Construction Management (CM) education is the result of the US construction industry demand for college-educated "Constructors." While architecture and engineering programs concentrated on design, engineering, and research, the construction industry began to realize the need for educational programs that emphasized the "business of managing the construction process." The early programs were designed primarily to fill a technical void (Badger and Robson 2000). The number of programs has increased, but not by much. There are now more than 150 US construction education programs with Associated General Contractor (AGC) student organizations and approximately 100 four-year construction programs accredited by the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE) or by the American Board of Engineering Technology (ABET) (Badger and Robson 2000).

Rodgers and Weidman (1990) found that the age of these existing CM programs at the various institutions ranged from one to over 51 years. Although the mean (average) age of the programs reported was 18.6 years, it is significant to note that almost 30% of the programs were less than 10 years old. This emphasizes the growth and importance of the CM field in the last decade. This period has seen CM programs arise in a variety of departments and university colleges. Although CM departments are located within various colleges, engineering (42%) and technology (39%) contained the majority of programs. Other locations for CM programs included architecture (10%), agriculture (3%), business (3%) and education (3%), with many of the younger programs falling under engineering in the university hierarchy.

CM is a hybrid between Engineering and Management. However, academia has been slow in realigning supporting programs to meet the construction industry needs. The transformation is underway, but the pipeline of potential faculty has not yet been established. Faculty members are being recruited from the crossover disciplines. The ability of recruited faculty to operate across the curriculum both indicates the multifarious character of the CM degree and a number of common elements in scholarship that facilitate such cross over by CM faculty. These important common elements are discussed by Boyer (1990), who states that higher education has four components. These are:

He argues that all four of these activities are legitimate forms of scholarship; that each is needed to fill the needs of our society; and that each should be recognized and rewarded. Generally, CM faculty tend to agree, though their perceptions of the weight and importance of each component vary widely. A Christensen and Rogers (1992) study indicates that the majority of CM faculty prefer teaching over conducting research; that service is not viewed as a significant criterion in the evaluation process; and that there is a broad discrepancy between the perceived evaluation weight given to research and the percentage of faculty time spent on research.

During a 2001 visit by Dr. James Summerville (2001) of Glasgow’s Caledonian University UK to the Del E. Webb School of Construction, it was evident to him that the trend toward PhD’s and CM research was happening in both the United States and Great Britain. Professor Summerville observed: 1) Both programs have undergone significant change in the last decade, with the most recent five years witnessing extreme movement, the academics involved within have re-orientated their view of what professionals within the industry need and have adopted new approaches to their delivery of academic programs. 2) Part of this review demands that the academic research not only underpin the work of the PhD candidate but also that it feed into the broader portfolio of the host unit. His observations indicate that though CM programs are increasing in number, the placement, curriculum, and mission of current and future programs still need to be examined closely as graduate programs develop and increase. Such scrutiny not only will improve the discipline as a whole, but will also provide for future faculty recruitment and development. His comments also make clear that the UK faces the same challenges in establishing CM programs as does the US.

In order to establish a functioning faculty pipeline, the character and number of CM faculty must be identified. The first step in finding CM faculty is to locate CM programs. This is no easy task, since Construction is taught in many different programs located in a variety of colleges. Unfortunately, no single accrediting agency or professional organization has a complete list of existing programs. The ASC has the most complete record of CM programs and CM faculty, but their records are incomplete. The ASC has 97 member universities located in eight regions across the United States. The profile of the ASC universe construction faculty is 146 Assistant Professors, 43 Associate Professors, 124 Full Professors, 53 Lecturers, 59 Visiting Adjuncts, and 4 Emeritus Professors for a total of 429 people. This group includes 209 faculty members with PhD’s, 61 having Doctors in Education (EED’s), and the remaining 159 with Master of Science degrees. The 63% percent Doctoral level within the construction faculty universe continues to increase in size. The CFU profile (the total faculty count from ASC, ASCE, CRC, TAC, ACCE, and the private Peterson Guide) is approximately 750 educators teaching and performing research in construction. Teaching dominates among CM faculty with approximately 15 percent of the educators doing some type of research.

