Acta Structilia-13(2) 19 Paul Bowen, Keith Cattell, Kathy Michell & Elby Kabayadondo The effectiveness of construction project briefing as an interpersonal communication process Peer reviewed Abstract The main purpose of construction project briefing is to effectively transform the needs of the client from an abstract form into a concrete form. Research indi- cates a clear link between effective briefing and client satisfaction with their resultant buildings. This article documents the findings of a study concerning the effectiveness of construction project briefing as an interpersonal communication process. A case study approach was adopted. The sample included clients, building users, architects, quantity surveyors and project managers. The main finding was that there are no methodical procedures in place in the early stages of briefing. Conceptually, the various project participants were found to have a generic understanding of what ought to be included or excluded from briefing and debriefing, but there appears to be significant gaps between theory and practice. Keywords: briefing, interpersonal communication, client, design, construction project Prof. Paul Bowen, Head of Department, Department of Construction Economics and Management, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa. Telephone: +27 21 650 3445, Email: bowenpa@ebe.uct.ac.za Associate Prof. Keith Cattell, Department of Construction Economics and Management, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa. Telephone: +27 21 650 3443, Email: ksc@ebe.uct.ac.za Ms Kathy Michell, Senior Lecturer, Department of Construction Economics and Management, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa, Telephone: +27 21 650 3443, Email: hallka@ebe.uct.ac.za Mr Elby Kabayadondo, Department of Construction Economics and Manage- ment, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa. Telephone: +27 21 650 3443 20 Acta Structilia 2006: 13(2) Abstrak Die hoofdoel van konstruksieprojek-voorligting is om die kliënt se behoeftes van- uit abstraktheid tot in ’n werklike struktuur doeltreffend te omskep. Dat kliënte as gevolg van behoorlike meedeling van projekopdragte wel met hul voltooide geboue tevrede gestel word, is deur navorsing bewys. Hierdie artikel bied die bevindinge voortvloeiend uit ’n gevallestudie oor die doeltreffendheid van kon- struksieprojek-voorligting as interpersoonlike kommunikasieproses, aan. Die steekproef het kliënte, verbruikers van geboue, argitekte, bourekenaars en pro- jekbestuurders ingesluit. Die hoofbevinding is dat tydens vroeë voorligtingstadia, word geen stelselmatige prosedures toegepas nie. Begripsgewys, dra die verskeie deelnemers algemene kennis van faktore wat tydens projekvoorligting en -evaluering in- of uitgesluit behoort te word, maar blykbaar bestaan daar aansienlike leemtes tussen teorie en die praktiese toepassing daarvan Sleutelwoorde: voorligting, interpersoonlike kommunikasie, kliënt, ontwerp, projek 1. Introduction The history of briefing in the construction industry can be tracedback to the 1950s when architects, influenced by sociologicalthinking, began to devise a method in design and a motive for brief-making. Some of the architects and planners who played major roles in the evolution of briefing practice include Louis Kahn, Horst Rittel, Christopher Alexander and Frank Duffy (Blyth & Worthington, 2001). The period from the 1970s through to the 1990s saw the prac- tice moving from perceiving briefing and design as rigid interfaces to viewing briefing as an integral component of design. To this end, communication has become the core component of the briefing process in order to co-ordinate the various entities of the brief. Re- search indicates a clear link between effective briefing and client satisfaction with completed projects (Bowen, 1999; Barrett & Stanley, 1999; O’Reilly, 1973). This article documents the findings of a study concerning the effec- tiveness of construction project briefing as an interpersonal commu- nication process. A case study approach was adopted, with semi- structured interviews being used to elicit participants’ views of the case studies under investigation. The sample included clients, build- ing users, architects, quantity surveyors and project managers. 2. Theoretical framework 2.1 The concept of briefing The Construction Industry Board (1997) defines briefing as an informa- tive process by which the needs and desires of the client are communi- cated to others either officially or unofficially. Similarly, Taylor et al. (1980) define briefing as a process of interactions between entities that result in the production of something uniquely different from the original entity. The end product of this endeavour is the ‘brief’, the outcome of information gathered from studies, surveys, discussions and a number of judgments (Hymas, 2001). It is a formal, official, and functional document stipulating the client’s requirements, prepared well before design commences and is endorsed by both the client and design team (Construction Industry Board, 1997; Gray et al., 1994, Kelly et al., 1992). The client’s main objective will be the erection of a fully useful structure that justifies the need for which it is built (Chartered Institute of Building, 2003). 