Awards - A Means to Enhance the Construction Industry’s Image

Awards, when properly conceived and marketed, provide prestige to the bestowing organization, value to the recipient, and reflect on the industry as a whole.  This study examines existing Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) awards, how these influence the public perception of this industry and their potential as a tool to enhance the industry’s image.  The researchers have begun to compile an awards database, have developed criteria with which to objectively measure “prestige,” and present some early insights.  The database is publicly available at the website www.constructionawards.org/.  Results from an earlier Associated Schools of Construction study are discussed, which indicate that the industry’s perception of awards can be influenced through the publication of appropriate metrics.  The need to develop tools to objectively evaluate and rank AEC industry awards guides this early segment of the study requiring an understanding of the many aspects of award objectives and processes.  An analysis and valuation method is proposed, recognizing the pitfalls of such an effort.  Some thoughts on potential future uses of the awards database are included.  Two organizations, the National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER) and the National Academy of Construction (NAC), in addition to a panel of industry professionals serve as advisors. 

Key Words:  Architecture, Engineering, Construction Awards Ranking

Introduction 

When the National Academy of Construction (NAC) Executive Board first considered creating an award as a means to improve the image of the Architectural, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry, the Awards Committee discussed the underlying principles.  It was quickly recognized that several fundamental issues had to be addressed to create an award of value.  Specific criteria had to be developed, categories established and guidelines published that would motivate the target audience to submit nominations.  Also, a committee had to be identified to screen nominations, select winners and present the award at a suitable event.  It was recognized that even one award presented to a single candidate required significant initial effort and continuous annual administrative work. 

Badger and Rich (2003) studied the awards within the Construction industry.  Their paper presents information regarding national construction awards, introduces an on-line national awards database and reflects on possible methods to improve the image of the AEC industry using awards.  The study shows that the U.S. construction industry may be able to enhance its image just by marketing existing awards more efficiently via industry websites.  The results of the study are posted on a dedicated website at http://www.constructionawards.org/.   

The researchers derived substantial amounts of award data from open AEC industry websites and organized it by source.  The initial study analyzed 50 awards bestowed directly within the Construction Industry.  After a review and analysis of the initial data, the scope of the study was expanded to include all identifiable awards available to the AEC industry in the United States.  The researchers continue to collect data from newly identified awards and update the database periodically.  The National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER) and the National Academy of Construction (NAC), have served as independent advisors and sponsors.   

Scope 

This study is an expansion of the earlier referenced research by Badger and Rich (2003) and attempts to gauge the value awards currently have within the construction industry.  The researchers are looking into all aspects of award creation and bestowal, with special emphasis on the promotion of awards within the construction industry and the potential benefits derived thereof.  The study operates on the premise that the U.S. construction industry has the ability to enhance its image by increasing the quality, marketing, and perceived value of the awards it currently bestows. 

In the previous study the researcher’s primary effort was devoted to identifying construction industry awards, structuring a database, developing a website that supports the evaluation and dissemination of this information, and testing the hypothesis that by publishing appropriate metrics the perceived value of the award marketing process can be improved.  This subsequent study, by gaining a deeper understanding of awards processes, attempts to create the conceptual framework that allows the researchers to systematically analyze the impact awards have on the construction industry.  Utilizing the database of AEC related awards, which now includes over 200 entries, the researchers are developing methodologies to measure perceived value and prestige, as well as, to evaluate and potentially rank awards.  In so doing, the researchers are discovering the benefits and pitfalls associated with the development and implementation of award programs.  It is proposed, that once sufficient expertise has been gained, the researchers should attempt to identify the top awards in the AEC industry.  Since virtually no research data exists on awards specific to the construction industry, the team’s information base will be made available to others to allow validation and promote an increasing understanding of the best value creating processes related to AEC industry awards.   

The final goals of this study are:

·         Evaluate various award creation and bestowing processes to identify key issues and best practices.

·         Refine the awards database and criteria for evaluation.

·         Develop a viable award analysis framework and testing mechanism.

·         Recognize and promote award excellence (prestige) via publication of a top awards list.

·         Develop and publish a roadmap and base of information for others to use and validate.

·         Educate and influence the industry in the effective use of awards and their potential benefits. 