In the past ten years, many CM programs have added graduate programs. These programs are actively seeking new faculty hires with PhD qualifications. The 1998 ASC survey lists 34 schools reporting masters degree programs, 14 of which are in CM, 12 in engineering, seven in technology, and one in business. Recognizing the shortage in graduate programs (especially Ph.D. programs), Williamson and Bilbo (1999) stress the need to create new CM PhD programs that are actively pursuing research in the discipline. Only nine programs currently offer a CM PhD.

Because of the ASC having the most complete record of faculty and programs, and because it has a professional interest in improving the quality of the programs, it is positioned effectively to take the lead in implementing the change indicated by this and other studies. Additionally, the ASC would benefit tremendously from a concerted effort to expand its database to include as many institutions as possible. Thus far, the ASC seems like the logical choice for such work because it already has begun tracking the information needed to make recommendations to individual programs and to the industry as a whole.

Other agencies exist which track CM programs, but often the focus of these agencies does not always accomplish the goals discussed in this study. For example, the ACCE accrediting agency has accredited 53 CM programs, but the ACCE focuses more on the undergraduate curriculum and less on graduate programs and research. Even with their focus on undergraduate curriculum, much of the information they gathered is useful in illustrating the state of the CM universe. Many of their visitation reports stress the importance of replacing a maturing faculty, addressing the lack of funding for new faculty, and supplying funding for faculty development. The problems identified in undergraduate programs are only amplified in graduate programs. The widespread nature of the ACCE findings indicates the breadth of the problem, and that the clear message is that, based on their observations, "universities do not support the CM discipline" in faculty lines, salaries, or budgets. Samples of some of the ACCE findings regarding weaknesses in personnel, funding, and developmental funding for faculty members were:

1. Lack of sufficient number of faculty to meet teaching demands and research expectations.

2. Lack of support from the University to hire qualified faculty.

3. Lack of a program coordinator.

4. No apparent plan in place for leadership transition.

5. The Department Head’s salary is not equivalent to others on campus.

6. The Department is under funded and has to utilize soft money for operations.

7. Salaries should be reviewed in terms of on campus and national peer group programs.

8. There is an inequitable salary distribution among faculty.

9. Funds allocated for faculty travel and professional development are inadequate.

10. There is little support from administration for faculty development.

Additional information gathered by the TAC found that there are 21 technical programs within the construction education sector accredited by TAC under ABET. In these teaching programs, it appears that few faculty are actively pursuing research and that the PhD is less essential in hiring. These programs with fewer PhD’s risk being under prioritized by their institutions and by the discipline because of their having different ways of assessing faculty production than some of the other departments whose members are pursuing their research interests. Because the PhD is essentially a research degree, construction education programs that do not require a doctorate have focused on teaching. This creates a problem among other programs in the same university, where research is factored very heavily into the granting of tenure. In a program that de-emphasizes research because of a teaching focus, salaries are likely to reflect the absence of this major component of other tenure track positions in addition to reflecting the lower salaries of non-terminal degree holding faculty.

CM programs and faculty from engineering colleges and departments reflect a more traditional, research-oriented approach. In the educational sector of civil and construction engineering, there are 10 active accredited ABET construction engineering programs. Many civil engineering (CE) programs have one or two faculty in the Construction specialty area. Most faculty members in the construction engineering programs have PhD’s and conduct some research. In reviewing the roster of the 137-engineering faculty that are active in the Construction Research Council (CRC) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), both the PhD and research activity is evident.

The faculty that fill CM programs reflect both the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. They suffer from many of the same problems that every academic department suffers from, but also have a relatively unique set of difficulties. Tufte and Hannestad (1988) found that construction faculty turnover is an ongoing problem at many universities. They cite the following as possible reasons for faculty turnover: 1.) New faculty hires 2.) Alternative opportunities 3.) Economic considerations 4.) Opportunities for advancement 5.) Excessive workload and 6.) Morale.

Ciesielski (1997) investigated tenure policies and criteria and promotion considerations for full professor in CM and Civil Engineering schools. Principally, research holds a more prominent place in CE schools than CM schools, and in CE schools, research is much more important when making tenure and promotion (T&P) decisions. Conversely, teaching holds a more important place in CM schools; it is more important than research in making tenure decisions. Service is ranked last in both.