21 Bowen, Cattell, Michell & Kabayadondo • Construction project briefing 22 Acta Structilia 2006: 13(2) Communication may be thought of as a transaction between sender and receiver (Fischer, 1978). Within the context of the briefing process, the roles of sender and receiver are played consecutively by both parties i.e., client and design team. Viewing communication as an interpersonal transaction implies a form of conveyance or transportation across space. The components of this perspective consist of the ‘message’ (travelling across space from one point to another), the ‘channel’ (the mode of conveyance of the message), the ‘source’ and ‘receiver’, ‘encoding’ and ‘decoding’ (the process of transforming a message from one form to another at the point of transmission and destination), ‘noise’ (the extent to which the fidelity of the message is reduced), and ‘feedback’ (a message that is a response to another message). The transactional view of inter- personal communication is depicted in Figure 1. Noise Message/Feedback Message/Feedback Encoder Decoder EncoderDecoder (Channel) (Channel) Source-Receiver Source-Receiver Figure1: A transactional view of interpersonal communication Source: Fisher, 1978 In terms of communication theory (see, for example, Feldberg, 1975), the process of structuring the client’s brief may be thought of as an ‘encoding’ process. It entails the client presenting a ‘mind model’ to the design team, who in turn improves and develops it (Bowen, 1995). One of the outcomes of this process is the outline brief, which con- tains an adequate documentation of the client’s perception of his or her needs. The brief should be able to communicate the client’s needs to other professionals, including those who did not participate in the briefing process per se (Emmitt & Gorse, 2003; Gray et al., 1994). The client’s brief should also stipulate the possible limiting factors that require practical alternatives to be formulated. The process of brief construction is depicted in Figure 2 below. 23 Bowen, Cattell, Michell & Kabayadondo • Construction project briefing Figure 2: The briefing process Source: Blyth & Worthington, 2001: 54 Blyth & Worthington (2001) argue that the briefing process should allow for the flow of information from the strategic brief to a well defined client need with feedback loops to allow for reviewing and alterations. On the supply side, communication is between the design and production teams. Effective communication is imper- ative to ensure compatibility between design groups. Bridging the demand and supply sides implies obtaining information from both sides making decisions and sharing a common understanding. Essen- tially it is a process of exchanging briefs from either end. Clients initi- ate the briefing process by communicating their needs. The designer then gives meaning to the client’s need in the context of plans, draw- ings, sketches and models and communicates the information to the client. 2.2 What are the responsibilities of the sender and receiver that can add to the successful communication of the client’s brief In construction projects, information exchange occurs between the client and the design team, between individual design team mem- bers, as well as among members of the client team. The sender, whether client or design team member, has the responsibility of struc- turing information in a way that is detailed, clear and unambiguous. Hence, the obligation of attaining shared meaning is placed on the sender (Emmitt & Gorse, 2003; Bowen, 1993; Feldberg, 1975). In an attempt to attain shared understanding, clients normally hold fre- quent face-to-face meetings with design teams. The design team’s level of brief understanding is determined by the fit between re- interpretation of needs and the original ones as reflected in the design product. Bowen (1993: 17) asserts that “feedback is the main mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of the communication process.” Client feedback is necessary for objective balancing (Wal- lace, 1987). Barriers to effective communication may rise if the person within the client organisation fulfilling the role as the communication sender is inexperienced. It must be remembered that the design team is per- forming a service for the client’s satisfaction. What this implies is that the design team also has a duty to actively seek clarification from the client. Thus, according to Bowen (1993), the design team needs to understand the political climate prevailing in the client’s organisation and also to take cognisance of the client’s level of sophistication. In practical terms, the very nature of the communication process necessitates that all participants adopt sender and receiver roles, meaning that the onus for the attainment of shared meaning is joint and several. 