Microsoft Word - The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Build…


 

  
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol7, no 1] 19 

 

Modeling the Design Team as a Temporary Management 
Structure: Reality versus Theory 
Kathy Michell, Paul Bowen and Keith Cattell (Department of Construction Economics and 
Management, University of Cape Town, South Africa 

 

 

ABSTRACT 

The focus of the cost management literature is 
almost exclusively on technical issues, with 
scant attention to its social, political and 
organisational dimensions. In this paper the 
authors document research examining the 
design team as a temporary management 
structure, with emphasis on the efficacy of the 
cost management system as a vehicle for 
attaining client objectives with respect to time, 
cost and quality. Soft systems methodology is 
used to explore the perceptions of 
stakeholders to the cost management system, 
thus developing conceptual models of the 
theory and practice of cost management. 
Significant differences were found to exist 
between the perceptions of individual 
stakeholders concerning design team 
participants, participants’ roles, and the very 
purpose of the cost management system. 
Recommendations are made for structural, 
attitudinal and procedural changes to the cost 
management system in order to facilitate its 
effective functioning in the achievement of the 
client’s needs and objectives. 

Keywords: Cost planning, cost management, 
design team, temporary management 
structure, systems thinking, South Africa 

INTRODUCTION 

Participants to construction projects are faced 
with sets of interacting problems, ranging from 
the technical and organisational to the social 
and political (Flanagan and Tate, 1997). These 
problems all embrace concerns about the 
environment within which they function, the 
framework of society, the roles of the key 
players, and the motivation of the individuals 
involved (Flood and Jackson, 1991). It is in this 
environment that the quantity surveyor, as a 
professional consultant in the construction 
industry, is expected to fulfil a competent cost 
management role for the design team, and 
more specifically, for the client. 

The procurement process associated with 
construction projects is difficult from a 
management point of view. The fragmented 

nature of the contracting industry, particularly 
the traditional separation of design and 
construction, the uniqueness of construction 
projects and the temporary nature of project 
organisations places great dependence on the 
project team in setting up the building process 
and bringing the project to a successful 
completion. Once client objectives have been 
established, a fundamental aspect of the 
procurement process that requires early 
attention is the selection of the most 
appropriate organisational structure 
(procurement system) for the design and 
construction of the project (Masterman, 1992). 
Franks (1990) describes ‘the amalgam of 
activities undertaken by a client to obtain a 
new building’ as a building procurement 
system. 

The various procurement systems may be 
grouped together into three generic forms, 
namely: conventional (conventional, 
negotiated, cost-plus); design and build 
(design and build, package deal, turnkey, 
develop and construct); and management-
orientated (management contracting, 
construction management, design and 
manage). Bowen et al. (1999), in examining 
client briefing processes and procurement 
method selection in South Africa, reported that 
clients and their professional advisors 
overwhelmingly favour the traditional forms of 
procurement; most notably the conventional 
method. Their research also established that, 
whilst the majority of clients require assistance 
in procurement method selection, few design 
team members are au fait with the 
characteristics associated with different 
procurement systems and little attempt is 
made to match procurement system attributes 
to client needs. One of the most important 
functions of the design team within the context 
of its temporary management structure is the 
provision of effective cost management 
(Bowen and Edwards, 1998). 

Hall (1998) argued that research undertaken in 
the field of cost planning and control has 
tended to focus on the technical aspects of the 
process of cost planning and control. 



 

  
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol7, no 1] 20 

 

Furthermore, that there is little evidence in the 
published literature of a concern for the 
organisational, social and political problems 
inherent in the process of cost planning and 
control and their impact on the ability of the 
quantity surveyor and the design team to meet 
the client's needs and objectives. In this 
context the design team is seen as a 
temporary management structure in terms of 
which internal and external stakeholders 
interact in an effort to satisfy the needs of the 
client. 