Based on U.S. averages, not by location, the engineering colleges seem to pay 6-8% better than Architecture, and the Architecture faculty salaries seem to be 6-8% higher than the Technology colleges. Depending on the job position, the Engineering colleges’ salaries are 12-26% higher than those faculty members employed at the Technology dominated colleges. The US construction salary mean (of the nine month faculty positions) falls 32% short of the national mean and 43% short of the national maximum.

The tables below represent 24% of the construction faculty that are employed with the member schools of the ASC. There were over 150 respondents answering the call for the salary survey. For even comparisons, dollars were adjusted to fit nine month appointments for the positions of Lecturer to Full Professor. The Chairs and Heads salaries were adjusted to 12-month contracts

(Survey by Charles W. Berryman, of the UN, Editor: ASC Proceedings – Lincoln, April 2001).

The salary structure for construction faculty is influenced by outside perceptions that the faculty members are vocational educators rather than creators of knowledge regarding the construction process. This perception is perpetuated by the relative absence of younger, tenured faculty who conduct research. The actual ages of the 429 faculty members are not available, but a reasonable estimate, based on the author’s observation of attendance at national conferences, is 45 to 50 years of age. Over the past three years, the replacement rate is 40 to 50 faculty members per year. Last year, an estimate of only 30 to 50 percent of the faculty vacancies were filled. In many cases, Teaching Assistants, part time Faculty Associates, and Lecturers were hired to fill the gap. While these hires are usually competent and able teachers, the lack of tenured positions with terminal degrees tends to weaken the core of construction faculty and limit hiring prospects, which adversely affects the salaries of part-time faculty, full-time non-tenured faculty, and tenure-track faculty with the MS or PhD.

In addition to affecting the hiring process and salary structure, the limitations on future CM faculty create a virtual vacuum outside academia, where potential faculty are constantly lured into the construction field where the salary is potentially much higher. The perception that CM faculty are vocational educators and the relatively low number of PhD holding faculty make advancement and commensurate salary increases slow or non-existent. The absence of research opportunities creates for some construction faculty a much larger teaching load than those of their research and tenure-track colleagues from other colleges (or even within their own colleges). All of these issues tend to affect morale negatively, which fosters the impulse to find higher salaries as consultants or professionals in the construction field rather than continue on as academics at salary rates much lower than those of other colleges or disciplines.

The profile of applicants applying for CM faculty positions provides a snap shot of who is in the faculty pipeline and their backgrounds over a four-year period (1998/99, 1999/00, 2000/01, and 2001/02). The advertisements specified that the applicant must have the PhD. Lessons learned from studying the applicant pool are:

1. The number of applicants has been decreasing. (24, 57, 8 & 7)

2. 10 percent of the applicants reapply and 1.5 percent of the applicants are women.

3. 40 to 50 percent of the applicants are employed at another university.

4. 54 percent are international faculty (earned BS outside US).

5. 80 percent of the applicants have PhD’s in disciplines in other than CM. 60 % CE.

6. Applicants have an average of 10 years of industry experience.

7. Applicant’s average age is approximately 40 based on when they graduated high school.

8. To increase the pool of qualified applicants, many must be personally invited to apply.

9. Increasing the advertising budget does not improve the quality of the applicants

10. To hire women faculty requires arrangements outside of the existing faculty pool.

11. There is a shortage of qualified faculty candidates and the number of international candidates is rising.

12. Many CM faculty positions are filled with academic professionals from other disciplines.

13. It is difficult to hire industry professionals with credentials to satisfy universities.

14. More CM programs need to offer CM PhD degrees.

These items offer clear examples of the downward trend in almost all areas of CM faculty hiring. The dramatic decrease in applicants, whether right out of graduate programs or after some years of industry experience, demonstrates the effects of morale problems and lack of competitive salary structure. Additionally, that fewer and fewer faculty hires are from US programs indicates that US schools are not meeting the needs of domestic CM programs. The absence of a pool of young, PhD holding applicants indicates a severe problem filling CM positions in the future. While international hires and hires from outside the discipline can fill some of the positions, the inability to hire PhD’s in the specific field debilitates CM programs drastically, which negatively affects future recruitment of both students and faculty. While individual program leaders have developed strategies for selecting faculty, these strategies differ to such a large degree that it causes problems of consistency and parity between various programs. The ASC leadership is in the most advantageous position to intervene, providing some common denominators in the hiring process that will give individual schools some of the same goals both in hiring and in program development.