2.3 Problems associated with the briefing process There is potential for misunderstandings and communication break- downs in any human communication interaction (Rougvie, 1991). It is necessary to recognise and acknowledge the existence of the hur- dles which cause barriers to effective communication if the effi- ciency of the briefing process is to be improved (Brown, 2001). The fol- lowing are identified in the literature as some of the barriers to suc- cessful briefing: • Agendas: The client organisation is usually composed of indi- viduals who might be sharing work on different projects and who have different goals and objectives (Bowen, 1993; Rougvie, 1991; Coles, 1990). Many of their interests are poorly articulated, making it difficult to translate them into the lan- guage of building (Emmitt & Gorse, 2003; Brown, 2001). Even within the design team, members might hold conflicting pri- orities and aspirations, and may not have aligned them- selves with the objectives of the client (Bowen et al., 1999). For example, the client may desire the maximisation of rev- enue generation, the architect might be primarily interested in aesthetic optimisation (at the expense of time and cost), while the quantity surveyor is likely to be concerned with 24 Acta Structilia 2006: 13(2) minimising the capital cost (at the expense of architectural ‘magnificence’ (Brown, 2001; Higgin & Jessop, 1965). Failures to reconcile such individual frames of reference often result in different factual interpretations of the brief (Blyth & Wor- thington, 2001). • Language and perception: The most common influences on perception, namely assumptions, cultural expectations, motivation and attitude, amongst others are all relevant factors in the briefing process, as is language with its many complicating factors, like abstraction, complexity, etc. A dis- tinction needs to be made between the factors influencing perception and those of language. The potential for misun- derstandings is high when professionals with composite tradi- tional and educational backgrounds meet, since language, culture and traditions all influence perceptions (Brown, 2001). There is a particularly high likelihood that this will be a problem in the South African environment (Bowen, 1995). Further, the high level of abstraction and technical lan- guage, such as is used in the price messages sent to archi- tects and clients by the quantity surveyor render the attain- ment of shared meaning difficult (Bowen, 1993). On this issue, Gray & Hughes (2001) note that the use of jargon is only valuable to those who share it to quickly express com- plex issues. Where it is used between groups of differing backgrounds, it is likely to result in ineffective communi- cation (Bowen, 1993). • Translation: The translation of the client’s brief can be prob- lematic during development of the design. Extracting meaning can be highly subjective, and hence conflictual. Attempts on the part of the receiving party (consecutively both client and design team members are receiving parties) to seek clarification might be misconstrued as fault-finding rather than the need to understand, sometimes leading to conflict (Verma, 1996). • Specialisation: With increased specialisation in the design process it becomes difficult for design team members to easily reach a common understanding regarding the ‘best’ solution to the client’s need. Unless the receiving party has some ‘specialised’ knowledge on the subject, they have to rely on ‘trust’ that the level of expertise applied is appro- priate. Gray & Hughes (2001) claim that the traditional role 25 Bowen, Cattell, Michell & Kabayadondo • Construction project briefing of the architect or engineer has been fragmented into numerous areas of specialty. They attribute this to the in- creased diversity of client need, technological advance- ment, and institutional defensiveness. Bowen (1995) con- sidered that such fragmentation of design results in a lack of mutual appreciation of specialised knowledge areas. • Lack of formality at inception: A study by Bowen et al. (1999) found that there is a tendency for communication at the inception stage to be informal, based on the finding that the majority of the architects surveyed operated without any established brief-eliciting procedures. Another example of informality, from an earlier survey (Bowen, 1993), revealed that the majority of quantity surveyors did not make use of engagement letters in communicating price-related infor- mation to clients and architects. This study also established that quantity surveyors and architects invariably did not receive written copies of the client’s brief. This is obviously problematic as failure to properly document and agree upon the client’s brief will result in the absence of a frame of reference against which to evaluate the actions of mem- bers of the design team and the resultant building. • Role ambiguity and participation: Inexperienced clients and sometimes even design team members are unsure about what their individual roles should be as these are not clearly defined at the outset of the project, resulting in confusion, ‘ambiguity and unfulfilled expectations’ (Blyth & Worthing- ton, 2001: 86; Tunstall, 2000). Duplication or omissions of tasks are normally the result of unclear responsibilities, which can culminate in delays and confusion. Brown (2001) and Gray et al. (1994) point to a ‘wheel of dominance’ whereby differ- ent groups predominate at different times of the project life cycle. The interpersonal communication process can there- fore be influenced and complicated by various factors (like dynamics within various teams) at different stages of the project, which will reflect in its effectiveness. Disagreements also exist regarding what constitutes a comprehensive brief, with a distinct perceptual gap between the client’s and the architect’s definitions thereof (Bowen et al., 1999). Brown (2001) refers in this regard to the ‘stranded user’, who is ef- fectively excluded from the briefing process and