A failing inherent in the documented research 
aimed at describing or improving the cost 
management system is the failure on the part 
of researchers to acknowledge the human 
aspect in management, let alone the 
application of a qualitative research 
methodology to the process of cost planning 
and control. Loosemore (1994) argued that the 
human element in any management situation 
is particularly important in dealing with 
unexpected problems since it is the interaction 
between the participants to the situation which 
must ultimately resolve any problems that 
arise. It is argued by Seymour and Rooke 
(1995) that the traditional approaches to cost 
planning and control research have resulted in 
a disparity between the world that the design 
team functions in and the idealized version of 
it that has been provided by traditional 
scientific approaches to research. It is further 
contended by Seymour and Rooke (1995) 
that, in attempting to improve the design 
team’s ability to achieve the client’s needs and 
objectives, it is this informal knowledge of the 
human element inherent in the design team 
that should be the focus of future research. 
Within this context the management of the 
human element in delivering the clients’ needs 
and objectives becomes vital and failure to 
take cognisance of this factor in the design 
team may result in the team's inability to 
achieve the client’s objectives. 

Hancock et al. (1996) argue that the overall 
success of a construction project is to some 
extent determined by the degree to which the 
human element is managed. It is further 
argued by Marsden (1996) that the provision 
of value for money to the client can only be 
attained via trust, commitment, honest 
interaction and high quality communication 
between the client, the design team and all 
other parties involved on the project. Within 
this context the management of the human 
element is vital and failure to take cognisance 
of this factor in the design team may result in 
the team’s inability to achieve the client’s 
objectives. It is proposed that a reason for this 

failure is that the research undertaken into the 
cost management system has failed to focus 
on the humanistic aspects inherent in the 
system. Little or no qualitative research has 
been undertaken into the inter-relationships 
between the members of the design team 
despite calls from a number of researchers for 
a ‘change in thinking’ and new perspectives on 
the cost management system. Hence, there is 
a need for qualitative research to be 
conducted into the humanistic aspects of the 
cost management system. This paper 
documents the results of a qualitative study 
that made use of soft systems methodology to 
investigate the inter-relationships between the 
members of the design team within a 
temporary management structure. In achieving 
this objective, a constructivist methodology is 
employed. ‘Constructivism’ is founded on the 
basic principle that reality is a socially-
constructed phenomenon (Robson, 2002 citing 
Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Hence, in this study 
the researchers attempted to gain an 
understanding (from multiple perspectives) of 
the ‘reality’ of perceptions of the cost 
management system. This ‘reality’ was 
achieved via the use of interviews and the 
active participation of the research participants 
in constructing this ‘reality’ in the mind of the 
researchers. 

SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY (SSM) 

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) was 
developed by Checkland (1981) for utilisation 
where problem situations are ill-structured and 
no clear view exists as to what action should 
be taken to overcome the difficulties being 
experienced. It evolved as a result of the 
criticisms levelled at the earlier ‘hard systems’ 
approaches and their inability to explain 
human behaviour within a system 
(Gharajedaghi, 1985). SSM may be seen as a 
problem-solving approach that was developed 
for the purposes of gaining understanding 
about systems that involve activities 
undertaken by humans. Checkland (1981:191) 
defines SSM as a ‘strategic framework for 
guiding intervention in real world situations 
and as a general problem-solving approach 
appropriate to human activity systems’. In 
essence, SSM is an organised way of 
exploring problem situations in that it provides 
an organised set of principles which guide 
action in trying to ‘manage’ real-world problem 
situations (Checkland and Scholes, 1990). 
SSM has four key features that need to be 
considered. The first is that it is a continuous 
learning system about the perceptions of the 
key stakeholders; secondly, cultural feasibility 
dominates the identification of organisational 



 

  
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol7, no 1] 21 

 

and/or social constraints in the ‘real world’; 
thirdly, it encourages the participation of those 
involved in order to draw on the widest variety 
of perceptions about the situation; and lastly, it 
distinguishes between ‘real world’ thinking and 
ideal systems thinking (Flood and Jackson, 
1991). 

There are seven stages that comprise SSM. 
Each of these stages will be discussed in 
terms of its application to the cost 
management system and, more specifically, 
the identification of the inter-relationships 
between members of the design team and the 
environment within which they function. 

SSM AND COST MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 

The specific objective of the research was to 
establish and examine, from a humanistic 
perspective, the perceptions and inter-
relationships between the key participants to 
the cost management system and their 
resultant impact on the ability of the design 
team, and more specifically the quantity 
surveyor, to achieve the client’s needs and 
objectives.  

