taught to and learned by future civil engineering students; 2) how should it be taught and learned; and 3) who should teach and learn it. The Committee’s primary focus was the what.

Implementation of ASCE PS 465 is a complex, long-term, and highly interdependent effort illustrated, in part, by the number of involved stakeholders within and outside of ASCE. Many of these stakeholders reviewed and began to work with the BOK in carrying out their

responsibilities. As a result of reviewing and using the BOK report recommendations, stakeholders identified a problem and raised issues related to the BOK.

The problem revolved around the three principal words used to define competency levels, namely recognition, understanding, and ability. In particular, the CAP3 Curriculum Design Committee came to this conclusion: Until there were understandable and readily applicable competency definitions—including definitions that would be understood by those outside the committee—evaluation of existing curricula and development of example curricula would be difficult if not impossible.

Accordingly, CAP3 formed the Levels of Achievement Subcommittee in February 2005 and charged it with resolving the levels of competency problem. The Subcommittee, including members and corresponding members from academia and public and private practice, studied the problem. The Subcommittee’s report, Levels of Achievement Applicable to the Body of

(15)

• Recommends substituting achievement for competency in all future references to levels of demonstrated learning.

• Recommends using Bloom’s Taxonomy as the framework for defining levels of

achievement. Bloom’s levels of the cognitive domain are widely known and understood across the education community. Furthermore, use of measurable, action-oriented verbs facilitates consistent curricula design and assessment.

• Recommends using a revised statement of the original 15 civil engineering outcomes using action verbs. This revision was prepared by the Subcommittee and appears in the report. • Asks the CAP3 Curricula Design Committee to use the revised outcomes in the continued

mapping and design of BOK-based curricula, suggest refinements, and comment on the usefulness of the BOK Outcome Rubric introduced in this report.

The Curricula Design Committee has begun that process and reports success. The Committee -- • Asked the CAP3 Accreditation Committee to use the revised outcomes as the basis for

drafting Basic Level Civil Engineering Program Criteria and Advanced Level General Criteria. The Accreditation Committee is following this suggestion.

• Asked the recently formed second BOK Committee to consider adopting the 15 outcomes as stated in this report, using verbs based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, and possibly to present them as a rubric. The Subcommittee also recommends that the second edition committee explore the possible application of refinements to Bloom’s Taxonomy and more explicitly address the role of critical thinking in the BOK.

• Asked the American Academy of Water Resources Engineering to consider applying the achievement level concept in defining the requirements for Diplomate status. The AAWRE has indicated its willingness to follow this suggestion.

• Asked the new ABET Accreditation Council Task Force to proceed with refining ABET General Criteria using Bloom’s Taxonomy, an approach that is likely to be applicable to other engineering disciplines, as well as the disciplines represented by the other ABET Commissions.

• Asked Civil and Environmental Engineering Departments to consider applying the 15 Civil Engineering Outcomes, as defined in the Subcommittee’s report using verbs, in evaluating and designing baccalaureate and Master’s degree curricula.

• Asked other engineering disciplines and organizations to comment on the approach used and recommendations presented in this report.

The Subcommittee’s report was received by CAP^3 in September and, having completed its work, the Subcommittee was “sunsetted.”

Summary

(16)

An Integrated Construction Education Model at Virginia Tech

Dr. Yvan J. Beliveau

G-A Snyder Falkinham Professor and Head Department of Building Construction & Director of the Myers-Lawson School of Construction

Virginia Tech

Dr. Michael Vorster

David Burrows Professor of Civil and Environment Engineering & Associate Director of the Myers-Lawson School of Construction

Virginia Tech

Abstract

This paper looks at the process, the reasons, challenges and lessons learned in formulating a new model for construction education, research and outreach at Virginia Tech and, hopefully, across the nation. It details the steps taken to establish a cross college School of Construction between the College of Architecture and Urban Studies and the College of Engineering. The school and the relationships it creates will lead to a new degree in Construction Engineering and Management, an integrated set of capstone courses for undergraduate education between Building Construction and Construction Engineering and Management, a model for integrated coursework for MS in BC and CEM, a focused research agenda and a common PhD in Construction. The School of Construction was made possible by gifts from two alumni and commitments from the two Colleges, two Departments, and the University Provosts.

Introduction/ How Did We Get Here?