Problems still persist among construction faculty and potential faculty. During the April 2000 ASC Leadership Conference, 35 program leaders were surveyed about the faculty hiring process. What follows are selections from the survey results.

1. Reasons faculty decided to become Professors. Professors seem to like the opportunity to stay on the cutting edge of construction; to participate in continual learning, and to improve the state of construction; as well as being around young people who are excited about new knowledge. Professors were strong in their desire to have high degrees of freedom, the opportunity to control their own time, and the life style.

 

2. Biggest surprise after joining the faculty.

a. The continual battle with administration for resources, the amount of paperwork, and the bureaucracy.

b. The lack of leadership, the poor communication skills, and the political/personal conflicts within programs.

3. Faculty members’ greatest rewards. The greatest rewards were of seeing students succeed and seeing the change in students during their educational development.

 

4. Major challenges of program leaders. These challenges were the hiring of quality faculty, fund raising, mentoring and developing young faculty, and obtaining university and industry support. The next tier of challenges included recruiting great students, continuing faculty development, research and publishing.

 

5. Greatest challenges in hiring faculty. The greatest challenges in hiring new faculty were identifying and locating interested candidates and competing with other universities for the talent.

 

6. What elements of the hiring process are the most difficult to accomplish? The respondents listed creating an adequate candidate pool, justifying university faculty lines, and understanding tenure as the most difficult elements of the hiring process to accomplish.

 

7. What do program leaders look for in new faculty? Some of the most often mentioned characteristics that program leaders look for in new faculty are interpersonal skills, construction experience, teaching aptitude, the ability to work as part of a team, listening skills, and empathy for students and learning.

 

8. Over the past ten years, has the value of construction experience for faculty increased or decreased? The value of construction experience continues to be regarded less and less.

The responses to this survey support the notion that the academic world of construction is changing dramatically as the focus switches from industry experienced professionals who teach vocational types of courses to PhD holding applicants with no industry experience but who are eager to teach the newest ideas in the field and to remain abreast of new findings through their own research.

The discussions with program leaders on methods used to identify and hire qualified faculty varies with the creativity of the leader. Many program leaders hire faculty using the following techniques:

1. Poaching faculty from other university CM programs is widely used and has the advantage of letting others mentor faculty at their expense. Poaching raises the overall faculty salary structure. The disadvantages of poaching are the retraining, moving, and hiring costs to both universities. Additionally the programs that are well funded are able to assemble the faculty talent at the expense of the emerging programs. The primary disadvantage is it is a win-lose solution to the larger problem. The program wins by acquiring a new and desirable faculty member, the discipline loses because a less well-funded program now has to replace a qualified faculty member through a system that perpetuates the problem.

 

2. Hiring faculty from other disciplines (crossover degree qualified) with construction experience or who are trainable in construction. The faculty members are educated in civil, mechanical, and industrial engineering disciplines. Few have formal CM educations even through they have years of experience in construction.

 

3. Hiring retired military with construction experience who are seeking a second career. The real advantage is that these professionals may not be seeking great financial compensation as they already have retirement income. This may be a disadvantage because it fosters some of the salary inequities mentioned earlier. The additional benefits include strong leadership and management skills, and characteristic of military training.

 

4. Hiring successful part time teachers (Faculty Adjuncts, Faculty Associates, and Lecturers) who want to move into full time teaching. The metropolitan universities have the advantage in identifying, training, and hiring these professionals who bring the real world into the classroom.

 

5. Locating people with special skills and investing in their education and development as new faculty. This approach requires long term planning and an alternative income source while the candidate is back in the university for the terminal degree.

 

6. Recruiting, training, and hiring second career professionals with construction experience. The program leader targets this group when recommending seminars to market the construction industry.

 

7. Marketing the superb location/s and the pleasant life style of an academic career.

 

8. Encouraging additional university programs to offer PhD’s in CM. Engineering based programs are generating the majority of construction PhD’s.