Results 

Stages 1 and 2 

Stages 1 and 2 of the research were 
concerned with the development of a verbal 
‘rich picture’ of the management of the design 
team. This rich picture is aimed at representing 
pictorially all the relevant information and 
relationships in the situation under 
investigation (Patching, 1990). Pilot interviews 
were undertaken with three architectural 
practices, three quantity surveying practices, 
three client organisations and three 
contracting organisations who are actively 
involved in the construction industry in South 
Africa. The interviewees were asked to 
comment on the role of the individual members 
of the design team and on their perceptions as 
to the factors affecting the team’s ability to 
meet the client’s needs. Interestingly, the 
quantity surveyors collectively as a group 
commented that the quantity surveyor, client, 
architect and engineer are all ‘committed to 
delivering the project within budget’. In 
contrast, the architectural group argued that 
‘the engineer is not a part of the design team 
in terms of meeting the client’s needs’. 
Interestingly, the client group indicated that 
one of the largest contributing factors for the 
design team’s inability to meet their needs is 
the ‘attitude of the quantity surveyor in terms of 
having no direct risks associated with the 
project’. It is also noteworthy that the 

contractor group indicated that ‘valuable cost 
related information can be provided by the 
contractor during the design stage’ and that 
this is one of the major reasons for design 
team’s inability to meet the client’s needs. 

As a result of the pilot interviews, a provisional 
system boundary was drawn around the 
quantity surveyor, architect, client and 
engineer as within the traditional procurement 
system they comprise what is known as the 
‘design team’. 

Stage 3 

In this stage, ‘root definitions’ were constructed 
for the relevant human activity systems 
identified in Stages 1 and 2. The root definition 
is intended to encompass the main properties 
of the system under examination and is 
defined in terms of the CATWOE mnemonic, 
where: C = customer (people affected by the 
system); A = actor (people participating in the 
system); T = transformation (the 
transformation carried out by the system); W = 
Weltanschauung (worldview); O = owner (the 
person who could stop the activity of the 
system); E = environment (the wider system 
within which the system being reviewed falls). 

During this stage a root definition (RD) for 
each stakeholder to the cost management 
system is formulated. Following the 
compilation of the RD’s for each of the 
stakeholders the analyst draws all viewpoints 
together and formulates a RD for the overall 
system. Hence, the RD for the overall cost 
management system was identified as being: 
“The cost management process is a client-
owned system, staffed by professionals 
(architects, quantity surveyors, engineers and 
clients) which plans and organises the delivery 
of a building to the client”. 

In other words, the system manages the 
delivery of the client’s needs and objectives 
i.e., time, cost and quality, in terms of 
facilitating design, maintaining the cost budget 
within the time constraints allowed, and 
operates according to the principles laid down 
by the professional institutions, the national 
building regulations and the local authority 
planning requirements.  

Stage 4 

Conceptual models for each of the 
stakeholders were developed on the basis of 
each RD during Stage 4. The purpose of the 
conceptual model is to clearly set out the task 
defined in the RD. Based on the conceptual 
model developed for each of the stakeholders, 
the analyst is able to develop an overall 



 

  
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol7, no 1] 22 

 

conceptual model that encompasses all 
stakeholders ‘worldviews’ of the cost 
management system. For the sake of brevity, 
only the overall conceptual model is 

documented in the paper. The overall 
conceptual model developed for the Root 
Definition stated above is provided in Fig. 1.  

1. Client defines
needs

2. Client
appoint design

team

3. Team
establish client

need

4. Team
compile the

brief

5. Develop
design

6. Evaluate
cost of design

7. Assess
client

requirements

8. Meet the
client’s

requirements

Deliver value
for money

Local Authority
Planning regulations

Professional
Codes of Conduct

National Building
Regulations

Client defines
criteria for
efficiency

9. Client
monitor 1-8

10. Client take
control action

 
Figure1 Initial conceptual model for the cost management system 

 

The activities needed to achieve the overall 
RD (the cost management process is a client-
owned system, staffed by architects, quantity 
surveyors, engineers and clients, which plans 
and organises the delivery of a building to the 
client) as depicted in Fig.1 would be: client 
defines needs; client appoints the professional 
team; the professional team determines the 
client’s needs; the team develops the brief; the 
team prepares the design and evaluates the 
cost, time and quality aspects of the design 
proposal; the team either complies with the 
client’s requirements in terms of time, cost and 
quality, or the design team develop design 
further; the client monitors and controls the 
effectiveness of the system in achieving value 
for money in terms of balancing time, cost and 
quality. 