The authors of this paper have worked together for the past 20 years. They first worked to establish a program of Construction Engineering and Management (CEM) in the Department of Civil and Environment Engineering (CEE). That effort started in 1985 has lead to a nationally recognized CEM program with four full time faculty. The task in CEM was to create a high quality program within CEE curriculum that provided a construction concentration for undergraduate Civil Engineering students and formed the basis for a high level research and graduate program. This program currently has about 45 graduate students and regularly outputs civil engineering undergraduate students who take on roles in the construction industry. Of the 150 or so CE graduates per year about 33% go into construction.

In 1995 the first author left the CEM program to take on the Department Head position in Building Construction (BC). His tasked was to solidify a floundering department, add a research agenda, and increase the quality of a newly formed graduate degree in Construction

Management. The department over the past 10 years has increased its visibility and quality as well as has grown from 85 students to 280 students; 45 of these are in the graduate program.

(17)

programs had achieved substantial individual success but, the authors believed, much could be done if past success could be used as a springboard for the step change needed to establish an integrated school of construction and create a single community of industry leaders, students and faculty who have a passion for the construction industry.

These conversations were carried out in close contact with Ross Myers, an alumnus of CEE who joined and participated in the development of the vision for an Inter College School of construction and made a verbal commitment to support the initiative with the stipulation that a matching gift would be required from Building Construction.

The vision for a inter College School of Construction was discussed at the fall 04 BC advisory board meeting. The advisory board unanimously endorsed the idea and moved ahead to find a matching gift. This resulted in a verbal commitment from another alumnus, John Lawson. The two donors were keynote speakers at the April 05 at our Construction Awards Banquet, and confirmed their joint commitment to support the establishment of the Myers-Lawson School of Construction.

A contribution was requested from the university and a memorandum of understanding between the University President, the Provost the Deans of Architecture and Urban Studies and Engineering and the two department heads was agreed in March 2005.

During summer of 05 a strategic planning initiative was undertaken and a formal proposal for the establishment of a School of Construction at Virginia Tech was developed for approval through the University governance system. Working sessions with faculty from BC and CEM were undertaken to reach common vision and mission for the school and these, together with the strategic plan were accepted by the newly constituted School of Construction Advisory Board. at their Fall 05 meeting.

The formal proposal for the establishment and naming of the Myers-Lawson School of construction at Virginia Tech was approved by the University Board of Visitors on March 27th 2006.

Vision, Mission and Guiding Principles.

It is difficult to underestimate the importance of establishing a common vision, mission and set of guiding principles for a venture of this nature. Ross Myers and John Lawson provided the framework during their keynote address at the Construction Awards Banquet when they articulated their vision in the following five areas:

1. The School must strive to be the best – it must set the standard for and take a leadership role in construction education and define a construction community. 2. The School must be student centric – it must focus on students, build their

commitment to construction and improve their ability to lesad in all sectors of the industry.

3. The School must be founded in values based leadership – it must emphasize ethics, people and community

4. The School must establish creative learning environments – it must rethink how people learn and emphasize learning above teaching.

(18)

These five points guided the strategic planning process and became an integral part of the of the formal proposal to establish the School. Both documents articulate the vision, mission and guiding principles for the School as follows:

Vision:

The School of Construction at Virginia Tech will set the standard for innovation and excellence in construction education, research and outreach.

Mission:

The School will provide a unified identity for excellence in construction education, research and outreach within Virginia Tech, to the academic community and to the construction industry.

Our students will come first

• We will educate inquisitive values based leaders, thinkers, and integrators able to succeed in all sectors of our industry by providing an education founded on technical, managerial, and practical knowledge.

We will cross boundaries

• We will provide a critical mass of faculty and students to work across traditional boundaries and share learning environments, research, and academic life without the constraints and preconceptions of traditional departments.

We will value discovery

• Our learning environments and research will be based on the needs of our industry and communities, without compromise in creativity and technical quality.

We will grow a construction community

• We will partner with our industry to be the benchmark provider of knowledge and leadership and make construction a career of first choice.

Guiding Principle:

Our Guiding Principles are elaborated in three concepts that form our areas of excellence, underlying philosophy and reason for being:

 Values Based Leadership – The school will provide research and learning environments that exemplify Values Based Leadership. These leadership values are founded in the highest ethical standards and behavior that extend across the decisions that we as

members of our construction community encounter in every day life including areas of:

1.) Human interactions/relationships such as respect and empathy for a diverse

population, safety, caring for people and the entities we work with, growth of the individual; and 2.) Society/community involvement including local, regional, national and world involvement with an understanding of sustaining our society and communities for future generations.