 

 

The idea of the construction faculty pipeline has as its goal to provide a supply of construction experienced PhD’s for supporting CM programs. This is necessary to meet the demands created by the retirement of construction faculty. With a universe of 700 to 800 faculty members at the estimated 45 to 50 year age level and the growth in CM program student enrollment, a steady supply of 40 to 50 new faculty members per year is required. An informal survey of the ten largest suppliers shows 20 to 25 graduates a year over the past two years. Penn State produced 9 new PhD’s in the last ten years. Eight went into industry and only one into academia. As a result of the shortage in faculty supply, CM programs are relying on crossover candidates from other disciplines. The survey found that in the past year, the most PhD’s produced was four (4) from the Stanford program. The programs at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Florida are not far behind with three (3) PhD’s. Texas A & M had two and one half (2.5), Colorado State and Purdue each had two (2), Georgia Tech had one and one half (1.5) and Penn State, Arizona State University, and Iowa State each produced one (1).

In order to supply the required number of potential faculty, some organization with the resources in place for tracking hirable CM graduates will need to come forward. The ASC is the logical choice for such work. With a database in place already, the ASC is the most likely to be able to successfully track graduates and provide that information to the various member schools. Such a system would improve the pipeline tremendously by providing schools with resources for recruitment and forecasting incoming classes of graduate students.

The author attended the A & M Workshop in September 2001 and presents this overview:

Virtually all PhD holding construction faculty nationwide holds their degrees from a civil engineering program, an architecture program, or some other unrelated field. Positions in construction programs across the nation are languishing for lack of qualified applicants. There is a tremendous opportunity for CM PhD programs to supply faculty members to CM degree producing institutions.

The author concluded that a CM program needed the following features before requesting its own PhD program in Construction Management: (May not need all the features to qualify)

1. A national reputation in Construction Education.

2. A functioning MS program.

3. An experienced full time faculty to create a critical mass of talent (8 to 10 faculty).

4. A faculty who wants to create new knowledge, (do research).

5. Awarded research projects to financially support PhD candidates

6. Research thrust areas that identified them in some centers of excellences.

7. A history in publishing research demonstrating scholarly work.

8. A vision of what to teach and what to research.

9. Alliances with professional organizations.

10. University and College support for the PhD degree.

11. Very strong Industry outreach program.

12. Program leadership.

The seminar demonstrated that research is often the funding vehicle for CM programs. This was particularly apparent during the debate between undergraduate CM programs about whether to start a Master of Science degree. It became apparent that graduate students do most of the research while being supervised by the faculty. Without that graduate student research capability, research funding would not happen. The research grants pay the salaries of the graduates students during the academic year and the salaries of the faculty during the summer. Funded research changes the pay structure for CM faculty from a nine month to a twelve-month income (usually a 25 percent increase). Through research and consulting, the $50,000 to $60,000 salaries can not only increase, but potentially double. Such funding is much more likely to be available to faculty in a program with mostly terminal degree holding members that are conducting research.

The definition of construction research has been evolving over the past few years. Because of this, a discussion of what constitutes construction research is required to provide a common frame of reference.

1. There has been a change in thinking about the answer to the question of what is research. In the past "any thing that industry would pay for" was accepted. When there has been little funding for the faculty to get started, this consulting category has worked.

 

2. The next category is the need to keep faculty current in industry development. Each faculty’s maturation has been marked by the coalescence of six separate circles. The first circle houses the faculty dissertation research topic. The second represents the expertise that the faculty has from industry experience. The third, the expertise required in the courses they are teaching. The fourth recognizes the needed topic areas where the industry has been wanting answers. The fifth identifies the areas where funding exists. The sixth is the consideration of the needs of humanity. A mature Associate Professor’s six-circle coalescence results in that faculty member having a center of excellence and the associated good reputation. This center is the faculty improvement research area.

 

3. The research that is industry driven and funded by industry is usually in the applied research area. This research needs an active industry outreach program and related funding.

 

4. The next level of construction research is that funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). This is the area where university programs compete against each other for Government funding. Traditionally, NSF grant dollars are valued higher among the university administrators than are private dollars because the fund allocation is governed by a board of experts in the field, and the competition is often very intense.