is sub- sequently a victim of perceptual gaps between the de- signer and the user, and, between the client and the user. 26 Acta Structilia 2006: 13(2) • Brief modifications: Frequent changes to the design brief present the potential for misunderstandings in communi- cation between participants. These, coupled with changes after the completion of the detailed design, often impact negatively on the project (Rougvie, 1991). Higgin & Jessop (1965) attribute the issue of late changes to inadequate examination of the client’s needs and the possible con- strains to the realisation of those desires. This culminates in the development of an inadequate brief that is unlikely to be completely comprehended by all stakeholders. • Medium of brief transmission: The form in which the brief is communicated to, and within, the design team is important. The brief can be presented in written form, written com- bined with oral or oral form alone. Problems can result when only oral presentation is used since the receiving audience might forget some details or fail to properly comprehend the brief. In the studies of Bowen (1995) and Bowen et al. (1999) it emerged that architects were invariably provided with the brief in an oral format. Drawings and written documents, if they are not properly conceived, will give rise to delays in the project, additional expense to the client, and the po- tential for disputes and claims (Emmitt & Yeomans, 2001). 2.4 Research questions It is against this background that the following research questions were formulated, the objective being that, collectively, they would (i) assist in developing an understanding of the problems associated with construction project briefing as an interpersonal communication process and (ii) provide direction in the solution of these problems. Question 1: What are the barriers to effective briefing? Question 2: How can the communication of the client’s brief be improved? Question 3: What are the responsibilities of the sender and receiver that can enhance communication of the client’s brief? Question 4: What steps can be taken to develop a shared language between the client and the design team? 27 Bowen, Cattell, Michell & Kabayadondo • Construction project briefing As a result the hypotheses under investigation are non-directional since the study seeks to expose communication issues that affect the briefing process rather than proving or disproving their existence. The propositions to be examined are as follows: • The effectiveness of the briefing process as a communi- cation tool is dependent upon the medium of communi- cation, inclusion of the design team in the initial present- ation, and the client and designer’s experience; and • Briefing is a process and not an event. 3. Research method The scientific method was not adopted for this research project. Rather, triangulation was utilised within a case study context. The study described in this paper attempted to explain the possible causes of poor understanding of the client’s brief based on the opin- ions of clients, designers, quantity surveyors and project managers. Previous studies, for example Bowen (1999), used national question- naire surveys of these professionals, but a limitation of this approach is that it is incapable of examining context-specific issues (Yin, 1994). The case study approach allows a phenomenon to be studied within its natural context, which makes it particularly appropriate in the exploration of social events, because they are usually intertwined with the environment (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994). The case study approach requires the selection of more than one case (Yin, 1994). Two cases were selected for analysis, the basis of selection being that they should be current or very recent projects in order to ensure the freshness of participants’ memories. Semi- structured interviews have the potential to produce rich data and are therefore particularly appropriate in the analysis of cases (Gillam, 2000). Therefore, semi-structured interviews were used as the main method of gathering empirical information, but design drawings, pro- ject briefs, and the design models were also examined. Due to practi- cal limitations it was not possible to interview every participant, thus only the clients, departmental representatives, quantity surveyors, architects and project managers were interviewed. The structural and electrical engineers and contractors did not participate in the study, the major reason for this being that the rationale for the study was not on the construction of the building per se but on (process leading to construction) briefing. Interviewing clients (both sponsors 28 Acta Structilia 2006: 13(2) 29 Bowen, Cattell, Michell & Kabayadondo • Construction project briefing and users) was necessary since they are the ones whose needs had to be satisfied in terms of the resultant building. 4. Description of the cases The two cases selected for study comprised two major buildings on the University of Cape Town (UCT) campus. 