---

CHAPTER 3
Improving the Project Process

29. Can construction learn from the successes of manufacturing and service industry? The Task Force believes it can. Our view is similar to that of construction industry representatives on the Task Force's visit to Nissan UK to see its advanced approach to production, who wrote:

    "we see that construction has two choices: ignore all this in the belief that construction is so unique that there are no lessons to be learned; or seek improvement through re-engineering construction, learning as much as possible from those who have done it elsewhere"

30. If we follow the latter approach, what is it that construction has to learn to do differently? We believe that at least part of the answer is that the industry has to rethink the process through which it delivers its projects with the aim of achieving continuous improvement in its performance and products.

Repeated Processes

31. We have repeatedly heard the claim that construction is different from manufacturing because every product is unique. We do not agree. Not only are many buildings, such as houses, essentially repeat products which can be continually improved but, more importantly, the process of construction is itself repeated in its essentials from project to project. Indeed, research suggests that up to 80% of inputs into buildings are repeated. Much repair and maintenance work also uses a repeat process. The parallel is not with building cars on the production line; it is with designing and planning the production of a new car model.
32. The Task Force has looked at what leading clients and innovative constructors both here and overseas are doing to rethink the construction process. We have been informed by our own experience and have tested out ideas with our own construction supply chains. The documentary evidence is scattered at present but there are a number of pointers which indicate the same direction. These include, for example BSRIA's study of the installation of building services in office buildings and the Genesis project undertaken by BAA with support from BRE. Both studies confirmed that as much as 40% of the manpower used on construction sites can be wasted.
33. These and other studies all suggest that there are significant inefficiencies in the constructionprocess and that there is potential for a much more systematised and integrated project processin which waste in all its forms is significantly reduced and both quality and efficiency improved.This ties in with our observation that manufacturing has achieved performance improvements by integrating the process and team around the product.

An Integrated Project Process

34. If we are to extend throughout the construction industry the improvements in performance that are already being achieved by the best, we must begin by defining the integrated project process. It is a process that utilises the full construction team, bringing the skills of all the participants to bear on delivering value to the client. It is a process that is explicit and transparent, and therefore easily understood by the participants and their clients.
35. The rationale behind the development of an integrated process is that the efficiency of project delivery is presently constrained by the largely separated processes through which they are generally planned, designed and constructed. These processes reflect the fragmented structure of the industry and sustain a contractual and confrontational culture.
36. The conventional construction process is generally sequential because it reflects the input of designers, constructors and key suppliers. This process may well minimise the risk to constructors by defining precisely, through specifications and contracts, what the next company in the process will do. Unfortunately, it is less clear that this strategy protects the clients and it often acts as an effective barrier to using the skills and knowledge of suppliers and constructors effectively in the design and planning of the projects.
37. Moreover, the conventional processes assume that clients benefit from choosing a new team of designers, constructors and suppliers competitively for every project they do. We are far from convinced of this. The repeated selection of new teams in our view inhibits learning, innovation and the development of skilled and experienced teams. Critically, it has prevented the industry from developing products and an identity - or brand - that can be understood by its clients.

---