Stage 5 

Stage 5 of the SSM process requires the 
comparison of the stakeholder conceptual 
models and the overall conceptual model 
developed in Stage 4 with what is exists in 
reality. The purpose of this comparison is to 
identify potential problem areas within the cost 
management system. This exploration 
involved further discussions and interviews 
with participants to the problem area and 
observations of the problem situation itself in 
order to establish if the activities represented 
in the models exist in reality. Participants were 

leading practitioners in each respondent group 
identified by the initial root definition, namely: 
architects, clients, quantity surveyors and 
engineers. Each of these participants was 
asked to comment on any other potential 
stakeholders to the cost management system, 
where a stakeholder is defined as any person 
who ‘has an affect on’ or ‘is affected by’ the 
system under investigation (Patching, 1990). 
As a result further participants to the cost 
management system were identified, namely: 
contractors, town planners, land surveyors and 
project managers.  

Client discussions - The discussions held with 
client organisations active within the 
construction industry revealed that they 
perceive the cost management system as a 
service provided by the design team, namely: 
the client, architect, quantity surveyor, 
engineer and interestingly the contractor, that 
entails a number of activities for example: cost 
control, cost budgeting and cost assessment 
of the project i.e., it is a cost management 
service that is provided by the design team. 
This is in contrast to what is suggested in the 
literature on the theory of cost planning and 
control which argues that the purpose of the 
cost management system is, firstly, to provide 
the client with value for money, secondly, to 
achieve a balance of expenditure between the 
various parts of the building and, lastly, to 
keep expenditure within the amount allowed 



 

  
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol7, no 1] 23 

 

by the client (Flanagan and Tate, 1997). 
Moreover, in reality, clients perceive the 
contractor to be a part of the design team, 
whereas in theory they are excluded from this 
role in the design phase of traditional project 
procurement. Furthermore, the clients 
interviewed expressed dissatisfaction with the 
apparent inability of the design team to provide 
accurate estimates of the cost of building and 
their lack of appreciation for the risk and 
uncertainty involved in building work (see 
Pearl et al., 2003 and Bowen, 1993). 

Architect discussions - The discussions held 
with architects highlighted that they perceive 
cost management as a system that provides 
the client with a financially viable property 
investment. This is in contrast to what is 
documented in theory (Bowen, 1993). Viability 
studies were very low down on the list of 
priorities, which from the architect's 
perspective would view the cost management 
system as facilitating the design process and 
not ensuring the client of a financially viable 
property investment. Once again, as with the 
clients themselves, architects believe that the 
contractor is a part of the design team and has 
a valuable role to play in facilitating the design 
team’s ability to meet the client's needs and 
objectives. The architects interviewed did, 
however, criticise the cost management 
system for ‘stemming’ enthusiastic design 
philosophy and believed that the main reason 
for this was primarily due to the quantity 
surveyor’s failure to understand the purpose of 
the cost management system. Moreover, that 
the reason for this inability to service the 
needs of the architect was due to the quantity 
surveyor not understanding the client's needs 
and objectives, firstly, in terms of the 
information contained in the brief; secondly, in 
terms of balancing time, cost and quality; and 
thirdly, in terms of the architect’s need meet 
the client’s time, cost and quality requirements 
in their design solutions. Bowen et al. (1999) 
found evidence of design team members 
displaying little effort at embracing the building 
objectives of the client. Clearly, this perception 
held by the architect, of the quantity surveyor 
only managing to ‘stem’ enthusiastic design 
philosophy, can create inter-personal conflict 
within the design team as to the role and 
purpose of the quantity surveyor within the 
design team, and more specifically, the cost 
management system. 

