Comer, beber, amar

The first artefact evaluated was the conceptual model of refurbishment projects (Figure 47).

All attendees considered the artefact as a precise representation of a refurbishment project and one participant underlined the simplicity of it as illustrated as follows:

“I think it is a good model. Keep it simple”.

There was also a consensus among the participants on the importance of integrating the three elements shown in the conceptual model in order to achieve an effective construction management, hence better project results. On this regard, a manager contended that the company should improve its approach regarding the existing asset, namely, it should invest more resources for better understanding the condition of the existing building in order to improve the performance of works on site. Furthermore, the participants argued that the conceptual model could be helpful to manage clients’ expectations. As quoted below, it would be beneficial if clients could understand the constraints related to the existing asset:

“Clients are normally not aware of project constraints so they keep requesting impossible things… if clients are involved in the building surveying process, which is very important, then through the surveying process you can reveal what is possible and what is not possible given the structure of the building… This could avoid waste in design and construction”.

165

One participant argued that the conceptual model could be also used as a framework for underpinning the quality management system used by the company. Basically, the quality system sets out guidelines in terms of things that have to be in place in every project. This is illustrated through the following quote:

“I think we should take a good look into our quality system and try to place the guidelines we have based on your conceptual model... we have many tools in our quality system, we could use the method to structure these tools in a proper way”.

The comment above demonstrates the potential of utilising the conceptual model as a reference basis for improvements. Yet, the artefact was deemed innovative and useful for increasing awareness on the characteristics of refurbishments as illustrated as follows:

“It is a new way to attack refurbishment projects… I think the conceptual model is helpful to develop a specific understanding of each project”.

Regarding the three parts considered in the conceptual model, one attendee noted that operations in the existing building do not always exist. This confirms a statement made earlier in the thesis, namely, there are circumstances in which refurbishment projects can be conceptualised in two parts only. Yet, there was no request for removing or adding any element displayed in the current version of the artefact, but one participant suggested that the artefact’s design could be altered to show the connection between the three parts addressed in the conceptual model. It was suggested:

“One thing that maybe is lacking in the conceptual model is a clear link showing the involvement between the 3 elements of refurbishment”.

6.2.1.2 Framework for characterisation of refurbishment projects

The participants approved the dimensions addressed in the framework. They said it is a good list for promoting an initial understanding of the refurbishment since it covers key aspects of the project. The following quote illustrates that:

“I think it (framework) covers (refurbishment project) very well”.

The idea of knowing more information about the project beforehand was appreciated by the foreman. He highlighted that it is very important for the department managers to gather appropriate information before sending people like him to construction sites.

166

The attendees suggested new dimensions to be added in the artefact. Three people argued that information about the client should be considered in the framework. They contended that it could help in delivering value as demonstrated in the quote as follows:

“If you want to deliver value for the client you have to know more information about him/her”.

The participants argued that information on budget should be also added in the framework since it is an important element of the project. Besides, one person suggested the addition of a dimension regarding health and safety due to the reason described in the quote below:

“Health and safety is a big part of what we are doing… the goal of the company is to have zero accidents so it would be good to have it considered in the framework”.

6.2.1.3 Steps of the method

All participants agreed that the eight steps shown in Figure 49 are sufficient to apply to the method proposed in the thesis. However, there was also a consensus on the need of

dividing those steps into two groups as follows:

• Planning; and

• Implementing and improving.

Instead of presenting the method as a linear sequence of steps (Figure 49), the participants contended that the artefact could be presented as two distinct but connected stages. The first one (planning) should address steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the second (implementing and improving) steps 6, 7, and 8. Also, due to the dynamic nature of projects, they argued that those stages should be carried out several times during the refurbishment in order to account for the changes that are likely to happen throughout the project. The quotes below show the importance of refreshing the information about the diagnostic (step 2):

“It (diagnostic) could be carried out or updated according the different phases of the project (e.g. phase 1, phase 2) as more companies are likely to join the refurbishment as well as more information is likely to be available as the project progresses or more access to certain areas of the building is granted”.

“You have to do it at the beginning of the project with the start team, and then you have to do it again when you add one more persons to the team, and then you have to do it again when you add another company, and then you have to do it again when you go in to a new area of the building”.

167

Following the same line of thought, they also mentioned that other steps of the method would also need to be revisited as the project develops such as the engagement of people in making decisions (step 3), the development of extra training sessions (step 4) to attend the latest demands of the project, and the setting of new targets (step 5) to reflect the needs of different project phases.

Regarding steps 6 (implementation), 7 (evaluation), and 8 (improvement), the attendees kept the same view they had with regards the steps related to the planning stage, namely, they argued that the implementation of the method should be carried out in cycles in order to address the changes that are likely to occur during the project.

Also, the participants contended that steps of the method could help to formalise decisions made throughout the project. They argued that it could improve communication among stakeholders, especially in projects that several handovers are planned. The quote below illustrates that:

“If you have some short descriptions of what you’ve been through, the thoughts you had, the discussions you had based on those different steps it is easier to handover the project to another party than otherwise… I think it is a very structured way to do it”.