The AEC industry has much to gain by better utilizing the benefits inherent in awards.  Few other industries maintain such extensive awards programs.  Awards decidedly promote industry values and illustrate what constitutes excellence.  Currently few construction organizations or individuals effectively market the awards they have received and are missing out on a significant opportunity to promote both their own organization and a valuable industry as a whole.  

Associated Schools of Construction Survey 

In view of the stated goals, one of the study’s first tasks was to identify a means that would allow influencing and improving the methods used by construction organizations to publicize awards and recognize award recipients.  To understand the publicity value of awards, the original awards study conducted by Badger and Rich (2003) examined and evaluated the amount and profile of awards information included on the websites of the eleven Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) in the Rocky Mountain Region.  The awards information subject to this analysis related to both scholastic and industry awards bestowed by or in conjunction with the respective school.  The information and insights gained from this initial sampling encouraged the current study’s researchers to expand the analysis to include all ASC member schools and inform each school of their individual “score.”  

In the expanded analysis, the scoring process had to be kept simple and expedient.  Schools were scored on a 100-point system, where a score of 100 indicated the award and the most recent recipient of the award were listed on the website, and the maximum number of mouse clicks to get to this information from the home page was one.  The school was docked one point for each additional click and 25 points were subtracted if the most recent recipient was not listed.  Schools that did not post awards on their website did not receive a score.  In this manner the researchers established an initial benchmark and objective ranking. Three months after notifying each school of its respective “score,” a new website analysis was conducted to determine the impact the data had had on each school.  Nineteen of the 91 ASC schools (23%) in the seven regions across the United States significantly improved the content of their awards program website without further prompting. 

This simple and low cost exercise proved once more that simply by keeping score one can motivate improvement.  It proved that this low cost tool could be used to influence and improve the value of the awards bestowed throughout the entire construction industry.  The researchers continue to maintain both a current and historical database of results for all ASC member schools in the U.S.  The intent is to provide the next generation of researchers the basis of the study as well as provide a valuable tool to compile additional data and knowledge on the study topic.  The information is available to all interested parties at www.constructionawards.org. 

The following table illustrates the results of the initial survey and the successes identified in the subsequent analysis: 

Note:  Aw = awards;   Cl = # of clicks required;   Pr = past recipients listed;   Sc = score 

Industry Interviews 

To gain new perspectives regarding industry awards, the researchers conducted interviews with two active industry leaders: Mark Minter, Executive Director of the Arizona Builders Alliance and Richard B. Usher, Principal of Hill and Usher.  Mr. Usher is one of the 25 Construction Industry Leaders selected by ENR in 2002 and past president of the Arizona Subcontractors Association.  The knowledge gained via these interviews is not intended to present a conclusion to this study.  Rather, it is a mechanism to access new avenues and insights that must be considered in research of this nature.  Several keynotes summarizing the valuable insights derived from these discussions are briefly outlined below:

·         Awards should improve the reputation of the construction industry nationally.  There is a generalized perception that only the “Project from Hell” qualifies for awards.  This erroneous perception lends credence to the negative image the industry must overcome.

·         Owners are often looking for ways to distinguish between competing construction companies.  Proper discussion and presentation of awards won by contractors may be valuable to owners in identifying the company that best meets the owner’s needs.

·         Awards can be used to improve the industry.  Organizations portray their values in both the awards they bestow and the means of presentation sending a powerful message to members and customers.  Recipients have an exceptional opportunity to solidify their reputation and promote, at the same time, the causes of the awarding organization.  The American Subcontractors Association (ASA), for example, has successfully used awards:  1) to change relationships within the general contractor and sub-contractor community and 2) as a mechanism to grow their professional organization.  Award criteria were crafted to reflect a new value system aimed at improving business relations between stakeholders. 

·         The number of awards has remained relatively constant over the past decade.  Emphasis should be placed more on marketing existing awards and gaining widespread recognition than in creating new awards.

·         Recipients of the most coveted awards exert decided influence on others within the industry.  The Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award recipients, for example, set a benchmark precedent for all construction efforts and have an impact on both sureties and consumers.

·         The criteria of a system designed to identify the top awards should recognize the implementation of construction industry best practices.  Criteria should address issues such as elimination of barriers, construction management innovations, new technology, performance improvements, creative marketing approaches including publicity/circulation, professionalism, and the award’s history, staying power, and frequency. 