Quantity surveyor discussions - The 
discussions held with the quantity surveyors 
highlighted that they perceive the cost 
management system to be a system that 
provides the professional support needed by 

the client in order to provide the client with a 
financially viable property investment in terms 
of achieving a balance between time, cost and 
quality. Once again, as with the discussions 
held with the clients and the architects, the 
environment identified in which the cost 
management system operates was seen to be 
the same. Interestingly, the quantity surveyors 
interviewed perceive themselves as being the 
principal agent on the project and, in many 
ways, resent the traditional role played by the 
architect as principal agent. This perception of 
themselves has the potential to exacerbate 
inter-personal conflict between the architect 
and the quantity surveyor in that they both 
believe themselves to be managing the design 
team and the delivery of the client's needs and 
objectives in terms of time, cost and quality. 
The quantity surveyors interviewed also 
believed that the quantity surveyor is 
appointed too late in the project to provide an 
effective cost management service for the 
client and is therefore unable to ensure the 
financial viability of the property investment. 
This further inhibits their ability to meet the 
client’s needs and objectives in terms of time, 
cost and quality. One comment that arose out 
of the discussions was the general perception 
among quantity surveyors that clients tend to 
set unrealistic budgets. Research has 
indicated that clients are not always 
knowledgeable with regard to desired goals in 
terms of budget limits, building functionality 
and desired rate of return (Bowen et al., 1999). 

Engineer discussions - The discussions held 
with the engineers revealed that they perceive 
the cost management system purely as a cost 
control system, exactly in line with what is 
documented in the literature. The engineers 
interviewed felt that quantity surveyors and, 
more specifically, the cost management 
system fails to take into account the 
engineering aspects of any construction 
project. Furthermore, they believe that there is 
a general lack of awareness on the part of 
quantity surveyors as to the importance of cost 
planning and control in the design team and in 
terms of achieving the client’s needs and 
objectives in terms of time, cost and quality. 
Another interesting factor that arose out of the 
discussions with the engineers was that they 
perceive the land surveyor and the town 
planner to be a part of the design team. 
Moreover, that these professionals have an 
impact on the cost management system and 
therefore on the team’s ability to achieve the 
client’s needs and objectives and therefore 
achieve a balance between time, cost and 
quality. As a result of the engineers identifying 



 

  
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol7, no 1] 24 

 

the land surveyor and the town planner as 
being a part of the team, discussions were 
held with these two groups to determine their 
perceptions of the cost management system.. 

Contractor discussions - The contractors 
interviewed identified a wish to move away 
from the traditional manner in which buildings 
are procured i.e., the traditional building 
procurement system. They believe that they 
should be involved in the design process as 
they have the potential to provide meaningful 
input to the client in terms of the priceability 
and buildability of the building. The contractors 
further criticised the inability of the architect to 
ensure the efficient running of the project and 
did not think that the architect should be 
appointed as the principal agent. They 
believed that the role of principal agent should 
be left to the project manager or quantity 
surveyor. As before, this different perception of 
the role of the quantity surveyor within the 
design team and the cost management 
system, has the potential to create inter-
personal conflict between members of the 
design team in the attainment of the client’s 
needs and objectives in terms of time, cost 
and quality. Due to the fact that the contractor 
had identified the project manager as having 
an impact on the cost management system, 
further discussions were held with project 
managers as to their perceptions of the 
management of the design team and cost 
management system. The contractors 
criticised the failure on the part of quantity 
surveyors to have sufficient 
understanding/knowledge of the physical 
construction process that occurs after the 
acceptance of the tender in the traditional 
building procurement process. As a result of 
this lack of understanding, contractors believe 
that the quantity surveyor is unable to provide 
an accurate cost estimate of the building for 
the client and therefore question their ability to 
accurately meet the client’s cost requirement. 

Town planner discussions - The town planners 
interviewed generally did not criticise the cost 
management system, but did, however, feel 
that the professional fee structures for services 
rendered should be altered to reflect the 
amount of work that is undertaken during the 
design stages of the project, usually ‘on risk’ 
by all the professionals involved in the design 
team.  