 

5. Maybe the highest level of research is the break through research done for the improvement of humanity. Most programs cannot afford this type research unless they are either receiving adequate funding in the other research areas or they are not dollar driven. This area has the highest rate of failure, but the greatest gain when the research is successful.

In order for CM programs to achieve necessary standing among other academic departments, some form of research needs to exist. Research opportunities increase NSF and other grant opportunities, promote wage parity, establish strong ties with the community, encourage alumni donation, and eventually improve prospects for recruitment of superior faculty and potential faculty (i.e. exceptional graduate students).

Reviewing a case study of a program transitioning from an undergraduate teaching program to a graduate program doing research while maintaining excellence in the UG program will profile the challenge of change. In 1990, the Del E. Webb School of Construction was 33 years old, accredited by ACCE in 1974, had 250 students, and was nationally recognized. From a 1989 survey of the local construction industry, it was clear that the industry did not see the need for graduate education. The University was transitioning to become designated as a Research I university and encouraged all programs to support research. In 1991, a graduate program was approved. In hiring new faculty through the 90’s, a PhD desired approach moved to PhD required. All hires since 1991 have had the PhD. Another technique used in selecting faculty was hiring visiting faculty and reviewing performances before a final hiring decision. The school actively sought young, first career type professors instead of second career candidates with 15 years of construction experience. The lack of construction experience emphasis for new faculty made room for the desire to pursue research. The transition meant that faculty hired under the old teaching philosophy of 80% teaching and 20% service were also asked to perform in a 40 % teaching, 40% research, and 20% service environment. A major challenge was to reduce the teaching load while seeking research opportunities. One of the advantages of being a metropolitan university was the availability of excellent part time faculty associates to teach the business of construction. This supporting talent (12), hired on a part time basis, was critical to enabling the full time faculty the opportunity to concentrate on research. The other significant enabler was the movement of the Department within a School of Technology to a separate School under the College of Engineering. Over a ten-year period, a small construction industry advisory team grew into 18 separate industry outreach groups representing over 1000 industry professionals volunteering to support. The continuing education effort reached 2,800 industry days of training during the calendar year 2000. Many of the research thrust areas developed were spin offs of the industry contacts. Having the school fall under Engineering afforded faculty the opportunity to successfully acquire National Science Foundation (NSF) grant funding, which organization seems to award more grants to engineering-based programs than technology or CM programs. The resulting success of the transition was ACCE reaccredidation and a $3,300,000 research program.

While the case study institution enjoys remarkable success, problems still plague existing and aspiring programs. Some of the following comments from the article address many of the problems discussed in this article and demonstrate the tone of the authors (Rosenbaum, Rubin, and Powers) of the ENR article:

This report’s observations reaffirm the perplexing dilemma that faces construction schools where the demand for graduates is high, but because of the positioning of the programs and other factors, construction schools are unable to entirely recognize and satisfy the demand. Furthermore, the flexible placement of the construction schools within the university hierarchy promotes a changeable curriculum and a lack of respect in the academic world that impede the improvement of the program.

In this e-mail, Dr. Chinowsky carries on the discussion about equity between engineering and non-engineering based construction degrees. The elitism perceived in the article to which he refers serves to demonstrate how the perception of the engineering or non-engineering based degrees can genuinely effect the perception of job candidates by potential employers. That this debate exists at all strongly dictates that some decision be reached regarding an approach to both the components of CM degrees and the placement of its faculty in the university hierarchy.

"----- I was disturbed to see the complete misrepresentation and oversight of the numerous civil engineering departments that contain construction engineering and management specialties as an integral component of their curriculum. If you are not aware, there are currently almost 80 civil engineering programs that offer construction courses, with the majority offering several courses that make up a specialization in the topic. ------ The article failed to acknowledge that students enrolled in civil engineering programs are just as highly sought after as those in non-engineering based programs. In fact, with a solid engineering foundation, these students are qualified to enter the profession in many situations such as design-build firms or heavy construction firms where a non-engineer would not have the background to enter. Your article was misleading in implying that students from civil engineering and non-engineering programs should not be treated differently. In fact, civil engineering students work extremely hard to obtain an engineering degree and they are proud of that accomplishment. ------ The ability of these students to succeed in math, physics, design, and advanced problem-solving scenarios should not be discounted. ----Finally, I was very disturbed to see the oversights in your list of construction programs. Once again, your focus on construction accreditation clouded your list of construction programs. The lack of traditional programs such as those at Texas, Stanford, and Berkeley to name a few, is both disturbing and misleading."