(19)

The school will be known for rigorous research methodology and products. We will concentrate on doing the best quality research that will enrich academic thinking and benefit the construction community.

 Integrating and Sustaining the Built Environment – The school will address all the elements of the built environment that must come together in a unified and integrated way to provide the best value for owners and our society. We will embrace field operations, production and productivity management as a necessary element of project management. We will strive to lead the change towards facilities that produce a net contribution to our environment and society. The elements that need to be embraced include integration for livability, safety, performance, energy consumption, sustainability, operation, and salvage. The school will take a leading role in growing a construction community that will address the interface issues that are critical to the long term success of the built environment and our industry.

Structure and Operations

The School will be jointly housed in the College of Architecture and Urban Studies and the College of Engineering. The School will be administered by the Director who will have formal reporting ties to the deans of both colleges. Faculty will be comprised of Primary Faculty with positions and reporting responsibility in the School, Core Faculty with tenure lines in their respective departments and Affiliated Faculty from related academic disciplines. The

organizational structure is given in Figure 1.

The School will be located in Bishop-Favro Hall that will open in fall of 07, and the school will be administered by a Director with support provided through an appointed Associate Director. The Director will have formal reporting ties to the deans of Architecture and Urban Studies and Engineering and will be responsible for the School’s budget and all personnel matters relating to the primary faculty and staff in the school. The Director will liaise with the heads of the participating departments on all matters especially those pertaining to courses, curriculum and assignments for core faculty.

The School will have an Internal Advisory Committee that includes the deans of both colleges, the heads or designates of the participating departments, and selected representatives of other departments/schools /programs on the Virginia Tech campus that have significant ongoing activities related to construction. The director and associate director will be ex-officio members of the Internal Advisory Committee which will be chaired by one of the deans.

(20)

An operating budget equivalent to $750,000 made up of university commitments and cash operating funds contributions, and endowment buildup will be fully available each year starting in fall 06. These funds will be used for the following:

a. 3.5 Faculty positions including the partial support for the Director and Associate Director outlined in D.1 and D.2 above.

b. 5 Ph.D. level GTA positions

c. The program support technician and industry internship program coordinator positions described in D.4. above.

d. General operating and Student Support funds Dean, College of Architecture and Urban Studies * Dean, College of Engineering * Head, Department of Building Construction *

Core Faculty from Building Construction Director, School of Construction * Primary Faculty in the School of Construction Head, Via Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering *

Core Faculty from Civil Engineering

The School of Construction at Virginia Tech.

Core and Affiliate Faculty in the School of Construction from Related Academic Disciplines in Participating Departments and Units

Figure 1 – Organizational Structure for the School of Construction. The School will be jointly housed in the Colleges of Architecture and

(21)

The Department of Building Construction will remain as a department in the College of Architecture and Urban Studies, The Vecellio Construction Engineering and Management Program will remain as an integral part of the Via Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The establishment of the School of Construction will not require or lead to a change in the level of faculty, staff, student and other forms of support for these two programs.

Academic Priorities.

Faculty met as a group and sought input from a preliminary external advisory board to establish the following six priorities for the building and development phase for the School:

1. Coordinate Existing graduate degrees in construction.

Existing graduate degrees in construction are administered and students are advised separately by the Department of Building Construction and the Vecellio Construction Engineering and Management Program. The School will assume these

responsibilities on behalf of the two units and will establish a uniform curriculum structure that matches student background and college affiliation and spans the traditional academic disciplines of Architecture and Engineering.

The student application review process for these two units will also be administered by the School and students will be admitted and advised by Primary and Core faculty according to research interests, degree requirements and undergraduate background. This process will provide a unified construction identity to graduate students, the campus community and the construction industry. It will leverage faculty resources, enhance the quality of graduate programs, improve Virginia Tech’s ability to recruit outstanding graduate students and significantly increase the number of students graduating with advanced degrees in construction from Virginia Tech.

2. Propose and establish a new BS degree in Construction Engineering and

Management and coordinate undergraduate education in construction.

