Teaching Future Contractors to Think

INTRODUCTION

Anyone who has worked in a supervisory role within the construction industry for any number of years has experienced a gradual transition in his/her responsibilities. Management duties have gone from a more technical orientation (checking shop drawings, purchasing materials, designing concrete forms, etc.) to the more imprecise tasks of solving problems, making decisions, and corporate planning (tasks involving analytical thinking skills). As his/her career progresses, the construction manager spends more time solving ever bigger problems and making ever more complex decisions.

The business community, including the construction industry, widely recognizes the need for managers to be adept in these analytic thinking skills. Many business writers have described the personal qualities and necessary skills of a good manager. The ability to make decisions and solve problems are high on the list (Refs.# 4,7,16,24,28).

As  important as analytic thinking skills are, few construction educators have published the methods they use to teach these skills. This paper describes a method that one educator has developed for teaching problem-solving and decision-making skills within a class on Project Management.

BACKGROUND ON TEACHING ANALYTIC THINKING SKILLS

A literature search reveals that little has been published on the teaching of problem-solving and decision-making skills in either construction or civil engineering curricula. A brief overview of publications that address the teaching of analytic thinking skills within construction curricula follows.

Two studies were made of civil engineering curricula. one survey of civil engineering practitioners elicited write-in responses on the importance of teaching strategic planning (a problem-solving type of course). Interestingly, the civil engineering faculty members who initiated this survey had not included any topics on strategic planning, problem-solving, decision-making, etc. The other study's only reference to planning and decision-making skills was made in connection with teaching CPM and PERT scheduling rather than problem-solving techniques (Refs.# 30,31).

A recent study for a proposed graduate degree program in construction recommended that a course in risk management be included. This proposed course would focus on the use of analytical skills to limit risks (Ref.# 27). A few schools have developed computer programs to assist in teaching problem-solving skills by simulating aspects of the construction jobsite management experience.

Herbsman describes the use of microcomputers by students to play "management games." These games simulate actual construction management problems, which the students solve in a laboratory setting (Ref.# 17).

Rounds, Hendrick, and Higgins have created an interactive game using microcomputers to simulate the jobsite reporting cycle in response to changing jobsite conditions. The intent of this simulation program is to strengthen the students' project management skills as well as to train students to understand and solve problems (Ref.# 34).

Many educators in other disciplines have written about their research and experience in teaching analytical thinking skills. At the pre-college, level publications have focused primarily on the general development of a student's critical thinking skills rather than on a specific educational discipline. At the college level, most of the writing and research has focused on the teaching of analytic thinking skills within the specific discipline of the author. Many business schools offer courses in entrepreneurship, creative thinking, strategic planning, decision-making, and/or problem-solving. All are topics that focus on the teaching of independent thinking, critical analysis, and creative thought processes. A few of the many publications describing the teaching of decision-making and problem-solving in disciplines other than construction are listed in the resources (Refs.# 1,3,5,8,9,10,14,16,20,29,32,33,36,3740)  

BACKGROUND ON THE CASE STUDY TEACHING METHOD

The use of the case study method so commonly used in business schools remains poorly documented in construction curricula. The case study teaching method was developed at the Harvard Business school around 1919.

In the traditional case study teaching method, the student reviews and analyzes data drawn from a real life situation, draws conclusions, and generates solutions to the problem presented. The case study method encourages students to learn by building on their past experience as well as by allowing them to combine a number of skills and types of knowledge. This method is particularly effective for use in the construction curricula. Its synthesis of knowledge and skills corresponds to that which a manager must use daily on his/her job. The possibilities for innovative and adaptive applications of this teaching method are numerous, a few of which a described in some of the resources listed.

Despite poor documentation in construction curricula, publications describing the use of the case study teaching method in other disciplines are abundant. Although use of the case study method necessarily varies from discipline to discipline due to the nature of the subject matter, it is worthwhile to look at what other disciplines have done in the classroom. A number of examples are listed in the resources (Refs.# 19,21,25,36,37,38,41,44).