·         Organizations with differing goals embrace differing attitudes about awards and therefore will pursue differing marketing angles and approaches.  Measurement criteria may have to recognize differences in various categories (e.g. design, contractor, and academia).

·         Caution must be exercised to protect against creating a negative image caused by over-marketing of accomplishments or selecting those that do not exemplify the desired future work environment.

·         Influence on the industry may be exerted through the distribution of sample marketing/media kits that educate award recipients on the use of awards as marketing and industry-enhancing tools.

·         A study such as the one undertaken by the researchers should query award winning construction companies regarding:

§         How company and individual awards are incorporated into their marketing plans.

§         How much effort is spent pursuing awards.

§         The cost-benefit relationship of the award process.  

Initial Awards Evaluation 

Using the insights gained from the industry interviews, the researchers established award evaluation criteria and conducted initial test rankings.  Each criterion and its basis for selection and inclusion in the study were critical to lend authenticity, credibility, and influence to the ranking.  The initial testing included the following criteria: 

Ten awards were arbitrarily selected from the researcher’s database of awards, which displays awards by name, sponsor, or category and groups them in six categories: 1) Company / Organization, 2) Professional, 3) Educator, 4) Project, 5) Student, and 6) Safety.  Evaluation points, or sub-criteria, were established as a means to characterize each of the criteria listed above.  Each evaluation point carried a subjective weighting.  Possible points totaled 100 and could be achieved only if an award met every criterion and its associated evaluation points.  For each selected award the researchers reviewed the information available on the sponsoring organization’s website.  The presence or absence of the specific measurement criteria was recorded and a weighted score for the award under review was calculated.   

While a significant amount of information is presented on a given website, the depth of information needed to accurately and objectively evaluate an award was generally fragmentary or not available at all.  It was also found that some of the initially selected criteria were more meaningful for an evaluation than others, primarily because several criteria turned out to be either too subjective or too broadly defined.  This initial testing provided some valuable lessons regarding criteria selection: 

An illustrative sample of the initial evaluation matrix including criteria, metrics, and resulting scores is presented in the following table. 

Note:  This table is an excerpt only.  Some criteria, metrics, and awards have been excluded to facilitate display. 

Industry Focus Group 

The inconclusive results of this initial award evaluation drove the researchers to seek additional input from industry professionals.  A team of industry representatives was invited to a brainstorming session to address the key issues identified thus far in the study.  The team’s discussions focused on four key award evaluation elements:  1) Segmentation, 2) Criteria, 3) Prestige, and 4) Credibility.  Each element is briefly discussed below. 

There may be a need to recognize substantial differences in the nature and objectives of existing awards.  This may require judicious segmentation.  Segmentation is simply a process of categorizing awards according to some common trait.  Possible segmentation categories were explored and can be based on the type of “end product” (residential, heavy civil, industrial, etc), on the “nature” of the outstanding accomplishment (innovation, leadership, team work, safety, etc), or on the focus of the award (academia, safety, special interests such as concrete, steel structures, or outstanding achievements).  An analysis of the 200+ awards listed in the database along any of these lines will quickly yield the most meaningful segmentation, which should always be kept small and manageable. 

The criteria that will yield the most objective evaluation and rating of the existing awards must be identified.  Many criteria were suggested and the advantages and shortcomings of each were explored.  Again, it was strongly recommended that the researchers be very selective with the final criteria to avoid ambiguous and overly diffuse ratings. 

The concept of prestige was presented and recommended as a broader evaluation concept.  Prestige is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as Reputation or distinction based on brilliance of achievement, character, etc.  Sevier (2003) references, in a university context, a related concept termed “reputational capital” which is a form of intangible organizational wealth that he considers a precursor to prestige.  Prestige can be built, but it must be maintained with the continual infusion of resources.  Sevier notes that to achieve prestige, the following elements generally must exist:  well-demonstrated quality, selectiveness, world community membership, ability to open doors, and an old yet innovative environment. 

The issue of credibility in the eyes of award recipients, peers and the general public was considered as an important aspect that must be integrated into every evaluation.  Credibility is directly related to the reputation of the sponsor, the impartiality of the nomination and selection process, and the nature of the metrics measuring the process.