Students wishing to obtain an undergraduate degree in construction at Virginia Tech currently register in the College of Architecture and Urban Studies and obtain a BS degree in Building Construction (BS BC) or in the College of Engineering where they use the flexibility in the civil engineering curriculum to obtain a BS degree in Civil Engineering with coursework in construction.

The School will seek to establish and obtain ABET accreditation for a new BS degree in Construction Engineering and Management (BS CEM) The existing BS BC degree will work in tandem with the proposed BS CEM degree and enable Virginia Tech to recruit engineering students who wish to focus their careers in construction. The two undergraduate degrees will ensure that Virginia Tech is able to prepare students for success in the construction industry regardless of whether their backgrounds are in building construction or engineering and will increase the number of graduates entering the industry.

Students seeking the BS BC degree will be admitted through the College of

(22)

that includes the equivalent of five BC courses as capstone studio classes shared with BS Building Construction students. These capstone studio classes will use

innovative methodologies to maximize learning, build appropriate skills in

leadership, teamwork and communication and ensure that construction students at Virginia Tech are prepared for success in an industry that does not rely on one particular academic discipline for the development of technical and managerial leadership.

The administration of the BS CE degree and its various tracks remains in the Via Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The two undergraduate construction degrees - BS BC and BS CEM - will be administered by the School of Construction on behalf of their respective departments and colleges.

3. Propose and establish a new interdisciplinary Ph.D. degree in Construction. There is no Ph.D. degree in Construction at Virginia Tech. Students entering the College of Engineering require a background in engineering and pursue a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering. Students entering the College of Architecture and Urban Studies have diverse educational backgrounds and typically pursue a Ph.D. in Environmental Design and Planning.

The establishment of the School will make possible, and the faculty will propose, the establishment of a new interdisciplinary Ph.D. degree in Construction. The proposed degree will cut across traditional boundaries and prepare graduates for professional and academic careers in a broad and diverse industry that does not rely on one particular academic discipline for the development of academic, technical and managerial leadership.

4. Establish three centers of excellence that characterize and form the

philosophical foundation for the School.

The School of Construction makes it possible for faculty to work together and

develop a focus on three initiatives that establish the philosophical foundation for the School, cut across teaching, research and outreach activities and provide a common ground for interaction between faculty. These are:

i. Values Based Leadership – The school will provide research and

learning environments that exemplify Values Based Leadership. These leadership values are founded in the highest ethical standards and behavior that extend across the decisions that we as members of our construction community encounter in every day life.

ii. Excellence in creative learning environments and research – The

School will concentrate on learning environments that promote academic inquiry, pursuit of discovery, and human enlightenment and that provide maximum learning for our students.

iii. Integrating and Sustaining the Built Environment – The school

(23)

5. Support and develop synergy with the Center for Innovation in Construction

Safety and Health.

The Center for Innovation in Construction Safety and Health has recently been established as a College level center within the University and several faculty are actively involved in its activities. The School will seek to develop a formal

relationship with the center to improve alignment and share expertise to the greatest extent possible. This will provide the School with a ready made opportunity to develop activity consistent with the emphasis on values based leadership and build synergy with an established center of growing reputation.

6. Expand outreach activities in partnership with industry.

Faculty have maintained an active outreach program through advisory boards, a construction affiliates program and other initiatives that build and nurture

relationships with industry. They have also been involved with short courses such as the Transportation Construction Management Institute, the Construction Affiliates Leadership series. The School will coordinate these activities and work in close association with Center for Innovation in Construction Safety and Health and other partners across the breadth of the industry to develop, maintain and promote an active outreach program including and advisory board and affiliates program.

Lessons/Wisdom?

There are several lessons or points of wisdom that the authors would like to share for anyone contemplating doing something like a cross college School of Construction. These are listed below:

1. There must, in the first place, be wise, committed and dedicated executive leadership from industry that is passionate about the venture, able to navigate through differences and maintain a course towards the final destination.

2. There must be an acknowledgement of the contribution and equality of the different entities entering into the relationship. There cannot be feelings of

superiority/inferiority. It must be an inclusive group that believes in the value of each partner. This cannot be understated. A relationship/team cannot emerge without this first requirement.

3. The parties must agree on the benefits and end results before they get into the details. If the fundamental philosophy is not in place the details will always derail the process. 4. This end result of a school of construction is not about engineering, architecture, or

building construction. It is about doing what is best for our students, our industry, and our university. It is about looking to create a construction community.