Land surveyor discussions - The discussions 
held with the land surveyors identified that 
they perceive the cost management system as 
being a system that provides the client with a 
financially viable property investment. The land 

surveyors criticised the cost management 
system for being unable to meet the client’s 
requirements, in terms of time, cost and 
quality, primarily due to the lack of 
communication between the members of the 
design team involved on a project. Empirical 
research supports this contention (Bowen, 
1993). Additional reasons cited for the failure 
of the cost management system to meet the 
client’s needs and objectives were seen to be 
the existing professional fee structures and the 
fact that cognisance is not taken by the design 
team of the elements of risk and uncertainty 
that are inherent in property investment. 

Project manager discussions - The project 
managers interviewed perceive the cost 
management system as a rigid process that 
has developed historically and one which does 
not allow for the complex nature of the design 
process and the interactions between 
members of the design team. In addition, the 
negative perceptions that exist between the 
members of the design team of each other’s 
role in the design team and their respective 
roles in the delivery of the client’s needs and 
objectives in terms of time, cost and quality 
(role ambiguity – see Bowen et al., 1999), 
severely inhibits the team’s ability to meet the 
client’s needs and objectives. The cost 
management system is, however, seen as 
being an essential service that is provided by 
the design team to the client to ensure the 
financial viability of the project. Furthermore, 
the project managers argued for the early 
appointment of the quantity surveyor on the 
project, the removal of trade bills of quantities, 
and the removal of the use of the traditional 
building procurement system in the 
construction industry.  

This phase of the research project highlighted 
the increased number of participants to the 
cost management system and the complexity 
of the environment in which these participants 
are expected to achieve the client’s needs and 
objectives. This facilitated the development of 
a revised stakeholder root definition’s and 
subsequently the overall root definition for the 
cost management system. Hence, the RD for 
the cost management system in the ‘real 
world’ is: 

A client-owned system, staffed by a team 
of professionals (client, architect, quantity 
surveyor, engineer, contractor, land 
surveyor, town planner and project 
manager) which plans, organises, 
manages and delivers a financially viable 
property investment to the client. The 
system manages the delivery of a cost 



 

  
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol7, no 1] 25 

 

management service to the client, 
architect and engineer and operates 
within an environment governed by 
uncertainty and change. 

Once again individual stakeholder conceptual 
models were constructed from the root 
definitions and an overall conceptual model for 
the cost management system was developed. 
The overall conceptual model for the cost 
management system is depicted in Figure 2.  

The activities contained in this conceptual 
model of the ‘real world’ would be: clients 
define their needs in terms of this project; 
client appoints the design team who are to 
manage and deliver these needs; the design 
team must clearly identify and establish the 
client’s needs; the architect and the engineer 
develop design alternatives; the quantity 
surveyor determines the cost of the design 
proposal; the quantity surveyor and the client 
determine the expected rate of return on the 
project; the architect and engineer further 
develop the detail design; the quantity 
surveyor manages the cost of the design; the 
design team organise and manage the project 
and, lastly, the design team deliver a cost 
management service and, ultimately, a 
financially viable property investment. 

The development of the above conceptual 
model of the cost management system allows 
for the real world/systems world comparison 
and the identification of potential changes to 
the cost management system. 

Stages 6 and 7 

Stage 6 of the SSM process is aimed at 
identifying and deciding on those changes that 
may be made to the cost management system 
in order to facilitate its effective functioning in 
the achievement of the client’s needs and 
objectives. In terms of the investigation of the 
cost management system, as depicted in Figs. 
1 and 2, respectively, and an analysis of the 
conceptual models, the following 
implementable changes were identified.  

Attitudinal changes - These changes pertain to 
peoples’ perceptions of the cost management 
system and, therefore, facilitate the 
introduction of structural and procedural 
changes to that system. The attitudinal 
changes identified by the analyst via the 
application of SSM to the cost management 
system are 

 

1. Client defines
needs

2. Client
appoint design

team

3. Team
establish client

need
4. Team compile

the brief

5. QS determine
cost of design

6. Team
determine rate of

return

7. Architect &
Engineer develop

detail design

8. QS manages
cost of design

Deliver
financially

viable property
investment

9. Design team
organise & manage

the project

Design team
appreciate

complex external
environment

10. Client
monitor 1-9

11. Client take
control action if

required

Client defines
criteria needed

for team
efficiency

 
 