Chinowsky’s complaints underscore the problems plaguing any effort to advance CM programs generally. Significant among them is the variable value placed on degrees from engineering and non-engineering CM programs. By pointing out in his final sentence the "traditional programs" of Texas, Stanford, and Berkeley, he effectively introduces the notion that CM programs can exist as discreet departments, fully capable of recruiting specialized faculty with terminal degrees who are committed to research that contributes to the knowledge in the field. Such a trend in CM programs would eliminate the problem of CM degrees being valued differently because they would all be the product of a curriculum that is generally accepted in one form or another. Of course, establishing an acceptable curriculum, or at least similar curricular goals would be a tremendous step toward equal consideration of CM degrees, and the ability of the ASC to mediate that discussion is once again evident.

The problems of placement and curriculum were addressed by the program leaders in the ASC Purdue survey. They recommended that leading universities offer a series of seminars highlighting the benefits of being part of the academic world. Some proposed seminar topics were: 1.) Rewards inherent in teaching 2.) Academic degree requirements 3.) The university culture and financial climate 4.) The hiring and interviewing process 5.) Career development planning and 6.) The geographic locations of CM programs. These seminar topics clearly address the most crucial issues regarding the establishment of construction curricula and faculty within the larger university, as well as appearing to be prepared to grapple with the brute practicalities of funding as well.

Based on this discussion and much of the material available regarding the issues of placing a CM program, the following list of conclusions addresses most or all of the problems facing CM programs.

1. A healthy construction management faculty pipeline is needed to provide a steady supply of experienced PhD’s educators for CM programs.

2. Universities are not adequately supporting the CM discipline in faculty or salaries.

3. CM programs are relative young academically.

4. Universities are raising the academic bar for CM programs.

5. Major initiatives are needed to recruit and retain new CM faculty.

6. CM education is evolving from primarily an undergraduate (UG) education to one of both UG and Graduate education with emphasis on research.

7. The same transition challenges of moving into research, faculty hiring, and program competition with engineers exist in the UK as in the US.

8. Unlike the older CM programs, many of the younger CM programs fall under engineering in the University hierarchy.

9. There are 10 active accredited ABET construction engineering programs. Many civil engineering (CE) programs (88) have one or two faculty in the Construction specialty.

10. The ten (10) largest Construction PhD suppliers show 20 to 25 graduates a year. Most of the suppliers are engineering based programs.

11. There appears to be a power struggle between the CM and Engineering programs for university and industry resources.

12. The construction faculty universe (CFU) is relatively small and it is an aging group.

13. There is shortage of verifiable data about the CFU.

14. 209 ASC faculty members have PhD’s: 61 with Doctors in Education (EED’s), and the remaining 159 with Master of Science degrees.

15. Penn State (engineering program) produced 9 new PhD’s in 10 years with 8 going to industry.

16. In ASC programs, only 10 to 12 percent of the professors are doing research. However, research funds provide graduate student salaries and increase or supplement CM professors’ salaries.

17. In the tenure process, CM programs value teaching higher than they do research, and engineering programs value research higher than they do teaching.

18. As a result of the shortage in CM faculty supply, CM programs are relying on crossover candidates from other disciplines for faculty hires (many from engineering).

19. One of the program leader’s greatest challenges is identifying and recruiting qualified faculty.

20. International PhD faculty applications are increasing.

21. Many CM programs are actively seeking new faculty hires having PhD qualifications.

22. There is a lesser requirement for extensive industry experience in new CM faculty hire.

23. CM faculty members enjoy being teachers, however, there is faculty turnover due to low pay, excessive work, and poor working conditions.