5. Joining must be voluntary. Compulsory involvement will not work.

6. The leadership team must be accepting of all its children. There must be a feeling of ownership of all degrees and types of graduates that will be involved in the school of construction.

(24)

8. There must be acceptance of the fact that it will take time, energy, effort and, above all, compromise.

It is hoped that this effort will lead to a sustainable construction educational model that will be adopted by other universities. We hope that through this effort we will be able to help

(25)

Benefits of Industry Involvement in Construction Education

J. Irizarry,1 and W. Adams2

1_{Asssitant Professor, School of Architecture, Civil Engineering Technology, and Construction, Southern} Polytechnic State University, 1100 South Marietta Parkway, Marietta, Georgia 30060-2896; PH (678) 915-4229;

FAX (678) 915-1235; email: irizarry@spsu.edu

2_{Graduate Research Assistant, School of Architecture, Civil Engineering Technology, and Construction, Southern} Polytechnic State University, 1100 South Marietta Parkway, Marietta, Georgia 30060-2896; email:

wadams@spsu.edu

Abstract

Construction programs must have a symbiotic relationship with the construction industry. The construction industry can greatly benefit from the involvement of industry practitioners in the development, implementation, and improvement of construction education programs. Industry involvement provides construction programs with ideas and resources necessary to meet the challenge of continuously improving construction education. This paper will discuss the findings of a survey among construction programs members of the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC). The purpose of the study was to learn about construction programs and to identify factors that could promote mutually beneficial relationships between the construction industry and construction education programs. The results of the survey showed that general contractors and commercial building contractors have a higher level of involvement with construction programs. It was also found that internship programs and assistance in securing financial resources were factors that could promote mutually beneficial industry-education partnerships.

Introduction

The increasing complexity of today’s construction industry requires continuous improvement of construction education programs. An important factor that has shown to be essential to the success of construction programs is the involvement of the construction industry (Badger, 1999). Construction programs must take the necessary steps to promote mutually beneficial industry-education partnerships.

Construction programs have the challenge of preparing professionals for a continuously changing industry. Construction faculty must meet this challenge by keeping up with the changes in the industry and incorporating these changes into the curriculum. Construction industry practitioners can be involved in construction education in many capacities. They can provide construction educators with ideas for topics to be included in courses, they can help researchers identify industry problems that need to be solved, and they can give feedback to construction programs on how effective the program is in educating students to succeed in today’s construction industry.

(26)

is to succeed in preparing the next generation of construction professionals, a concerted effort must be made to achieve the highest level of industry involvement possible.

Research Methodology

In order to learn about the factors that contribute to successful collaboration between the construction industry and construction education programs, a survey was conducted among members of the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC). The ASC is an organization established in 1965 which goal is to foster excellence in construction communication, scholarship, research, education, and practice. The membership of the ASC includes academic programs in disciplines such as architecture, engineering, management, technology, and others. The ASC is organized into seven geographic regions in the United States (Northeast, Southeast, Great Lakes, North Central, South Central, Rocky Mountain, and Far West) and two international regions, one for international institutions (Canada; Europe; Asia and the Pacific; and Caribbean/Central/South America) and one for industry professionals (ASC Website, 2005). The use of the survey questionnaire is intended to provide results that are descriptive in nature and are intended to provide an understanding of what factors construction programs consider to promote successful industry-education partnerships. The questions included in this survey were divided into three groups: information about the programs, information about industry partners, and factors that contribute to successful industry involvement.

The survey was sent to construction programs members of the ASC across the United States. One hundred and nine (109) construction related programs were contacted from all regions of the ASC (ASC Website, 2005). The construction programs surveyed included programs that reside in civil engineering schools as well as programs in technology schools and architecture schools. A total of 19 programs from 5 regions of ASC completed the survey for a 17.4% response rate (see Table 1). The respondents included construction programs from fifteen (15) states across the United States.

Table 1. Surveyed programs by ASC region ASC Region Programs Surveyed

I - Northeast 5

II - Southeast 4

III – Great Lakes 2 VI – South Central 4 V1 & VII - Far West 4

Total 19

Data Analysis

The analysis of the survey to construction programs includes descriptive statistics and an analysis of responses related to the importance given to several factors that are believed to result in positive involvement of industry partners with construction education programs.