4.1 Case 1 — New Chemical Engineering Building (NCEB), UCT The NCEB is a modern structure situated on UCT’s Upper Campus. The need for a new building arose because the original chemical engi- neering building’s capacity (130 undergraduate and 12 post- graduate students) could not accommodate current student intake numbers. The project was initiated in 2002 and completed in 2004. The building generates 8300 assignable square metres and has the capacity to accommodate 450 undergraduate and 130 post- graduate students. The estimated budget for the project was R56.2 million. The organisational structure for the NCEB project is depicted in Figure 3 below. The project organisational structure was partitioned into six levels. At the apex of the organisation was the University of Cape Town (UCT) council. The council acted as the client on behalf of the institution (UCT). It commissioned and governed the project and had the overall say over all decisions made at the lower levels. Figure 3 shows that Level Two had two sections. The first one was the University Fund Raising Committee (UFC). The UFC was responsible for sourcing funds and monitoring fund raising projects. The second one was the University Building and Development Committee (UBDC). The UBDC dealt with the design development proposals that were brought by the design team. It was also responsible for assessing any major changes done by the design team to the design. In addition it was in charge of approving tender lists and made recommendations for tender approval by council. All construction progress and cost reports were handed to the UBDC on monthly basis. 30 Acta Structilia 2006: 13(2) UCT Council UFC UBDC Project director Communication Operations Fundraising Financial Design &Construction Commissioning (Logistics) PIC Dept. Chairman, Chemical Engineering Representative, Donor Representative, Planning and Implementation, Properties and Services, University Finance Committee, Chemical Engineering Industrial Advisory Board, Head of Department, Project Director, Project Manager Figure 3: NCEB organisational structure Level Three was made up of the Project Implementation Committee (PIC). The committee had users, the project manager and represent- atives from the Finance, Communication and Development (fund raising) departments. In essence, every lower level section had a rep- resentative in the PIC. The professional team would be invited on occasional basis. The PIC met on monthly basis. Its responsibilities were to make or endorse all major design decisions, review cost reports, prepare monthly reports to the UBDC and strategise fund rais- ing. Essentially it ran the project. Decisions were reached through bal- loting. The fourth level constituted the project director who was in charge of running the lower sections. Thus the day to day issues from the communication, operations, fundraising, finance, design and construction departments were directly handled by the project director, pending monthly review by the PIC. There was also an exter- nal communication interface at this level which was responsible for public updates on issues such as donations made to the project. The fifth level was composed of the communication and operations sec- tions. These oversaw the movement of information and events in the project and would report to the project director. The level below was, however, not accountable to these two departments as they would report directly to the project director. The sixth and last level was made up of sections that raised project funds, managed the project budget, designed and constructed the building and managed the project logistics. This is the level at which the design team was located. 31 Bowen, Cattell, Michell & Kabayadondo • Construction project briefing 4.2 Case 2 — The Institute of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Medicine (IIDMM), UCT The IIDMM building houses a research institute, and is located on UCT’s Health Sciences Faculty campus opposite Grootte Schuur hos- pital. The need for the building arose in the 1990’s as a result of issues that were impacting negatively on the quality of research. It was thus hoped that the new structure would revitalise research activities. The project was initiated in 2001 and completed in 2005. The building generates 8000 assignable square metres and the approved budget was R45.2 million, which later rose to over R55 million. The organisational structure of the project is depicted in Figure 4 below. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the IIDMM project had five hier- archical levels. The first level was the UCT Council. The council was in charge of all major decisions such as approval of tenders on behalf of the university and the overall running of the project. UCT Council UBDC Fundraising Design &Construction Project Implementation Committee Users, Project Manager, Departmental (IIDMM) Representatives Development Department Representatives, Finance Department & communication Department Representatives Project Committee Interim Director Executive Director Financial Figure 4: IIDMM organisational structure The second level comprised the University Building and Development Committee (UBDC). The UBDC committee evaluated the designs, which were proposed by the design team, and any major design alterations. It was also responsible for endorsing tender lists and made recommendations to the UCT Council on tenders that were worth approval. Monthly progress and cost reports were handed to the committee during the construction stages. The third level was the Pro- ject Implementation Committee (PIC). The PIC was comprised of rep- resentatives from all facets of the project. These included the