The Image of Construction Management Programs: Current Status and Ideas for Improvement

Introduction

The way administrators, students, outside faculty, or even people from industry perceive any university program can greatly impact that program’s success.  Critical decisions that can affect a program are often made by personnel external to the program.  For example, administrators are responsible for making important decisions about faculty positions and program funding; students make assessments about which major to choose; and industry professionals decide where to donate discretionary money. 

Hershey & Blanchard, (1988), reasoned that we operate according to perceived reality and not on the basis of reality itself.  Decision making, therefore, is more affected by perception than by reality.  According to a well-known organizational behavior specialist, “We assume that the way we see things is the way they really are.…Our attitudes and behaviors grow out of those assumptions.  The way we see things is the source of the way we think and the way we act” (Covey, 1989).

Accordingly, decisions that are made based on false assumptions are often counter-productive.  “The less clearly we see the reality of the world, the more our minds are befuddled by falsehood, misperceptions and illusions – the less able we will be to determine correct courses of action and make wise decisions” (Peck, 1978).

In a poll conducted by Dr. James Smith (2001) of Texas A&M University, construction management program leaders were asked to propose topics to be discussed at their regular meeting to be held in conjunction with the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) annual conference.  The number one topic chosen for discussion was the concern regarding the image of construction management programs in colleges and universities nationwide. 

  In order to determine what program leaders felt were common perceptions among school administrators, outside faculty, non-construction-management students, and industry professionals, a questionnaire was developed (see Appendix A).  In a telephone interview, each respondent was asked the following four questions:

 1.                    On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, how do you think university administration perceives your construction management program?

2.                    On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, how do you think faculty outside your program within the university perceive your construction management program?

 3.                    On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, how do you think students outside your program within the university perceive your construction management program?

4.                    On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, how do you think the construction industry perceives your construction management program?

 In addition, respondents were requested to list in order of priority the three most important things that would improve their program’s image.  They were also asked to briefly discuss what efforts had been most effective in helping to improve the overall image of their construction management program and what things had already been done to improve the perceptions that others had of their program.  Finally, current enrollment numbers and enrollment numbers from five years previous were gathered.

The Purpose of the Study

Construction management (CM) is a relatively new major available to university students.  Nearly all CM programs evolved from other programs such as Industrial Education, Industrial Technology, Civil Engineering, or Architecture.  Many of these programs had names like Construction or Construction Technology.  Most had strong roots in the trades, resulting in a university-level curriculum that was similar to courses taught in trade schools.

In the 1980’s, as personal computers became available to those involved in the management of construction projects, so did the demand for better-educated employees and leaders in the industry.  Construction company owners found it increasingly more difficult to promote laborers and tradesmen into management positions where knowledge of computers, construction software, and business were becoming more important.  To meet this demand, educators in construction programs at the university level realized the need to emphasize the management and business side of construction with much less focus on the trades.  Graduates from these programs began accepting employment offers in mid-level management positions with relatively high salaries.  In many cases, these CM graduates found themselves quickly promoted to upper-level management and company leadership positions. 

Currently, the majority of CM students transfer from other majors within their respective college or university.  Often, these are students in their sophomore or junior year who were previously majoring in business, engineering, or some other program.  Typically, students transfer into a construction management program after learning about the major from a friend who is already in the program.  In post-graduation surveys of CM students, one of the frequent regrets mentioned is that they did not know about the CM program sooner in their education.

 This change of emphasis in CM programs, from trades technology to construction management and business courses, has been recent enough that many university administrators, faculty, students, and even industry professionals still view CM programs as preparing graduates for jobs in the trades.  Many university administrators have questioned why CM programs even exist at the university level, believing that such programs should be taught in trade and technology schools.  Many students not involved in CM programs, initially believe that a degree in construction management will prepare them to accept a technical job such as a plumber or a framer.

 Because of high demand for CM graduates, sustained over the past two decades, enrollments in university-level CM programs have dramatically increased.  Sadly, however, resources required to properly administer these programs have not increased proportionally with enrollment.  Many CM programs are treated as second-class programs by their own administrations and by faculty from other departments.

This study was conducted in an effort to better understand the perceptions of others about CM programs and how faculty and students in CM programs could raise their image.  By improving others’ perceptions of CM programs, it is hoped that greater resources will be allocated and that more students will make better and faster decisions about choosing CM as a major. 

Limitations

 This research was limited to the leaders of member schools of the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC).  The intent of the study was to obtain a representative perspective of the program chairs of member schools of the ASC.  It was felt that the program leader from each member school would best understand the views of administrators, faculty, and students within the university, and local construction industry professionals.

Delimitations

This study was intended to present the current opinions of leaders of member schools of the Associated Schools of Construction as they describe the perceptions of university administrators, faculty and students outside the program, and industry professionals and how they relate to their CM programs.  It was also intended to gather ideas to improve the images of CM programs.  It was not the objective of this study to poll the university administrators, faculty and students outside CM programs, or construction industry professionals for their perceptions.  It was considered that the expressed opinions of the CM program leaders would closely reflect the true perceptions of the others. 