Descriptive statistics

(27)

from the survey data. The information obtained can increase the understanding of the factors that contribute to the successful relationships between the construction industry and construction education programs. Learning about these factors can contribute to the improvement of construction education and ultimately the construction industry, which benefits from the increased quality of construction program graduates.

Program size and demographics

Table 2 includes information on the size, and demographics of the programs who responded to the survey. The largest programs were located in Region VI of ASC. From the survey it was also learned that 58% of the programs surveyed had a graduate program. The programs with a larger proportion of graduate students, female students, and international students were located in the Far West Region of ASC. There were notable differences in the sizes of the graduate programs. For example, Region II and the Far West Region had a combined 32% of the graduate programs but the Far West Region had a much higher percentage of graduate students. This shows that graduate programs in the Far West Region schools are larger. The data also shows that there are notable differences in the number of female and international students. The programs in Regions II and III of ASC reported the lowest number of female and international students in the programs surveyed.

Table 2. Program size and student body demographics ASC Region Average #

of Total Students Standard Deviation of Total Students Average of % of Grads % Female Students International Students I - Northeast 102 65.0 3.04 8.02 2.84 II - Southeast 218 118.8 6.80 5.03 2.25

III – Great Lakes 175 75.7 1.32 2.50 0.50

VI – South Central

299 164.6 4.88 10.13 4.40

VI & VII - Far West

176 125.9 21.08 16.82 14.18

Program focus

(28)

Table 3. Faculty allocation of time (in percent)

ASC Region Research Teaching Other

I - Northeast 22 78 0

II - Southeast 12 89 0

III – Great Lakes 18 83 0

VI – South Central 18 77 5

VI & VII - Far West 21 66 13

Faculty statistics

Figure 1 shows the compositions of the construction programs surveyed. There was no consistent proportion of faculty at the assistant or full professor levels. However, there were similar numbers of associate professors in many of the ASC regions surveyed. The survey results also showed that many of the regions surveyed had a large number of adjunct faculty. For example in Regions III and Far West, 60% or more of the faculty are adjunct faculty. This could be an indication of problems with availability of qualified faculty or the desire of many construction programs for faculty with practical experience. Tener (1996) discussed this issue when he indicated that the quality of construction education depends greatly on the industry experience of its faculty. Therefore, it is important that the construction industry recognizes this issue and provides opportunities for faculty to participate in activities that will enhance their practical knowledgebase. This assistance from industry could be in the form of faculty internships. According to the data reported from the ASC programs surveyed, only 15.8% had a formal faculty internship program.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

I II III VI Far west ASC Region % of f ac ul ty c at egor y Adjunct Full Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor

Figure 1. Faculty categories by region Student internship programs

(29)

demonstrate this commitment. The survey results showed that 63% of the construction programs had an Internship Coordinator, which is evidence of commitment to the internship program. Teaching techniques

The teaching techniques used by construction programs can be an important factor contributing to the quality of graduates and to the success they achieve in the construction industry. Respondents of the survey were asked to indicate what teaching techniques were used in their programs by indicating the frequency with which they were used. Respondents rated each of the techniques on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being the least used and 10 being the most used. A summary of the responses is shown in Figure 2.

Traditional classroom teaching was the most used technique with an average rating of 9.3 and distance education was the least used with an average rating of 2. Case studies and field trips were moderately used with average ratings of 4.8 and 4.4 respectively. The results show that construction programs that responded to the survey rely mostly on traditional methods of instruction with only a small number employing innovative instructional methods.

2.0 3.8 4.4 4.8 6.2 9.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Distance Education Situational Simulations Field T rips Case Studies Group Problem Solving T raditional Classroom teach in g t ech ni qu es frequency of use

Figure 2. Teaching techniques used by construction programs

If construction education programs are to improve the quality of it graduates, increased efforts should be made to increase the use of technology in the classroom. Lindsey (2003) demonstrated the benefits of distance education technologies for a structural steel design course. He found that by using distributed education (DE) technology his students spent more time preparing for class and made better use of their time with the instructor. Benefits for the instructor included reduced lecture preparation time and increased quality of lecture materials.

Industry partners

There is great diversity in the type of companies that perform construction and construction related work as well as a wide range of company sizes. This diversity provides a great number of opportunities for industry-education collaboration in the construction field. The following sections explore the demographics of the industry in relation to their involvement with construction programs.