Figure 2 Conceptual model for the cost management system in the ‘real world’ 



 

  
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol7, no 1] 26 

 

The activities contained in this conceptual 
model of the ‘real world’ would be: clients 
define their needs in terms of this project; 
client appoints the design team who are to 
manage and deliver these needs; the 
design team must clearly identify and 
establish the client’s needs; the architect 
and the engineer develop design 
alternatives; the quantity surveyor 
determines the cost of the design 
proposal; the quantity surveyor and the 
client determine the expected rate of 
return on the project; the architect and 
engineer further develop the detail design; 
the quantity surveyor manages the cost of 
the design; the design team organise and 
manage the project and, lastly, the design 
team deliver a cost management service 
and, ultimately, a financially viable 
property investment. 

The development of the above conceptual 
model of the cost management system 
allows for the real world/systems world 
comparison and the identification of 
potential changes to the cost management 
system. 

Stages 6 and 7 

Stage 6 of the SSM process is aimed at 
identifying and deciding on those changes 
that may be made to the cost 
management system in order to facilitate 
its effective functioning in the achievement 
of the client’s needs and objectives. In 
terms of the investigation of the cost 
management system, as depicted in Figs. 
1 and 2, respectively, and an analysis of 
the conceptual models, the following 
implementable changes were identified.  

Attitudinal changes - These changes 
pertain to peoples’ perceptions of the cost 
management system and, therefore, 
facilitate the introduction of structural and 
procedural changes to that system. The 
attitudinal changes identified by the 
analyst via the application of SSM to the 
cost management system are 
• greater clarity is required among 

members of the design team with 
respect to the fundamental purpose of 
the cost management system. 

• there is a need for increased 
understanding between members of 
the design team with respect to what 
services the cost management system 
can provide to the client and the 
design team in meeting the client’s 
needs and objectives in terms of time, 
cost and quality. 

• recognition is needed in the industry at 
large as to who is involved i.e., has a 
‘stake’ in the delivery of the cost 
management system. Those identified 
by the interview process were: 
architects, clients, contractors, 
engineers, land surveyors, project 
managers, quantity surveyors and 
town planners. 

• greater understanding is required as to 
the role and purpose of the 
participants in the cost management 
system and their perceptions of the 
process itself. Moreover, clarity with 
respect to the role of the cost 
management system in the 
construction industry is required. 

• there is a need for greater 
understanding with respect to the 
needs and objectives of the clients of 
the construction industry and a 
realisation that meeting those needs 
and objectives is the raison d'être of 
the design team. 

• there is a need for increased 
understanding of the role of the 
engineering aspects in the design and 
the impact that they have on meeting 
the client’s needs and objectives in 
terms of time, quality and cost. 

Structural changes - Structural changes 
relate to the tasks involved in, and the role 
responsibilities of, the participants to the 
cost management system. Those 
structural changes identified are 
• identification of all participants to the 

design team is required at the outset 
of the project. Those identified are the: 
client, architect, quantity surveyor, 
project manager, engineer, contractor, 
land surveyor and town planner. 

• all participants to the design team 
must be appointed at the outset of the 
project i.e., inception. 

• the roles and responsibilities of all 
participants to the cost management 
system need to be identified and 
stated at the outset of the project. 

• management structures indicating 
lines of communication, roles and 
responsibilities need to be defined.  

Procedural changes - These changes 
relate to the process and work activities 
involved in the cost management system. 
The procedural changes identified are 

• all the participants to the design team 
must be appointed and actively 



 

  
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol7, no 1] 27 

 

involved in the project from the 
inception stage. 

• the client must appoint one clearly 
defined ‘team leader’, who is then 
responsible for the management of the 
design team. 

• the professional fee scales must be 
changed to reflect the amount of work 
that is being undertaken by the design 
team prior to the physical construction 
process. 