THE CHALLENGE IN TEACHING PROBLEM-SOLVING

Presently, several challenges hinder the teaching of decision-making and problem-solving in construction curricula. One problem is a curricula already crowded with requirements. Because decision-making and problem-solving skills are widely applicable within the construction curricula, they could appropriately be taught as part of many existing courses, including Project Management, Estimating, Scheduling, Law, Development, and Contract Documents. Another challenge involves the scarcity of teaching guides, materials, or other publications available for the instructor to use. There are few published cases studies concerning construction topics. A few construction-related case studies are in the Harvard Business Review Catalog (Ref.# 15). Other business-related case studies are found in various publications (Refs.# 2,6,39).

With so few published cases available, the instructor must write his/her own. Several guides are available on how to prepare good case studies (Refs.# 11,12,26,43).

The third challenge lies in the teaching methods themselves. This instructor's experience in teaching analytical thinking skills to building construction undergraduates has shown that the teaching methods used in business schools must be modified for the students to feel comfortable and capable.

 The psychological profile of most construction students differs from that of business students. Business students tend to be independent, intuitive, and self-reliant. Sexton and Bowman's studies on the psychological profile of entrepreneurship students (business students whose interests focus on the decision-making and problem-solving aspects of business) found that these students " tolerate ambiguity well and feel little anxiety when faced with uncertainty" (Ref.# 37).

Construction students are more cautious, rational (as opposed to intuitive), and reserved. They do not tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty as well. They require more support and teacher attention. Most construction students are undergraduates and have little work experience, while most entrepreneurship students are graduates who have had work experience. Studies showing the psychological traits common to the various vocations offer some clues on how to adapt one's teaching methods to a particular group of students (Ref.# 18).

TEACHING APPROACH

At the University of Washington, this instructor has developed a segment within the existing Project Management course that combines the teaching of construction management and planning skills with the teaching of problem-solving skills. Case studies are extensively used as teaching tools.

The course is divided into three sections: 1) jobsite engineering management (jobsite layout and start-up, document control, field support drawings, progress pay requests, cost control systems, and close-out activities); 2) labor management (teamwork concepts, employee motivation, time management and productivity, stress management) ; and 3) decision-making/problem-solving (the activities are examined below).

An actual construction project is used to tie the various components together. The in-class projects and homework assignments are centered around this project, establishing a framework to link various tasks required in managing a project. The students take Estimating at the same time as Project Management, and they use this same project for the commercial estimating section of that course.

Teaching analytic thinking skills, such as decision-making and problem-solving, encourages the students to think creatively. They must use their intuition and common sense skills to manipulate the information they know rather than plugging memorized facts into set formulas.

The first group of case studies the students investigate are purposely not construction-related. Because they do not know anything about the subject matter, the students realize that they must rely on common sense rather than on construction skills or knowledge. The detachment from existing knowledge forces the students to fantasize and visualize possible solutions to the problem set before them.

The next cases the students are given to solve are construction related. However, they are based on projects the students know nothing about. They have only information from the problems statement. This approach clearly limits the number of variables the students have to cope with. Because they have recently solved problems using intuition and common sense, the students continue to use these skills to solve the succeeding problem.

The final case is taken from the project the students have been using all quarter. To solve this last planning problem, the students draw on their existing knowledge, the common sense and intuition they have used during the past two class periods, and on outside research.

THE CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES

The decision-making and problem-solving segment of the course comprises 5 class periods of 80 minutes each (which could be expanded). The segment begins with a general look at the decision-making method within the business environment. It then proceeds into a more focused look at how this process is used in the construction environment. Problem-solving and decision-making skills are used in three areas - problem-solving on the jobsite, operation planning, and managing contract changes.

DAY l: THE PROBLEM-SOLVING/DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

The class begins with a lecture/discussion on the problem-solving process and on identification of common psychological blocks to that process. The class members then divide into groups (7 or 8 students per group), each of which is given 20 minutes to "solve" one of four cases from the course readings. Each group then presents its solution to the class.The lecture outline and a sample case are included in the Appendix.