Fundraising, Communication, and Finance sections. An internal aca- demic person chaired the PIC. It ran the project and met on monthly basis to make major design decisions, organise and strategise fundraising, review cost reports, and prepare monthly reports for the UBDC. At the fourth level was the Project Committee. The project committee was composed of the project interim director and the executive director. This committee was responsible for running events that were ‘occurring on the ground’. Thus, the fundraising, finance and design and construction sections reported directly to the project committee. The committee would, in turn, give monthly updates on cost and design to the Project Implementation Committee. The design team was located at Level 5. A total of nine participants took part in the interviews in respect of both projects, comprised as follows: • New Chemical Engineering Building: The interviewees for this project consisted of the project director, the academic departmental representative, the internal client, as well as an independent quantity surveyor, an architect and a pro- ject manager (an engineer). The three professional acade- mics were selected for a number of reasons. Firstly, they par- ticipated in the project from brief development to comple- tion. Secondly, they occupy offices within UCT buildings and have detailed knowledge of the students’ and facility man- agers’ needs. • IIDMM Building: Here the interviewees consisted of the interim director, the internal client, an independent archi- tect and quantity surveyor, as well as the project manager. Interestingly, the project manager and the internal client were each the same persons for both projects. Their views were considered important to facilitate an inter-project comparison. The reason for interviewing one architect and one quantity surveyor from each of the two projects was twofold. Firstly, there was equal representation of views from both projects in terms of numbers. Second, they had taken a more active role in the briefing process than most of the other participants. The questions asked of the inter- viewees were put into four broad categories as follows: • What is a brief and who should participate in developing the client’s needs? The rationale was to see if the participants had 32 Acta Structilia 2006: 13(2) started off on the same level of understanding as far as knowl- edge of client needs; issues to be prioritised and the value of each member in developing the brief are concerned. • How was the brief communicated to the design team? This question was raised to identify the media used to com- municate the brief, the networks established to remit infor- mation, whether all members were briefed as a group or serially, and steps taken to ensure comprehensive under- standing of the brief. • How was information communicated between members? This question was necessary to identify barriers that impeded proper understanding of information and remedies that can be used to overcome such problems in future endeavours. • What is debriefing and who should participate in the process? It was important to explore participants’ level of awareness of the endeavour, who are the beneficiaries of the exercise, and more importantly, if participants did in fact conduct debriefing. In addition, secondary sources were investigated for the cases under investigation. This involved the use of design documents, project briefs, and artefacts such as the design models. It was necessary to go through design documents to assess the extent to which they repre- sented the brief. 5. General findings The findings revealed that: firstly, even though participants seemed to have a shared understanding of a project brief, they had varied opin- ions of what constitutes a comprehensive brief. For instance, the IIDMM interim director and the IIDMM quantity surveyor believe that a brief should focus on the relationship between the building and the cost of construction. However, the NCEB project director asserted that equal weight should be put on all the variables (cost, time, space require- ments, and client’s objectives). It should be noted that some interviewees were reluctant to provide detailed project-specific information, preferring to speak in gener- alities relating to the projects. The internal UCT client (for both pro- jects) is of the view that, in the absence of project experience, other factors such as passion for the project (as was the case with IIDMM internal client), or adequate knowledge of a need (as was the case with the IIDMM interim director) are sufficient for an effective briefing process to occur. Interestingly, all interviewees agreed that, while 33 Bowen, Cattell, Michell & Kabayadondo • Construction project briefing changes to the brief are to be expected, the brief should be frozen after the detailed design stage. It was also agreed that if changes to the brief are to be minimised, the design team needs to have suffi- cient time to resolve conceptual and detailed design issues. The quantity surveyors on both projects and the project director on the NCEB project commented that changes were more easily accom- modated in terms of their effect on cost and time, if affected between the inception and detailed design stages rather than after this particular stage of design. Clients’ perceptions of barriers to effective understanding