Types of companies

(30)

involved with their program. Equipment manufacturers were the group with the least involvement with construction programs with only 11% of the programs reporting that they had a relationship with such companies. Other types of companies with high level of involvement with construction programs were commercial building contractors, residential construction contractors, and heavy civil contractors. Specialty contractors such as electrical and mechanical contractors had a smaller level of involvement (58% and 53% respectively). It is important to increase the level of involvement of the specialty contractors if construction programs wish to produce graduates that will serve this sector of the industry.

11% 37% 53% 58% 58% 68% 79% 79% 95% 100% Equipment Manufacturers Architectural Firms Mechanical Contractors Electrical Contractors Design Firms Design-Build Firms Heavy Civil Contractors Residential Construction Contractors Commercial Building Contractors General Contractors

type of company

Figure 3. Types of companies involved with construction programs

Factors contributing to successful partnerships

The level of involvement of companies can provide an indication of the commitment that the companies have to their relationships with construction programs. From Figure 4 it can be observed that commercial building contractors are the group that shows the highest level of involvement with the construction programs surveyed closely followed by general contractors. Mechanical contractors and electrical contractors are again at the lower end on the scale with low level of involvement.

(31)

0.9 2.0 2.3 2.4 3.3 4.9 5.5 6.9 8.5 8.9 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Equipment Manufacturers Architectural Firms Electrical Contractors Mechanical Contractors Design Firms Design-Build Firms Heavy Civil Contractors Residential Construction Contractors General Contractors Commercial Building Contractors

ty pe o f co m pan y

Figure 4. Level of company involvement

3.5 4.3 4.7 4.9 5.8 6.6 8.3 8.4 9.0 9.4 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Faculty evaluation (hiring)

Providing internships for faculty Providing access to data for research Providing research problems Curriculum planning Outcomes assessment Fundraising Guest lecturers or speakers Financial contribution Providing internships for students

type of invol ve me nt

Figure 5. Types of industry involvement

Conclusions

The construction industry can play a vital role in the developing of its future leaders and its involvement has clear benefits for construction education programs. This paper evaluated the factors that can result in successful industry-education partnerships. A survey was conducted among construction programs members of the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC). Construction programs from five ASC regions responded to the survey (17.4% response rate). Important information was collected about the construction programs, the types of companies involved with the programs, and the types of involvement they had with the programs.

(32)

General contractors and commercial building contractors were the types of companies most involved with construction programs, while design firms and specialty contractors were not as involved. This provides an indication that efforts should be made to increase the involvement of design and specialty contracting companies, especially when many programs are developing specialty contracting and design-build concentrations. For many construction programs, providing internships for students, financial support, and assistance from guest speakers or guest lecturers were the type of involvement most conducive to successful industry-education partnerships.

A limitation of the study was the low response rate from construction programs members of ASC. In the future, the study will be extended to include additional construction programs members of ASC as well as non member programs. In addition, the views of industry on this topic will be assessed and compared with the views of construction programs to determine if there is compatibility in goals and expectations for industry-education partnerships. A broader view of this topic is essential to the development of successful industry-education partnerships that can be mutually beneficial for all those involved. Only with a concerted team effort this goal can be accomplished.

References

Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) Website, (2005). http://www.ascweb.org

Badger, W.W., (1999). The Industry Advisory Council and the Del E. Webb School of Construction at Arizona State University. J. of Construction Education, 4(2), 136-151 Lindsey, S.D., (2003). On-Demand Lectures Create an Effective Distributed Education

Experience. The Journal: Technological Horizons in Education, 31(4), 16-20

(33)

The Competitiveness of International Construction Majors: Managing the

Evolution.

Ioannis I. Zoiopoulos1, Peter W.G. Morris2 and Hedley J. Smyth3

1,2,3_{School of Construction and Project Management, Bartlett School of Graduate Studies,} University College London, WC1E 6BT, UK,

email: j.zoiopoulos@ucl.ac.uk, pwmorris@ucl.ac.uk, h.smyth@ucl.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper clearly defines capabilities, competencies and core competencies within a strategic management context. It then goes on to argue that the ability of international construction majors (ICMs) to successfully manage their evolutionary path depends on: i) competencies and core competencies they already possess, ii) managerial comprehension of the corporate objectives to be achieved, the necessary competencies and core competencies to be deployed for the cause and where those can be obtained, iii) managerial entrepreneurial and administrative competence and, iv) the corporate infrastructure to facilitate managerial efforts and effective mobility of competencies and core competencies across the group. It is then proposed that by conceptualizing ICMs as companies managing through their corporate center portfolios of competencies existing at their constituent parts, rather than portfolios of market focused business streams (BSs), waste and duplication of resources when pursuing process and scale specialization can be reduced. The four focal points outlined above are brought forward as a framework that will allow researchers and practitioners a more realistic and holistic examination of the competence related evolutionary issues that ICMs face.