DAY 2: PLANNING FIELD OPERATIONS

The class begins with a lecture/discussion on how to plan field operations, drawing on the problem-solving model presented during the last class period. It is correlated to the specific requirements of planning a field operation. The planning and implementation of an actual operation is then presented, using handouts and slides. The example operation is very similar to the class project, in terms of the construction techniques used.

DAY 3: CONSTRUCTION CHANGES

At the beginning of this class, the student groups informally present their solutions to the first group of the construction-related case studies. There is some discussion of the pros and cons of the different solutions. Some emphasis is placed on the fact that personal differences produce different solutions. During the last part of the class, a lecture/discussion on construction changes prepares the students for the case study to be presented during the next class. The outline is in the Appendix.

DAY 4: CONTRACT CHANGES CASE STUDY

The construction law instructor joins the class to present an actual case study related to two problems that occurred during the construction of a campus building. The problems are examined from both construction and legal viewpoints. The instructors trace the problems through the job's written documentation, discuss the possible construction causes for the problems, discuss the legal responsibilities of the parties involved, describe the solutions that were actually implemented (and who ended up paying for them), and suggest some possible ways that the problems could have been avoided.

After the class discussion, the class makes a short field trip to the completed project to view the design changes implemented to solve the problem.

DAY 5: STUDENT PRESENTATIONS

Each student group (consisting of 3 or 4 students ) presents a 15-minute operation planning report to the class. The students work on this project for two weeks. Typically they include a variety of visual aids to help with their explanation, including overheads, charts, plans, schedules, and estimates.

STUDENT RESPONSIBILITIES

The students are assigned a number of readings to complete prior to each of the three lectures. These consist primarily of magazine articles and case studies on problem-solving, decision-making, and creative thinking. These readings are drawn from business magazines, books, and from course materials prepared by a University of Washington Business School professor. A few articles are focused on the construction industry, and most of these come from Engineering News-Record. Some of the more significant articles and other resources are listed in the bibliography.

The students complete a number of assignments in conjunction with this segment of the course, including three in-class presentations and a written case study. These assignments are found in the Appendix.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This paper describes one scenario in which the teaching of decision-making and problem-solving skills is included within the construction curriculum. These analytic thinking skills are so widely used within the construction industry that it is appropriate to teach them in other courses within the curriculum. Some suggested courses are estimating, law, scheduling, building technology, development, and contract documents. In a course on building technology, for example, the students could consider a case on a problem involving conflicts in the routing of electrical conduit, HVAC ducts, and sprinkler pipe in an office building ceiling space.

From the instructor's experience in developing this class and from research on previous attempts to teach analytical skills within the business and construction curricula, some conclusions and recommendations can be made. Construction educators lag behind educators in other disciplines in integrating the teaching of decision-making and problem-solving skills into their curricula. Possibly they only lag behind in the publication of their teaching methods. In either case, the result is a paucity of available teaching aids and classroom materials.

This course segment could easily be expanded into an entire course. Alternatively, the case study teaching method illustrated here could be integrated into other courses. The method for integrating problem-solving and decision-making skills into the construction curricula as developed by this instructor is only a rough beginning and presents one of many possibilities.

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A

 (Classroom lecture/discussion outlines)

APPENDIX B (Sample case studies)

[1.] The following case studies are two of four used on the first day. These two case studies were developed by Professor Preston LeBreton in the School of Business Administration at the University of Washington.

A TRUSTING RELATIONSHIP

 Upon graduation from college, I secured a position in the accounting department of the regional headquarters of a large national supermarket chain. Recently, I was selected to replace the assistant controller who left to take a high level position in another industry. I have become close to an old valued employee in the department. This individual has been with the company for many years and has performed all of the key jobs in the department over the course of his career. For various reasons, mainly a lack of formal business education, he has been passed over many times for promotion to higher management jobs. he is resigned to this fact. He has been very helpful to me both on and off the job.