of the brief seem to differ from that of the design team professionals. The IIDMM interim director was unaware that the absence of a written brief had resulted in the design team requiring more time than usual to fully comprehend the nature and extent of the brief specifications. Com- mitting project events to writing was regarded as a good way to enhance shared understanding. This observation came from the IIDMM project manager. The major communication barrier faced by all of the design team members was the slow movement of information between the mem- bers of the team. Information management seems to be one way of ensuring speedy movement of messages. However, according to the IIDMM interim director, trade-offs need to be made between the monitoring information and the friction that the monitoring of infor- mation processes may cause between project participants. All interviewees were aware of the need and desirability of conduct- ing debriefing sessions at the completion of projects. The project organisational structures for the cases under investigation may be seen to be divisional and hierarchical in nature, rendering debriefing difficult in practice. At first glance, the IIDMM project appeared to have over-run its approved budget of R45.2m by some R5m. A number of reasons readily explain this anomaly. Firstly, the initial approved budget con- cerned the refurbishment and alterations to the existing building. However, during the execution of the contract it was found neces- sary to demolish part of the building to facilitate extensions thereto. Moreover, the external works were considerably extended to provide parking facilities on level ground. When questioned about the appar- ent cost over-run, the interim director of the IIDMM project claimed that the financial changes were ‘manageable’ as the requisite funds ‘were available’. 34 Acta Structilia 2006: 13(2) 35 Bowen, Cattell, Michell & Kabayadondo • Construction project briefing 6. Discussion of the main research findings 6.1 What are the barriers to effective briefing? The study revealed that the absence of written brief and written infor- mation in general impedes understanding of information. In some projects the brief is passed serially from the client to the design team members. Thus, most of the design team members receive brief infor- mation indirectly. Serial presentation of information implies different environments and contexts, which has an influence on the communi- cation process. Recipients are less likely to comprehend the brief in the same way, giving rise to gaps in perception. The unclear articula- tion of needs and a lack of detail results in the design team taking lengthy periods to comprehend the client’s requirements, prolonging the design phase of the project. Constant ‘panel-beating’ of the client’s needs also hampers the progress of design. The practice of having a Project Implementation Committee may be seen to be problematic since the absence of one of the members sometimes means that decisions cannot be finalised promptly. 6.2 How can the communication of briefing information be improved? All interviewees emphasised the need to commit project events to writing and to use verbal communication as the sole means of com- munication, cautiously and sparingly. All interviewees expressed the need for professional assistance in brief formulation and regarded it as desirable that the client be accessible to all design team members and considered it undesirable that the architect or project manager should act as ‘gatekeepers’ to the client. They also advocated the importance of efficient information management and a sufficient supply of information, as this increases the likelihood that the right person will receive the right information at the right time. Some inter- viewees regarded the anticipation of changes and the prior formula- tion of alternative ‘Plan B’ approaches as important. 6.3 What steps can be taken to develop a shared lan- guage between design team members? There was general consensus among the interviewees that the issue of conflicting languages and cultures is largely a result of team mem- bers not taking the trouble to learn about each other. The perceived solution was to encourage design team members to socialise infor- mally prior to the commencement of the project. In addition, the view was expressed that the use of drawings and figures with (written or oral) explanatory notes is one route to follow to facilitate shared understanding. Interviewees were in agreement that, for the attain- ment of shared meaning during the briefing process, it is the responsi- bility of both senders and receivers to engage in effective interper- sonal communication. 