As the researchers hope to evolve this study into an annual awards evaluation, they proposed the creation of a standing panel of industry advisors that would serve as a sounding board regarding methods and issues associated with the evaluation of awards.  All participants in the focus group agreed to become members of this awards industry panel, which now includes: 

Proposed Analysis and Valuation Method

With a stronger study foundation resulting from the focus group discussion, the researchers integrated the past efforts with the new insights.  A robust criterion framework for an objective and verifiable analysis, evaluation and rating of awards based on “prestige” has been developed and is being tested.  All the while the database continues to be expanded as more existing awards are identified and additional data on those already listed is collected.  Through the use of tools such as selective criteria and judicious segmentation as previously discussed, the researchers are focused on identifying, in a credible study format, those awards exhibiting the greatest prestige.  Using the key elements of these prestigious awards, the researchers may be able to drive the continuous improvement of all industry awards and subsequently enhance the image of the industry. 

Prestige 

Returning to the previously introduced concept of prestige, a more comprehensive view of the topic focuses on the purpose of this study rather than solely on the reputation of Universities as discussed in Sevier’s article.  The researchers propose four aspects or critical values, which when combined, promote prestige.  Each of these values incorporates a number of elements or sub-criteria.  These critical values are Purpose, Projection, Process and Practice. 

The values can be presented graphically as shown in Figure 1:

Purpose groups those criteria that define what an award stands for and why it exists.  This value examines the clarity and specificity of the award’s mission, its particular focus (safety, quality, innovations, etc.) and the extent of its horizon.   

Projection addresses how the value of the award is perceived.  Its measurable elements indicate credibility, degree of recognition and tangible value. 

Process encompasses the criteria that measure how nominations are solicited and winners selected.  It evaluates the nomination process, the judging principles and standards, and the transparency of the entire process including the selection of judges. 

Under Practice are grouped criteria that provide insight regarding how awards are used and improved.  Its elements include publicity practices, the profile given to the awards ceremony itself, the constancy and longevity of award objectives, and the use of a continuous improvement process. 

The hierarchy of these critical values (blue text), the associated evaluation criteria (green text), and metrics (black text) are summarized in the following graphic: 

Figure 2 

Direct relationships exist between the four critical values.  These relationships must be in balance and harmony to constitute prestige.  If one of the values is less developed than the others, prestige is not perceived.  Likewise, if a critical value deteriorates due to detrimental actions or decisions affecting its clarity, prestige is lost.

Evaluation

Any attempt to evaluate, compare, and rank awards requires the use of criteria and metrics that drive valid, reproducible results.  For a given award, data associated with each criterion and metric, as noted above, may be gathered via a questionnaire or checklist.  A numerical value can be assigned to all criteria and metrics.  Calculating each criterion’s numerical total results in a graphic indication and measurement of each of the four critical values.  A single graphic presentation of the four critical values and their sub-elements can be presented as shown in Figure 3.  An objective measure of prestige may be obtained in this manner.

The larger the area under the linked measurements for all criteria, or the closer this area gets to the outermost circle, the greater the award’s prestige.  No single criterion dominates and the prestige of awards with very specific focus can still be evaluated and compared.  This form of presentation also visually presents the harmony among the four critical values. 

This measurement concept can be refined at will to provide any detail or measurement desired.  The concept may also be tested and verified utilizing such prestigious awards as the Nobel Prize or the Academy Awards, which likely enjoy the highest prestige in today’s society.

Awards with a high degree of prestige are able to raise the standards of the industry, draw new practitioners and young people into the industry, and propel the recognition process beyond the AEC industry.

Segmentation 

When approaching the analysis of a wide array of awards, the researcher must acknowledge that many nuances give rise to the varying purpose and focus of each award.  Given the nature of the AEC industry and its large number of specialties and contracting opportunities, some segmentation of awards may be necessary.  Segmentation groups awards into categories that relate similarities in the award’s objectives, focus, and the recipient’s accomplishments.  This process will allow the researchers to better compare awards and ensure that accomplishments in all aspects of design and construction are recognized and rewarded.  Such a process may also introduce recognition into areas that are currently under-recognized.   An initial attempt at segmentation has yielded quite useful results as illustrated below in Figure 4:

Figure 4 

Additional segmentation approaches are being tested and the strongest methodology will be selected to achieve the goals of this study.   