The Federal Government, through the FTC, periodically monitors all retail establishments engaged in interstate business to ensure that no sales are made whereby the sales price is below actual cost of the merchandise. This procedure of audit is an ongoing operation for the individual regional offices of national concerns and has become a matter of routine.

 During a recent audit, I discovered that the individual I replaced as head of the department had been stealing relatively large amounts of money from the company over a considerable period of time. A very intricate procedure had been set up that allowed him to avoid detection by numerous audits conducted over the time period involved. Because I am relatively young in both age and experience and because of the tremendous consequences involved, I have been very apprehensive about divulging my discovery until I can determine the correctness of my findings beyond any doubt.

 I have enlisted the confidence of my friend, and now subordinate, to help me further verify my findings and to go over what has happened in the past to determine how this matter could happen in our company. Various reasons helped me determine that the old time employee is the only person I should make aware of this serious matter before it is taken to top management:

ACTION REQUIRED

 During the course of the investigation and substantiation of all facts, many overtime and week-end hours have been required. I have become more intense in my research in order to authenticate the findings. My associate and I are now working as a team. Two days ago while working alone, I came across certain records which had not been available previously. A review of this "new" information .leads me to conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that my fellow employee and trusted friend had also been falsifying records in order to steal money from the company. This has been going on for a considerable length of time. His actions were completely separate from the case we have been working on.

 WHAT COURSE OF ACTION DO I TAKE NOW THAT I HAVE DISCOVERED THIS SHOCKING AND SOBERING FACT?

WHAT TO DO WITH A 95 YEAR OLD PATIENT?

Central Medical Center is a 300 bed patient facility in a large city. The Board of Directors in recent years has been pushing for an ethics program to be integrated into staff's daily activities. The issues over patient control and rights are many and difficult. Staff generally have reacted favorably to the opportunity to share their issues and concerns over patient care.

Housed within the hospital is the social work department, a small but vital part of the organization. In the main, the department directs it s energies toward discharge planning. Such planning encompasses the coordination of staff-patient relationships so as to transfer the patient back into the community with a minimum amount of disruption for patient, family and staff. Discharge planning requires a tremendous amount of listening, education and negotiation with the above parties. Each has its respective needs and wants. To coordinate these self interests into a viable plan is no small feat.

I have worked at the center primarily on a call basis. Last summer I filled in for a staff member. Shortly after work began, I was alerted by the nursing staff on one floor regarding the unsuccessful attempts to place a 95 year old woman back into a nursing home.

PROBLEM

 Discussion with the staff and a review of the patient's chart presented the following information:

A 95 year old woman had been residing at Nursing Home for 3 years. Two years ago her left foot was amputated due to an assortment of circulatory problems all of which resulted in gangrene. Her capacity to speak and to hear had deteriorated markedly. She spends most of her time sleeping. Three months ago her right foot showed signs of infection. Attempts to halt the infection were unsuccessful. She was transferred to Central for treatment. Other than the foot being dressed, cleaned and periodically tested for bacteria, no other medical intervention had been done. Bacteria tests, commonly referred to as staph counts, showed the foot to have an abnormally high count.

I contacted several nursing homes and asked for their assessment on treating skin infections. All reported that lack of staff requires that ongoing medical conditions be dealt with in a hospital environment. In short, unless the patient's foot was dealt with in such a manner that the spread of infection was arrested, her chances of returning to a nursing home were slight.

Her lengthy stay at the hospital also was a concern of mine. I spoke with the business office and they confirmed some of my worst fears. The patient's government funding was falling dangerously low. In fact, her limit for continuous hospital stay would be reached within three weeks.

 I spoke with the patient's physician and he told me he would not deal with the nursing homes because he felt it was "idiotic" that these facilities did not have the capabilities to deal with skin infections. He made it quite clear that he would not negotiate with the existing rules and regulation. As imposed upon nursing homes by state governmental rules.

What should I do?

 [2]. The following case study is typical of the two used on the second day. This case study was developed by Professor Bob Tatum in the Department of Civil Engineering at Stanford University.