Introduction

Certain companies are more successful at managing their evolutionary path than their peers. The companies of primary concern to this paper are large international construction organizations, which we shall refer to as international construction majors (ICMs). Adopting the notion that while industry characteristics matter, they are not as important as organizational characteristics when accounting for prospects for growth (Wernerfelt, 1984; Schmalensee, 1985; Rumelt, 1991), the key challenge for any company becomes to preemptively build the capabilities, competencies and core competencies that provide gateways to tomorrow’s opportunities, as well as to find novel applications of current capabilities, competencies and core competencies it possesses, by creating an organizational environment that can facilitate their effective mobility (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994; Teece et al., 1997; Langford and Male, 2001). Capabilities, Competencies and Core Competencies

(34)

organizational resources, for the purpose of achieving a particular end result’. Winter (2003) described operational capabilities as those that permit a firm to make a living in the short term and dynamic capabilities as those that operate to extend, modify or create operational capabilities. McGrath et al. (1995: 251) define competence in operational terms as ‘the degree to which a firm or its sub-units reliably and consistently meet or exceed objectives’ and have shown that it is positively associated with the level of comprehension and deftness of the responsible managerial group1. Hall, (1993) has further explained that organizational competencies constitute of the know-how of employees (as well as suppliers, advisers and distributors) and the collective attributes, which add up to organizational culture.

The difference between capabilities and competencies is not obvious from the literature. The confusion is worsened by the fact that those terms are almost always preceded by different adjectives (dynamic, functional, operational, organizational and core) and because of the fact that they are both based on the broader concept of organizational routines that a company has developed throughout its history of operation. However, there is a difference between the two that can be understood if we examine the words capability and competence through a number of lenses. First, we see that the Oxford Dictionary defines the terms as follows:

• Capability as the power or ability to do something.

• Competence as having the necessary ability or knowledge to do something successfully. Second, we can observe that 'capability' has as a constituent the word ability, whereas 'competence' the word petition, which, combined with com (meaning “comes with” in Latin) suggests that a competence is something that comes through the intentional realization of a process towards specific objectives. Theoretically, having set and then met corporate objectives, a company should have developed at all hierarchical levels the human skills and organizational processes supporting its competitive superiority in the range of services it offers2.

We could argue that it is the competence with which organizational capabilities are managed and deployed that distinguishes one competitor from the other. In the words of Helfat et al (2003: 999): “Simply because a capability may have reached a threshold level of reliability, does not imply that the capability has attained the highest possible level of functionality. To say that an organization has a capability means only that it has reached a minimum level of functionality that permits repeated, reliable performance of an activity. Some versions of capability are better than others”.

ICMs – or any diversified company for that matter – that manage through their corporate center portfolios of capabilities and competencies existing at their constituent parts, can develop competencies at the core (or corporate center) of the organization that we will refer to as core competencies, which can be applied to and support their competitiveness in a range of markets they are active in, while providing scope for further competence-related diversification (Wernerfelt, 1984; Hamel and Prahalad, 1990; 1994). Core competencies represent the collective learning of the organization. When applied to construction (Haan et al., 2002) the core

1_{Comprehension involves the processes by which management at all hierarchical levels develops a good} understanding of what combinations of resources will allow it to meet business objectives. Deftness involves creating working relationships which enable management to execute effectively in light of comprehension (McGrath et al., 1995:251).

The Role of Strategic Leadership in Creating Change for Construction Innovation: A North Cyprus Perspective

2

Specialty Conference on

Leadership and Management in Construction

May 4-6, 2006

Grand Bahama Island, Bahamas

Editors

Anthony Songer

Paul Chinowsky

Patricia Carrillo

Committees

Message From The Organizing Committee

Table of Contents

ASCE’s Raise the Bar Effort: Forward Progress

An Integrated Construction Education Model at Virginia Tech

Benefits of Industry Involvement in Construction Education

The Competitiveness of International Construction Majors: Managing the

Evolution.