Results, Recommendations and Next Steps 

To date, the processes and proceedings discussed in this paper have enabled the authors to achieve several of their stated goals.  These are: 

The study is now in the position to advance to its final phase.  Several steps that are underway in this portion of the study are:   

The researchers are also investigating the potential to use the findings of this study in the pursuit of enhancing the image of the AEC industry.  Three such possibilities are:  1) annual award evaluations, 2) enhancing the value of the database, and 3) establishing an intercollegiate award.

Annual Award Evaluation 

The annual award evaluation would be an objective process that periodically identifies the most prestigious awards bestowed in the AEC industry.  This process would encourage both awarding organizations and industry members in their quest for continuous improvement.  An annual award evaluation process would provide a public forum to recognize prestigious awards and excellence in the AEC awards process.  Much like other rankings that are periodically performed (e.g. top cities to live, top 400 contractors, best films of the year) this process would propel the recognition of industry excellence beyond the AEC community.   

Enhance the Future Value of the Awards Database 

Significant time and expense have been devoted to create an industry awards database.  The data it contains can serve other purposes beyond the needs of this study.  With public access and a simple search tool, the database, if properly marketed, is a resource that can be utilized by all members of the AEC community to identify available awards, understand award objectives, identify recent recipients, and illustrate the level of excellence for which the industry strives.   

Establishment of an Intercollegiate Award 

Great institutions acknowledge and reward initiative and best practices among members.  The leadership of a program recognizes that students, faculty and staff determine and define a unit’s greatness.  Awards are tangible items bestowed in recognition of achievement.  In an educational program, awards are also intended to embody a deeper and broader meaning, indicating a special appreciation for hard work and dedication to the betterment of the academic unit, colleagues, and derivation of new knowledge.  The creation of a new Intercollegiate Award may provide another step toward enhancing the image of the AEC industry by marketing awards. 

Conclusion 

The authors continue to pursue this study.  The effort thus far provides evidence of the importance and value of awards in the AEC industry.  All interviews and panel discussions have confirmed that industry awards are a mechanism to shape the industry’s image by recognizing and publicizing continually increasing levels of quality and professionalism.  The results of the initial ASC study confirm the researcher’s premise that measuring and tracking awards data may influence the way the industry, and the public at large, values and perceives AEC accomplishments.  

Organizations who understand that significant marketing value can be derived from awards, prominently promote awards they receive on their websites.  However, these organizations are still relatively few in number.  If AEC organizations can be educated regarding the marketing aspect of awards, it can be expected that they will enhance the awards sections of their websites and reap the associated benefits.  Additionally, such understanding will increase interest in pursuing awards.  This will drive the competition for awards to a higher level, increase the quality of work in the industry, and thereby enhance its image.

Awards research, particularly as related to the AEC industry, is quite scarce.  Therefore, there are many opportunities for researchers, academia, and industry professionals to establish a base of information from which the industry can streamline its awards approach.  This study is laying the foundation for this process.   

References 

Literature searches in major journals produced no papers or articles on construction awards.  Some articles were found on the use of the Internet in the construction industry.  To the extent they proved useful, these articles are listed below, together with the precursor to this study. 

Badger, William W. & Rich, Spencer (2003). “Construction Industry Awards” Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 39^th Annual Conference, 59-66.

Sevier, Robert (2003).  “The Problem with Prestige” University Business, 16-17. 

Bodapati, S. Narayan & Naney, Dawn (2001).  A perspective on the image of the construction industry.  Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 37^th Annual Conference, 212-223.  

Orth, Daryl L. (2000).  The use of Internet, intranet, E-mail and web-based project management software in the construction industry.  Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 37^th Annual Conference, 191 – 199. 

Schexnayder, Cliff & Wiezel, Avi (1999).  The Use of Internet by Construction Students and Professionals.  Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 35^th Annual Conference, 349 – 361. 

Wiezel, Avi & Chasey, Allan & Schexnayder, Cliff (1999).  Building a Web Site for Construction Organizations.  Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 35^th Annual Conference, 285 – 297.