24. The PhD degree is basically a research degree.

25. There may be a lack of understanding by CM faculty of what construction research really is and how to go about it.

26. CM faculty salaries are low, but can be improved with research summer funding supplements.

27. Most UG CM programs do not encourage their graduates to go into graduate programs.

28. The industry has not demonstrated the desire to fund research and PhD development.

29. The A&M workshop was a good start in emphasizing the establishing CM PhD programs.

30. Individual program leaders have developed skills in finding potential faculty, but the ASC leadership has not worked the challenge collectively for the benefit of improving the CFU.

31. There is a critical need for more CM PhD producing programs.

32. ASC needs to take a leadership role in improving the CM pipeline.

33. CM programs need a number of features in order to compete within the university for their own PhD program.

While addressing these items may not solve every problem a new or existing CM program may face, this list probably accounts for most of the general problems that a CM program must confront in order to take its place among the types of programs this study anticipates.

Despite the many and significant challenges facing CM programs, sufficient examples exist that demonstrate methods for overcoming such challenges. Some potential solutions to the faculty pipeline problem follow:

1. Create an industry and ASC awareness about the broken CM faculty pipeline.

2. Prepare a marketing plan to sell CM graduate programs to industry professionals.

3. Promote a steady supply of CM PhD graduates from recognized universities to create a pipeline filled with quality candidates for CM programs.

4. ASC organize and conduct a region seminar series about "How to become a CM Faculty member"

5. Make all CM graduates aware of the CM faculty career field.

6. Provide incentives to recruit some of the promising CM undergraduates into CM graduate programs.

7. Establish additional graduate programs offering a PhD in CM.

8. Create a bridge program to facilitate the career crossover of industry professionals into academia. Special bridge programs that financially support the student into the PhD level and help identify and select diverse candidates for the faculty family.

9. Raise funds to finance CM students wishing to pursue terminal degrees. Industry must help in financing and maintaining the construction pipeline. Creation of industry-endowed professorships will ensure the retention of quality faculty.

10. Create an ASC database so that CM programs will have information as they compete with the Engineering programs for industry and university resources.

 

 

The CM construction pipeline requires new sources of quality graduate students, more PhD producing universities, and improved recognition in the industry and within academia. The construction industry has to mobilize its resources and contribute to the establishment of a steadily flowing pipeline. ASC needs to take a leadership role in improving the CFU pipeline and recruiting and retaining quality faculty. The renovation needs work immediately and on a universal scale.

The American Council of Construction Education. Retrieved May 3, 2001 from http://acce-hq.org/Intro/Intro.htm.

The Associated Schools of Construction (ASC). Retrieved May 3, 2001from http://ascweb.org/.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). ASCE Construction Research Council list. Retrieved Feb 10, 2001 from http://cem.gatech.edu/crc/name1.htm.

Badger, W.W. and Robson, K. (2000). Raising expectations in construction education. ASCE Construction Congress VI, USA, 1151-1164

Berryman, C.W. (2001). Survey. Unpublished Data, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Christensen, K. and Rogers, L. (1992). Teaching, service, and research, in evaluation of construction management faculty for tenure and promotion. ASC Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference, Auburn, Alabama, 79-83.

Ciesielski, C.A. (1997). Tenure and promotion: A comparison between Construction Management and Civil Engineering. ASC Proceedings of the 33^rd Annual Conference, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 21- 31.

Kay, D., Bodapati N., and Snell, L. (2000). Graduate education in construction programs: An MBA/Construction model. ASC Proceedings of the 36^th Annual Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 95-104.

Mouton, J.C. (1995). Shifting the paradigm of higher education. ASC Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference, Tempe, Arizona, 45-50.

The Peterson Guide. Retrieved Feb 10, 2001, from http://iiswinprd01.petersons.com/GradChannel/AcdSearchResults.asp

Rogers, L. and Weiderman, B.H. (1990). Construction management program and faculty survey. ASC Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference, Clemson, South Carolina, 145-151.

Tufte, E.A. and G.E. Hannestad. (1988). Coping with faculty turnover. ASC Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference, San Luis Obispo, California, 39 - 41.

Williamson, K. C. and D.L. Bilbo. (1999). A road map to an effective graduate construction education program. ASC Proceedings of the 35^th Annul Conference, San Luis Obispo, California, 111- 128.