BUD TYGER. FIELD ENGINEER INTRODUCTION

As the Field Engineer for this commercial office building project, Bud Tyger's responsibilities include: 1)supervision of the survey crews, 2)interpretation of the plans and specification,          3)inspection of the work, 4) planning and progress monitoring,­5)material supply, 6)subcontract administration, and 7)other tasks assigned by the Concrete Superintendent and the Resident Engineer. He never looks for work. Recently, the project encountered problems on elevated slabs. The work is behind schedule; quality problems, such as anchor bolt locations, arise on nearly every placement; problem subcontractors miss key schedules. In this case assignment, Bud is requested to: 1) prepare a plan, 2) resolve specific restraints to the next placement, 3) recommend actions to solve several problems, and 4) instruct the subcontractor to take specific actions to resolve schedule delays.

BUD'S EXPERIENCE AND APPROACH

Nearly 10 years ago, Bud started in construction as a rear chainman on a survey crew for the first hydro project constructed by Birch Constructors. Now 28, he is pleased by his recent promotion to Field Engineer. He believes that his aggressive approach and strong desire to learn brought this advancement. He always pushes himself severely to get the job done; his peers sometimes view this determination as frantic effort without adequate thought and preparation. Others sometimes suggest that Bud place greater emphasis on getting the work done, rather than coordinating everyone else's activities.

Bud's key responsibilities in this new position include: supervising the day and second shift survey crews in both control and layout work, interpreting the plans and specifications, inspecting the work, administering the subcontracts, providing construction control support to the Concrete Superintendent, and assuring that the materials are available. His experience as a Senior Party Chief prior to this assignment included each of these tasks except those related to control, materials and subcontracts. He is confident regarding the field engineering portion of the work because each of the survey Party Chief's are close friends. However, the prima dona nature of several crew members does cause some concern.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 Bud's new assignment, a four story commercial office building, is located in the Northeast. The 100,000 square feet structure is a reinforced concrete design, without structural steel or floor decking. See Figure 1 for a typical slab layout and reinforcing steel configuration. Bud's employer is General Contractor for the project. The contract is fixed price. Birch elected to do the concrete work themselves, with subcontractors for the

mechanical and electrical installation, and for certain special architectural work. The facility design anticipates heavy tenant use of communications and data processing equipment; this requires extensive embedded conduit. See Table 1 for a summary of the major material quantities for each slab.

 The project specifications set stringent tolerances for all aspects of the work. The Architect is known for his refusal to change design requirements in response to field problems. Local demand for this type space is increasing; the developer is determined to meet the occupancy schedule and to capture a substantial portion of this market. To avoid potential material shortages, the developer placed certain orders prior to award of the general contract. These included: concrete with a maximum delivery rate of 22 tons per week, electrical conduit with a maximum rate of 1,000 feet per week, and HVAC ductwork with a maximum rate of 5,600 pounds per week.

PROJECT STATUS

 with construction at 20% complete, Birch is starting work on the second floor. Because of budget limitations, the Project Manager does not intend to exceed the staffing levels shown in Table 2. To avoid coordination problems and contract disputes, Buzz Palmer, the Concrete Superintendent has decided that only one trade will work on one placement at any point in time and that work on each placement will proceed in the same sequence of work by successive trades. Approximately 1,000 feet of conduit and 140 tons of rebar are on hand for the slab. Material deliveries continue at the maximum rate; all other materials are on site.

 Several difficulties contributed to the current project status of two weeks behind schedule. First, Sparks Unlimited, the electrical subcontractor, has delayed each placement involving embedded conduit to date. His bid was nearly 20% below the next lowest and he refuses to increase crew size above that indicated on Table 1 to expedite the work. He indicates that his men are complaining about congestion at the work area; they suggest that overtime would improve productivity.

Second, severe quality problems hamper Birch. Buzz believes that the specification requirements for reinforcing and embedment location are not realistic, but the Architect has refused to consider change. Out of tolerance anchor bolt and reinforcing location delayed the last three major placements. In addition, the first and second shift survey crews frequently disagree regarding layout and checkout, causing rework on each shift. Resolving drawing errors has consumed most of Bud's long work hours during the past month.