7. Conclusions This research has illustrated that even though there is, at a general level, understanding of the importance of the briefing process amongst construction professionals in South Africa, the practice of briefing is very project specific and lacking in consistency. For instance, inconsistencies exist in the manner in which clients pass on the brief to members of the design team. In the NCEB case study clients communicated the brief in written and oral format, and in the IIDM case, the technical brief was presented in written format and the balance was orally presented. Despite the inconsistencies in the choice of medium when presenting the brief, there was acceptance of the need to exchange information in written format. At present this appears to be done mainly via the use of notes and other ex- planatory documents relating to the project. One way in which design team members can demonstrate their understanding of the brief is by way of face-to-face feedback meet- ings with the client where they present a briefing report for sign-off by the client. This report should encapsulate the understanding by the design team of the nature and extent of the client’s needs. Accep- tance of this document by the client is then taken as explicit accep- tance of the design team’s interpretation of the client’s brief. There is evidence in the cases under investigation of the slow move- ment of information between design team members. Given the fact that most events on projects are arranged sequentially i.e. they are task dependent, information delays can cause overall delays. Thus, information management is one aspect of design team communi- cation that requires careful monitoring and control. There is a gap between practice and the participants’ knowledge and appreciation of the debriefing process. Debriefing, which is essential for the attainment of shared meaning and service improve- ment, was not done on either of the cases studied. 36 Acta Structilia 2006: 13(2) 37 Bowen, Cattell, Michell & Kabayadondo • Construction project briefing References Barrett, P. & Stanley, C. 1999. Better Construction Briefing. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Blyth, A. & Worthington, J. 2001. Managing the Brief for Better Design. London: Spon Press. Bowen, P.A. 1993. A Communication-based Approach to Price mod- elling and Price Forecasting in the Design Phase of the Traditional Building Procurement Process in South Africa. Unpublished PhD Thesis, South Africa: University of Port Elizabeth. Bowen, P.A. 1995. A Communication-based Analysis of the Theory of Price Planning and Price Control. RICS Research Paper Series, No.2, London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Bowen, P.A., Pearl, R.G. & Edwards, P.J. 1999. Client briefing processes and procurement method selection: a South African study. Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 6(2), pp. 91-104. Brown, S. 2001. Communication in the Design Process. London: Spon Press. Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB). 2003. Code of Practice for Pro- ject Management for Construction and Development. Oxford: Black- well Publishing. Coles, E.J. 1990. Design Management: A Study of Practice in the Building Industry. Berkshire: The Chartered Institute of Building. Construction Industry Board. 1997. Briefing the Team: A Guide to Better Briefing for Clients. London: Thomas Telford. Emmitt, S. & Gorse, C. 2003. Construction Communication. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Emmitt, S. & Yeomans, D.T. 2001. Specifying Buildings: A Design Man- agement Perspective. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Feldberg, M. 1975. Organizational Behaviour: Text and Cases. Cape Town: Juta. Fisher, B.A. 1978. Perspectives on Human Communication. New York: Macmillan. Gillham, B. 2000. Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum. Gray, C. & Hughes, W. 2001. Building Design Management. Oxford: Butterworth. 38 Acta Structilia 2006: 13(2) Gray, C., Hughes, W. & Bennett, J. 1994. The Successful Management of Design: A Handbook of Building Design Management. United King- dom: Centre for Construction Studies, Reading University. Higgin, G. & Jessop, N. 1965. Communications in the Building Industry: The Report of a Pilot Study. London: Tavistock Institute Publications. Hymas, D. 2001. Construction Companion: Briefing. London: RIBA Publications. Kelly, J., McPherson, S. & Male, S. 1992. The Briefing Process: A Review and Techniques. London: The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. O’Reilly, J.J.N. 1973. A Case Study of a Design Commission: Problems Highlighted; initiatives proposed. Current Paper CP 27/73, Watford: Building Research Station. Rougvie, A. 1991. Construction Technology and Management: Pro- ject Evaluation and Development. London: Mitchell. Taylor, A., Rosegrant, T., Meyer, A. & Samples, B.T. 1980. Communicat- ing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Tunstall, G. 2000. Managing the Building Process. Johannesburg: But- terworth-Heinemann. Verma, K. 1996. Human Resource Skills for the Project Manager. Penn- sylvania: Project Management Institute. Wallace, W.A. 1987. The Influence of Design Team Communication Content upon the Architectural Decision Making Process in the Pre- Contract Design Stages. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Heriot-Watt University. Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd edi- tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge, with thanks, the valuable inputs of the referees. << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /SyntheticBoldness 1.00 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /Description << /ENU (Use these settings to create PDF documents with higher image resolution for high quality pre-press printing. The PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Reader 5.0 and later. These settings require font embedding.) /JPN /FRA /DEU /PTB /DAN /NLD /ESP /SUO /ITA /NOR /SVE >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice