Introduction to Demolition and Reconstruction Management: The Initial Course Offering of Purdue University’s Most Recent Area of Specialization

Introduction

Construction management education in the United States during the twentieth century was fundamentally concerned with new work. This concentration was a logical response to the needs of the industry since the majority of work involved vacant sites and all new construction. In recent years, the construction organizations which serve on Purdue University’s Department of Building Construction Management’s Construction Advisory Council have reported increasing activity that involves work on existing structures or infrastructure.

As the built environment within the United States ages, it is anticipated that opportunities in demolition and reconstruction will continue to expand. Much of the built environment, including buildings that were constructed during the economic expansion of the second half of the twentieth century, will exhibit some need for upgrade. Change in use, upgrade of mechanical or electrical systems, restoration of deteriorated building envelopes, repair of structural damage (or preventative upgrade such as seismic modifications), renovations to reduce serviceability problems, changes to satisfy government mandates, repair of original construction, and corrections to previous renovation errors will all require the special considerations inherent with reconstruction and demolition. A continued focus on and promotion of urban renewal also underscores the need to develop this sub-discipline within construction.

The demolition industry through the National Demolition Association has also expressed a desire to attract a college educated workforce and to advance professionalism within the demolition industry. It is believed that many misconceptions about the activities of demolition contractors are held by the general public, general contractors, and young construction management professionals. The most frequently cited misconceptions include the belief that demolition contractors primarily “blow-up” buildings, recycle very little, operate unsophisticated businesses, and can successfully complete demolition activities with little knowledge or experience. As a result, the National Demolition Association perceived a need for university construction management programs that include demolition in the undergraduate curriculum. The board of directors of the National Demolition Association has expressed a need for courses that will help the general contractors and construction managers of the future better manage the demolition process in addition to providing students with a background appropriate for employment in the demolition industry.

Through the encouragement of the National Demolition Association and the perceived need for an educational offering that includes the special requirements of reconstruction activities of all types, Purdue University has begun the development of a specialization in demolition and reconstruction management. The concept, development, first offering, and critical comments concerning the introductory course in this specialization will be discussed in this paper as well as a brief description of the future of the specialization.

Course Concept

Introduction to Demolition and Reconstruction Management mirrors many of the general requirements of a traditional construction management curriculum, including coverage of construction science, planning, regulation, estimating, safety, project management, and business management. Special emphasis was placed on contrasting demolition and reconstruction activities with new construction. The limitations of a single three-credit semester course prevent an in-depth treatment of any major topic. Consequently this course concentrates on processes and activities that are required by demolition or reconstruction that might not be encountered in new construction. Since these activities require coordination with existing project conditions rather than execution of construction plans and specifications that start with a blank sheet of paper, the intricacies in management of unknown or unexpected conditions were emphasized.

It was anticipated that this introductory course would be utilized by many students as an elective regardless of their prospective career direction. The support of guest speakers from the demolition industry was employed to take full advantage of this opportunity to inform future construction managers of circumstances where general contractors frequently mismanage or misunderstand the demolition process. The guest speakers, as experienced practitioners, presented credible instances of demolition work that had been handled inappropriately and explained how similar situations could be avoided. Examples of successfully executed projects were also related to students. Close coordination of the subject matter presented by each guest speaker provided the opportunity for specific demolition topic coverage using actual project examples.

To accommodate the diverse ways that students learn, educational material was presented using a variety of instructional tools. Instructional activities were considered that facilitate diverse student development levels, different student approaches to depth of learning, and a spectrum of learning styles (Felder & Brent, 2005). For example, since no two students are alike, a single overwhelmingly verbal lecture-based presentation can lead to a failure to communicate with visual learners. Sequential presentation can be difficult for global learners who process information in seemingly unconnected fragments, and so on. Further complicating matters, students’ have mixed learning style preferences that vary in intensity and may change based on the subject matter or learning environment (Felder, 1993). Additionally, empirical evidence has been presented that construction management students prefer active participation in learning as opposed to passive learning regardless of their learning style (Abdelhamid, 2003).

Attempting to ascertain and cater to the individual styles and preferences of students can be fraught with difficulty. Even if student preferences could be accurately determined, it would be impossible to accommodate them simultaneously in a class of more than a few students. To overcome this limitation, a balanced approach to instructional delivery is often advocated (Felder & Brent, 2005 and Sutliff & Baldwin, 2001). In this way, student learning preferences can be accommodated some of the time while students are challenged to function outside their preferred style at other times. Since effectiveness as a professional requires some proficiency across learning styles, challenging students to develop skills associated with multiple learning style categories should be a goal of instruction (Felder & Brent, 2005).

Using a model developed by Kolb, learners move through a cycle. Kolb describes the steps in the cycle as concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, reflective observation, and active experimentation (Felder & Brent, 2005 and Wolf, 1980). Through the use of instructional activities that support different aspects of the Kolb cycle, instructors can help students move through the four stages (Sutliff & Baldwin, 2001). The activities chosen to support concrete experience in Introduction to Demolition and Reconstruction Management were group work and project specific examples. Discussion and reflective papers supported reflective observation. Lectures and written reports were used to advance abstract conceptualization, and case studies and projects were assigned for active experimentation. Where possible multiple instructional activities were utilized for each major topic covered in the course.

The final educational activity in the course consisted of a small group research project culminating in a written report and formal presentation. Students selected a topic with approval from the instructor. Significant latitude in topic selection allowed students to augment the breadth of course content offered. For example one student chose to research and report on the deterioration of wood bridge piers, the causes of deterioration, deterioration prevention methods, and ultimate demolition and reconstruction of old piers. Project case studies were encouraged and chosen by more than 25% of the groups. Students were expected to utilize a variety of source materials that could include personal interviews and project field visits. One student utilized contractor and architectural contacts made during summer employment to present a complete case study of the fast-track renovation of an elementary school. He obtained plans, specifications, photographs, and specific instances of specialized equipment used to save on labor costs as well as examples of lapses in management. The report provided and excellent case study of the interrelated issues in selective demolition and reconstruction. The application paper and independent research allowed students to relate course material to a practical environment and the intensive nature of the research allowed students to assume a significant share of responsibility for their learning (Wolf, 1980).

Course Development

The search for a text to utilize in this course revealed the need for development of a text or reference material for the topics covered that is appropriate for use in undergraduate education. Little has been written in the United States about management of the demolition process. The National Demolition Association has materials appropriate for use on the subject of demolition safety, but a comprehensive text is not available. A British book on the subject was located, but it is a rather cursory treatment of the subject and dates from the late 1970’s. A European demolition book is also available; however, it has not been translated from its original Dutch. Reconstruction resources are more readily available. Many deal with planning and architectural issues with little mention of construction management issues. The text chosen for use, titled Structural Renovation of Building: Methods, Details, and Design Examples, although not specifically written as a construction management text is comprehensive enough to serve as a resource in the techniques and technologies encountered during a wide variety of reconstruction activities (Newman, 2001). This text was supplemented with a number of research reports, case studies, Internet references, and magazine articles.

The board of directors of the National Demolition Association and the Construction Advisory Council for the Department of Building Construction Management were provided an early draft of the Introduction to Demolition and Reconstruction Management course outline for discussion. Although the major topic areas were not changed, several suggestions for coverage in specific subject areas were made. Subsequent to finalizing the course outline, a framework for presentations by each of the guest speakers was provided to the education committee of National Demolition Association. Guest speakers were chosen and encouraged to utilize project examples with photographic or video presentations where appropriate.

Course objectives for Introduction to Demolition and Reconstruction Management were as follows:

At the completion of the course, the students will be able to:

Success in student achievement of these objectives was assessed through four tests each requiring primarily descriptive responses, an in-class estimating exercise, two written reports, and three presentations (two brief and one comprehensive).

The course enrollment for the initial offering of Introduction to Demolition and Reconstruction Management was 25; nearly twice the enrollment anticipated when the course outline was first developed. As a result, more class time was required for individual student and group activities than was initially anticipated. Rather than limiting these activities, a lecture covering project feasibility was eliminated, and the ethics discussion was combined with business management. Content for the initial course in the demolition and reconstruction management specialization as offered in the fall semester of 2005 is outlined in Table 1.

Table 1

Course Outline – BCM499C Introduction to Demolition and Reconstruction Management

Courses that are offered as part of specialization in Building Construction Management at Purdue are typically classified as technical electives within the overall curriculum. New courses may be offered without review under a temporary course number. Review by the Purdue College of Technology Curriculum Committee is required prior to listing a course as a permanent part of the curriculum. University level review of these technical electives is not required by Purdue. The introductory demolition and reconstruction course was offered to all students without prerequisites. As expected the registered students tended to be predominantly juniors and seniors. The introductory nature of the material allowed the sophomores taking the course to participate fully. Introduction to Demolition and Reconstruction Management is being offered again in the spring semester of 2006 with an enrollment of 23. The course will be offered in the fall semester of 2006 in anticipation of continued student interest.

Discussion of Challenges and Lessons Learned

As mentioned previously, the most formidable challenge to presentation of an introduction to the management issues in demolition and reconstruction activity is the lack of an appropriate text for the course. In addition to the challenges that this fact presents to an instructor, lack of a text limits the ability of students to capture a unified view of the subject matter. This situation is exacerbated by the combination of demolition and reconstruction topics in a single course. Although arguments can be posited for separating instruction in these activities into two separate courses, sufficient similarity in planning, regulatory issues encountered, safety concerns, material reuse factors, and problem solving for unknown project conditions justify their combination in the introductory course. Experience with the first offering of this course suggests that demolition and reconstruction can be adequately covered in a single introductory course unless industry support conflicts become apparent (such as deconstruction and restoration advocates versus demolition advocates). However, such a conflict likely could be overcome in the classroom by presenting both approaches to students without taking sides in the debate.

Considerable restraint was required in selection of subject matter to be presented in this course. As with any introductory course, the topic contains far too many nuances to broach every aspect of the subject within a single course, even in a cursory fashion. As a result, this introductory course did not allow any significant coverage of the process that an owner or developer encounters when conceiving and planning for a reconstruction project. In addition, little time was available to cover company management issues specific to demolition and reconstruction. These topics, which are critical to successful demolition and reconstruction project management, must be covered in other courses within the specialization. Peripheral topics such as design for deconstruction and sustainability, that were eliminated from the introductory class due to lack of time, may be difficult to work into the limited number of courses typical of an undergraduate specialization.

Early feedback from students in the initial course offering indicated some frustration with their inability to obtain one clear answer about the “best” demolition techniques, equipment, or use of labor. Since demolition and reconstruction activities require project-specific problem solving where no single correct answer may exist, it is anticipated that greater use of case-based instruction will be required. Case study and problem-based instruction helps to build real-world skills and strategies that are transferable to other contexts (National Research Council, 2003). Although case-based instruction inherently captures situations that have no single clear-cut answer, preparing for and teaching using case material is very time consuming (Senior, 1998). Furthermore, the self-protective and highly competitive nature of demolition contractors may make it difficult to obtain reliable real-word case backgrounds and data.

Several other deficiencies in the Introduction to Demolition and Reconstruction Management course were identified. Both demolition and reconstruction management are highly dependent on the context of the specific project. Providing students with opportunities to see and interact with actual site conditions would be quite helpful to students’ appreciation of the full context of a demolition or reconstruction project. It would be a valuable addition to the course if project site visits could be arranged. Additionally, a need for more thorough coverage of disaster restoration management is illustrated by the massive reconstruction efforts required by the December 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean and the devastation of the Gulf region from Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. Due to the limitations of time and resources, it is not clear how these deficiencies will be overcome.

Feedback from student evaluations administered at the end of the semester was positive. Sixty eight percent of the student respondents listed the course as good or excellent. Of the six evaluation questions specifically related to the course content or administration, only one had more than 10% negative response. In this question seven of the 22 respondents indicated a desire for a greater number of practical exercises. Responses to an open-ended request for comments included four recommending continued use of guest speakers and one expressing a desire for a field trip or two. One student indicated that the course was not what he expected, but did not give any detail of how the course failed to meet his expectations.

Future Course Planning

The demolition and reconstruction management specialization represents the fifth specialization developed at Purdue University. Other specializations consist of three existing specializations (residential, electrical and mechanical construction management) and one developing specialization (healthcare construction management). A sixth area being contemplated for the future is heavy-highway construction management. A degree specialization typically entails a total of twelve semester hours (four three-credit courses). In two of the three existing specializations, students take one required course and three electives related to the specialization. It is unclear at this time whether or not one of the four courses related to Demolition and Reconstruction Management will be required of all students.

In order to leverage resources effectively and to ensure adequate course enrollment, the concept of multi-disciplinary specialization courses is being explored. For example, a course focusing on heavy equipment utilization that includes concrete recycling could serve double duty for students in demolition and reconstruction as well as a heavy-highway specialization. The latter would be served directly through the addition of paving equipment to the course. The similarities between rock crushing and concrete recycling would suffice for both specializations. The basic technology and terminology related to explosives for demolition by implosion also would apply to blasting for quarrying operations.

Another example for crossover content would be in the area of selective demolition and remodeling with the healthcare construction management specialization. Hospital facilities are under almost constant renovation as medical treatment technologies, patient age demographics and patient demand for comfort amenities evolve. Infectious control represents one of the more challenging aspects of selective demolition and remodeling to hospital constructors. Hospitals (as well as other structures) pre-dating the 1970’s may be home to hazardous materials such as asbestos, PCB’s and lead paints. Demolition contractors are often the first to encounter these hazards which represent a challenge whether they are to be encapsulated or abated and landfilled.

A heavy equipment course, a selective demolition and remodeling course, and a “capstone”-style course in demolition and reconstruction management are planned to round out the specialization. These three courses provide an opportunity to further address areas that cannot be adequately covered in an introductory course. As mentioned previously, the addition of more case studies and field trips will be beneficial and could be incorporated into the capstone course. The inclusion of detailed case studies in the capstone course will allow students to gain insight into the information and challenges an owner or developer must sift through and overcome while generating a pro forma for a project. A significant portion of the capstone course would be devoted to upper-level company management topics related to demolition and reconstruction. Issues related to sustainability and design for deconstruction will likely be left to a future graduate-level course.

Conclusion

The initial course in Purdue University’s undergraduate specialization in demolition and reconstruction management has been well received by both the demolition industry and the student body. However, much additional work is required to continue development of an undergraduate education in demolition and reconstruction. Continued input and support from industry as well as the interest and involvement of members of the community of university educators is needed to create a mature discipline. These first steps being undertaken by the Department of Building Construction Management at Purdue University are only a small part of the effort required to fulfill the commitment that has made to the development of the specialization.

References

Abdelhamid, Tariq S. (2003). Evaluation of teacher-student learning style disparity in construction management education. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 8(3), 124-145.

Felder, R. M. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286-290.

Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72.

National Research Council Center for Education. (2003). Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved December 27, 2005 from http://www.nap.edu/books/0309072778/html/

Newman, A. (2001). Structural Renovation of Building: Methods, Details, and Design Examples. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Senior, B. A. (1998). Infusing practical components into construction education. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 3(2), 92-101.

Sutliff, R.I. & Baldwin, V. (2001). Learning styles: Teaching technology subjects can be more effective. Journal of Technology Studies, 27(1), 22-27.

Wolf, J. F. (1980). Experiential learning in professional education: Concepts and tools. New Directions for Experiential Learning, 8, 17-26, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Author Notes

Mark Shaurette is a Ph.D. candidate in Purdue University’s College of Technology, concentrating on reconstruction and demolition with a cognate specialty in education. Mr. Shaurette has served as an instructor in Building Construction Management since fall of 2002 and recently developed and taught Introduction to Demolition and Reconstruction Management.

Kevin R. Behling is an assistant professor in the Department of Building Construction Management in Purdue University’s College of Technology and has been charged with developing a degree specialization in Demolition and Reconstruction Management.  He is also a Ph.D. candidate in Civil Engineering at Iowa State University.

For additional information contact Mark Shaurette at meshaurette@tech.purdue.edu.