CONCLUSIONS 

At this point the research has yielded a list 
of culturally feasible and systemically 
viable changes. These changes are 
related to the intrinsic sociological, 
behavioural and attitudinal aspects of the 
cost management system i.e., they are 
‘soft’ issues. Soft systems methodology 
has served to provide insight into those 
issues inherent in the construction industry 
as a whole in South Africa, and more 
specifically, the process of cost planning 
and control. The research documented in 
this paper has served to emphasise the 
importance of an understanding of the 
socio-cultural and socio-political factors 
inherent in the design team as a 
temporary management structure. 
Moreover, it has forced a recognition of 
the conflict that may arise within the 
design team as a result of differing 
perceptions between participants to the 
process of cost planning and control. 

Having established that in practice these 
‘human’ issues do have an impact on the 
overall cost management system, it was 
unclear as to how these desired changes 
would be implemented in practice. More 
specifically, it was unclear as to what 
influence these changes would have on 
the cost management system, the role of 
the quantity surveyor, and the ability of the 
design team to meet the client’s needs 
and objectives in terms of time, cost and 
quality. Consequently, future research 
would need to test the potential impact the 
introduction of these ‘changes’ would have 
on the cost management system. 

It can be concluded that the systemic 
approach, although not the panacea for all 
the industry’s problems, does provide 
meaningful insight into the sociological 
complexities inherent in the design team 
as a temporary management structure. 

 

REFERENCES 

Bowen, P.A. (1993). A communication-
based approach to price modelling and 
price forecasting in the design phase of 
the traditional building procurement 
process in South Africa. Unpublished PhD 
Thesis, University of Port Elizabeth. 
Bowen, P.A., and Edwards, P.J. (1998) 
Building cost planning and cost 
information management in South Africa. 
Journal of Construction Procurement, 4(1), 
16-26. 
Bowen, P.A., Pearl, R.G. and Edwards, 
P.J. (1999). Client briefing processes and 
procurement method selection: a South 
African study. Engineering Construction 
and Architectural Management, 6(2), 91-
104. 
Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems 
Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & 
Sons, Chichester. 
Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J. (1990). 
Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John 
Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 
Flanagan, R. and Tate, B. (1997). Cost 
Control in Building Design. Blackwell 
Scientific, Oxford. 
Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991). 
Creative Problem-Solving: Total Systems 
Intervention. John Wiley & Sons, 
Chichester. 
Franks, J. (1990) Building Procurement 
Systems (2nd edition). Chartered Institute 
of Building, Englemere, Ascot, Berkshire. 
Gharajedaghi, J. (1985). Towards a 
Systems Theory of Organisation. 
Intersystems Publications, Pennsylvania. 
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). 
Competing paradigms in qualitative 
research. In Handbook of Qualitative 
Research (Edited by N.K. Denzin and Y.S. 
Lincoln), Sage, California. 
Hall, K.A. (1998). A Systems-Based 
Evaluation of Cost Planning and Cost 
Control in the Design Phase of the 
Traditional Building Procurement Process 
in South Africa. Unpublished M.Phil. 
Degree, Department of Construction 
Economics and Management, University 
of Cape Town. 
Hancock, M.R., Yap, C.K. and Root, D.S. 
(1996). Human resource development in 
large construction companies, in The 
Organization and Management of 
Construction: Shaping Theory and 
Practice (Edited by D.A. Langford and A. 



 

  
The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [Vol7, no 1] 28 

 

Retik), E. & F.N. Spon Ltd., London, 1, 
312-321. 
Loosemore, M. (1994). Problem 
behaviour. Construction Management and 
Economics. 12(6), 511-520. 
Marsden, P. (1996). The changing role of 
the Australian quantity surveyor. The 
Building Economist, September, 5-9. 
Masterman, J.W.E. (1992) An Introduction 
to Building Procurement Systems. E. & 
F.N. Spon Ltd., London. 
Patching, D. (1990). Practical Soft 
Systems Analysis. Pitman, London. 
Pearl, R.G., Akintoye, A., Bowen, P.A. and 
Hardcastle, C. (2003). Analysis of tender 
sum forecasting by quantity surveyors and 
contractors in South Africa. Acta Structilia, 
10(1&2), 5-34. 
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: 
A resource for social scientists and 
practitioner-researchers. Second Edition, 
Blackwell, Oxford. 
Seymour, D. and Rooke, J. (1995). The 
culture of the industry and the culture of 
research. Construction Management and 
Economics. 13(6), 511-52