The Data and the Treatment of the Data

Research Design

An instrument was developed which contained eight questions (appendix A).  Program leaders from member schools of the Associated Schools of Construction were contacted by telephone and given the questionnaire.  The approximate length of an interview was 5 minutes. 

Analysis of the Data

 Program leaders from 71 of the 88 schools on the master ASC member list (81 percent) responded to the questionnaire.  Of the 17 who did not respond, one indicated that his program does not have a major in CM and only a few construction classes were taught.  Two persons contacted refused to answer the questions.  The remaining 14 program leaders were unavailable to answer the survey, even though several additional attempts were made to contact each one of them. 

Questions one through four were designed using a Lickert Scale.  Program leaders from each university were asked how they thought their school’s construction management program was perceived by 1) administration within the university, 2) faculty within the university, but outside the construction management program, 3) students within the university who were not in the construction management program, and 4) professionals within the construction industry.  For each question, the program leader was asked to assign a score of one to ten, with ten meaning the program was held in the highest regard and one meaning that the program was perceived most unfavorably.  Respondents to the survey generally felt that members within the construction industry had the best perceptions of their programs (see Figure 1).

Question 5 was designed to allow the respondents to list the three things that they considered would most improve the image of their Construction Management program.  Four hundred and fifteen individual responses were compiled and categorized.  Results are shown below in Figure 2.

Other things receiving one vote that would help to improve the image of CM programs were:

Question six was designed to allow the program leaders an opportunity to discuss strategies and events that have contributed to improving the image of their respective construction management programs.  Once again, responses were compiled and are reviewed in Figure 3.

Other things that were listed and had only one vote each were:

Questions seven and eight are sorting questions designed to determine the growth of each program over the previous five years.  There were 181 students on average in construction management programs at the time this survey was conducted.  This represented an average growth of 39 percent over the previous five years.

Conclusions

 Based on this research, it is apparent that there are concerns regarding the perception of construction management programs attributed to administration, faculty and students outside construction management at the undergraduate level.  On the other hand, the perceptions attributed to professionals in the construction industry indicate a high regard for these programs.  This attitude by industry professionals may explain the high demand for CM graduates and the remarkable growth of student enrollment in CM programs over the past five years.

Notwithstanding the concern regarding perceptions of administrators, non-CM faculty and students, leaders of construction management programs who responded to this survey felt that there were strategies that could be implemented that would help to improve the standing of the CM programs.  One strategy is to educate others about the professional nature of construction management.  Unfortunately, many have perceived that construction management is simply a training program for those desiring to enter the trades as laborers and craftsmen instead of recognizing construction management for what it is, a rigorous undergraduate curriculum designed to educate future managers and leaders in the business of construction.  Many of those surveyed felt that by marketing their programs and by expanding awareness of what construction management really is, these misperceptions would eventually be corrected.

Many leaders of construction management programs have already made strides to improve the perceptions of others regarding their curriculum.  Some of the most successful efforts include 1) more student and faculty involvement in professional construction organizations, 2) increased publicity through newspapers and the local news media, and 3) the creation of advisory boards made up of industry professionals.  In addition, the placement and success of CM graduates, along with recruitment efforts by industry professionals have also helped the image of construction management programs nationwide.  Both the demand for CM graduates and the relatively high starting salaries are continuing to command the attention and admiration of school administrators, non-CM faculty and non-CM students on campus.

List of References

Hersey, B. and Blanchard, K. (1988).  Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources.  New Jersey: Prentice Hall, p.30.

Covey, S. R. (1989).  The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.  New York: Simon and Schuster, p.24.

Peck, S. M. (1978).  The Road Less Traveled.  New York: Simon and Schuster, p.45.

 Smith, J. (2001).  E-Mail to Program Leaders of member schools of the Associated Schools of Construction, September 12, 2001.  jsmith@archone.tamu.edu.

Appendix A

Research on CM Program Image

In a recent poll of construction management program chairs conducted on November 21, 2001 by James Smith of Texas A & M University, the number one topic of concern was the image of construction management programs in the United States and how to improve the perceptions that others have of these programs.

Date   __________________________________________   Time ______________________________

Name of University:  ______________________________     Phone _________________

 Contact person:  __________________________________  Title:  Dept. Chairman ________________

_____    1.             On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, how do you think university administration perceives your construction management program?

_____    2.             On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, how do you think faculty outside your program within the university perceive your construction management program?

_____    3.             On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, how do you think students outside your program within the university perceive your construction management program?

_____    4.             On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, how do you think the construction industry perceives your construction management program?

5. In your opinion, what are the three most important things that would help to improve the image of your construction management program?  How would you prioritize the three answers that you just mentioned?  (Please use the space on the left side of the letters to indicate rank order.)

_____    A.  ____________________________________________________________________

_____    B.  ____________________________________________________________________

_____    C.  ____________________________________________________________________

6.             To date, what efforts have been most effective in helping to improve the overall image of your construction management program?  (administration, faculty, industry)

_____________________________________________________________________________

 ______ 7.              What is the current number of majors enrolled in your construction management program?

 ______ 8.              What was the approximate enrollment five years ago?

 COMMENTS (Optional):

 _____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

  _____________________________________________________________________________