 Buzz planned to make the first placement for the second floor slab tomorrow. He and Bud just completed a serious altercation in the field because Bud today identified over 20 adjustments to rebar and anchor bolts required prior to the placement. Bud believes that the installed conditions are incorrect but has difficulty in pointing out specific requirements to Buzz. Buzz doubts that the second shift can complete the work tonight and he has already ordered the concrete for tomorrow morning. After learning about the possibility of another missed placement date, the Project Manager called a meeting in two hours to solve this problem and to discuss similar delays.

CASE STUDY QUESTIONS (For students who haven't taken a scheduling class yet, omit questions # 1,2,3,4, and 8.)

APPENDIX C (Class assignments)

The following assignments are prepared by the students as part of the problem solving segment of this course.

[1] This assignment is prepared by the students during the first week of this course segment:

PROBLEM SOLVING CASE STUDY (Homework)

 Each student is requested to prepare a case study documenting a construction-related problem/opportunity.

This assignment has three purposes: to provide an opportunity for each student to examine creative and/or innovative experiences within the industry; to allow each student to learn from others through sharing a variety of experiences; and to further develop innovation skills.

The subject matter of your case study must be within the construction industry (construction, development, and architecture are examples) and it must have actually happened. It may be a situation in which you were personally involved or it may have happened to someone else. Choose a situation where creativity and/or innovation was used in bringing about the solution.

 You may use the case studies in the Kinko readings as models for your essay. Your case should include the following topics, though sequencing can vary and some topics may be interwoven within your essay.

1) A description of any relevant background/peripheral information that helps one to understand the context in which the case took place.

2) A description of the problem/opportunity which is the central issue in the case.

3) An explanation of the problem­ solving process(es) and any other external influences which motivated the problem solver.

4) A description of the final solution and the significant steps taken to implement it.

5) A description of the solution's major advantages and disadvantages (with respect to past practices, to other possible solutions, etc.).

6) A description of what was learned about creativity and innovation as a result of this experience.

This assignment is to be individually prepared (it is not a group assignment). Your essay should be typed. Some of these case studies may be used as examples in future project management classes. Please indicate if you do not wish for your example to be used.

[2.] This assignment is informally presented by the students in class on the third day of the course segment:

SOLVING PEOPLE PROBLEMS_(Homework)

Read through the 2 case studies on pages 311-324 of the Kinko packet. Students are required to work in groups of 3-4 on these problems. Each group will work on one of the problems, which will be assigned in class.

Answer the questions at the end of your group's case study that involve personnel problems. For the Bud Tyger case study, this will include questions #5, 6, 7, and 9. For the Jim Blackstone case study, this will include questions #1, 2, 3, and 6.

 You may draw on the Kinko readings and on the information presented by our guest speakers concerning working with other people, but you will find that you will have to rely primarily on your own intuition and common sense.

Prepare your answers to these questions in the form of an essay. It should be neatly typed. This will be due at the date listed above. There is no minimum or maximum # of pages, but it should be thorough in its presentation of your solutions.

Solutions will be informally presented in class on Tue March 5 .

[3.] This assignment is prepared over a two week period by the students and is presented formally in class on the fifth day of this course segment:

[3.] This assignment is presented formally in class on the fifth and last day of the course segment.

OPERATION PLANNING PRESENTATION (Homework)

Each group (Max. 4 students) is to prepare a presentation for the class describing your plan for one of the operations (topics listed below). Each group will prepare a different operation.

For this assignment, assume that you are the superintendent on the Bartell's and Building C project. The use of brainstorming and visualizing techniques will help you to identify the operation's needs and to organize the necessary requirements for a successful operation.

Each presentation should address the following topics:

For some groups there may be several of these, each affecting a different part of their work.

 Evaluation of the presentations will include the following:

These presentations will be given during class on Tuesday March 12 in Arc 202.

The topics to be presented will include: