- ASC Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference
- Brigham Young University - Provo, Utah
- April 8 - 10, 2004
|
|
|
An Alternative Senior Capstone Class: Experiential Learning & European Construction
Many academic disciplines outside of construction education have successfully used international study abroad programs as an effective means of broadening college students’ academic, personal, and professional views of the world (NASFA, 2003). Therefore, in the summer of 2002, the Department of Building Science at Auburn University established a traveling study abroad class to expose students to European construction practices and professionals. This class was offered to 5 undergraduate students as an alternative senior capstone class and involved analyzing, synthesizing, and reporting on information collected during a 5-week European study abroad class. Students visited with construction professionals and collected data from 5 of the top 10 international construction firms (ENR, 2002). The class visited construction projects in London, Rome, Copenhagen, Berlin, Munich, and Paris, along with several day trips to companies located in smaller cities. This paper describes the class structure, rationale, and outcomes of the class along with specific examples of students’ qualitative research methods.
Key Words: Senior Capstone, study abroad, international construction
Introduction
Many academic disciplines outside of construction education have successfully used international study abroad programs as an effective means of broadening college students’ academic, personal, and professional views of the world (NASFA, 2003). Therefore, the department of Building Science at Auburn University offered students the chance to expand their horizons by participating in a construction-specific study abroad class during summer term 2002.
Studying abroad is an invaluable experience – for many students, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to live in a foreign country, to experience its customs and culture, and to adapt to new surroundings (Study Abroad, 2003). Traveling through Europe introduced students to new environments and knowledge that can best be gained from experiential learning. The successes gained through these experiences both equip and prepare students to thrive in a global world. This paper describes an alternative senior capstone class that was designed to expose students to international construction and also use qualitative research methods to study a specific construction-related topic. The course history, rationale, structure, and outcomes will be discussed along with examples of students’ qualitative research methods.
Background and Context
History and Rationale
Typically, Building Science students enroll in a capstone class their last semester of their senior year as part of the required coursework. The class involves using an actual set of construction documents (plans and specifications) to create a complete estimate, bid proposal, cost loaded schedule, and project management reports. However, the study abroad class was offered as an alternative senior capstone project and involved analyzing, synthesizing, and reporting on information collected during a 5-week European study abroad class. The class traveled to London, Rome, Copenhagen, Berlin, Munich, and Paris, along with several day trips to other smaller cities.
The traveling study abroad class was offered to upper level undergraduate students at the end of fall semester 2001 (see Appendix A for announcement). The study abroad class actually consisted of two separate required Building Science classes. One was the alternative senior capstone class and the other was the contracting business class. By offering these two courses together, the senior students could graduate 1 semester early and complete their required senior capstone project during the 10-week summer semester, rather than the following fall semester as the curriculum dictates. Six students participated: five seniors and 1 junior. The junior student only participated in the Contracting Business class for course credit and completed the regular senior capstone class the following summer term.
The overall goal of the class was to expose students to construction-specific companies, projects, practices, and professionals that they would never be exposed to otherwise. There were three construction-related visits per city (e.g. construction projects, material suppliers, construction firms, equipment manufacturers, etc.). Students visited with construction professionals and collected data from 5 of the top 10 international construction firms (ENR, 2002). Some of the other visits included: marble quarries in Carrara, GPS mapping in Venice, concrete pump manufacturers in southern Germany, renovation of the U.S. embassy in Rome, renovation of the War Cabinet Rooms in London, and the construction of a new development in Copenhagen. Also, there was one cultural event per city (e.g. ballet, opera, concert, musical, etc.).
Structure of the Alternative Capstone Course
Research Topic and Itinerary
In addition to the 5-week summer study abroad class, all of the students were required to participate in a 1-hr. study abroad preparation class offered during spring semester 2002. The preparation class was designed to be interactive on many levels. The students participated in developing the course itinerary for the summer and selected their capstone research topics to compliment the scheduled events in each of the cities visited. During the course itinerary phase, students were responsible for contacting the construction firms, material suppliers, and equipment manufacturers in cities that supported their research topics. Through this process, the itinerary was continuously revised to include construction visits that the students arranged (see figure 1). These student leaders (shown in figure 1 in bold type) were directly responsible for visits to Skanska’s London office, Bovis projects in London, the U.S. Embassy renovation project in Rome, the historic church renovation in Venice, GPS mapping and construction in Venice, the Sony Center visit in Berlin, and the visit to Schwing in Memmingen. Other scheduled construction-related visits were arranged by the professor in charge of the class, in addition to arranging the cultural events for each city.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Figure 1. Study Abroad Class Itinerary. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A high priority was placed on relating the students’ research topics with the study abroad construction visits. This enabled the students to collect data for their capstone class research topics (e.g. concrete placement methods & equipment, project delivery methods, and immigrant labor) as part of the activity. The students collected original source documents (e.g. transcribed interviews with key executives, photos, company brochures, company training material, videos of visits, etc.) during the 5-week traveling half of the 10-week summer semester. After returning from Europe, the second 5 weeks of the semester was dedicated to developing and completing the written capstone projects.
Qualitative Research Conducted by Students
In addition to attending all events, students were required to participate in the class by asking questions and soliciting information specific to their capstone topics and documenting the information gathered. For several visits, the students e-mailed their questions to the companies prior to the visit, which allowed the companies to respond with more appropriate and detailed information. The documentation process included audio taping and transcribing interviews with construction professionals, videotaping or photographing specific equipment, methods or materials and collecting, compiling and assimilating technical data and information.
Observation and Unstructured Interviews
The students visited several construction firms and project sites during the class. In order to keep the information organized, the students created what they called a Construction Visit Recap to allow them to remember the information when they returned to the classroom and write their capstone project. An example of this type of documentation is shown in figure 2.
|
Construction Visit Recap
Date Visited: Tuesday May 7, 2002; 2:00 p.m. Company: Skanska
Location: London, United Kingdom, Job Site Conference Room Meeting With: Dennis Steadman
Construction Project: Baker Street Project
Topics Discussed: Project Delivery Methods ü Construction Management ü Fast Track ü Design-Build ü Project Team Structure and Organization
Construction Means and Methods ü 18” Load Bearing Brick Walls ü London Planning Commission Codes and Regulations ü Temporary Structures ü Concrete Placement
Meeting/Discussion Review: The meeting with Skanska involved a discussion and a tour of one of their current projects – The Baker Street Project, which was a new construction project involving the construction of a 6-story office building. The budgeted cost for this project was ₤19,500,000; however, the actual cost was ₤21,500,000.
The first part of the meeting involved touring the jobsite in which some very unique construction means and methods were observed. First of all, the original intent of the owner was to build a single office building. However, because of the strict historical design regulations set by London’s planning commission, the owner could not build a single continuous building that stretched the entire block. Therefore, the exterior of the building consisted of four (4) different, but complimentary buildings; however, the inside was one building. Although the outside of the building appeared to be over 200 years old on the exterior, the interior supported very modern design and construction. The exterior design regulations forced many costly construction practices, such as 18” exterior, load bearing brick walls. In order to speed up the construction process of the entire building while the brick was being laid, large temporary structures were erected so that construction above and below could continue without the exterior walls. As soon as all of the bricks for the exterior wall had been laid, then the temporary structures could be removed and transfer the loads to the permanent structure.
The second half of the meeting involved discussing topics such as project delivery, project team structure, and job risk. With regards to project delivery a construction management approach was used. The owner attempted to manage the project himself while at the same time not assuming any of the risk. For the most part, this did not work and caused many problems, which resulted in many delays in the project. A design-build approach would have been a much more logical and efficient approach to do the project. The organization for the project team was also discussed, and many of the team members met with the group to explain their roles. |
|
Figure 2. Example of a Construction Visit Recap used to document class visits |
Part of the Construction Visit Recap was 2 to 4 photos attached to the text in order for the students to remember certain key aspects of the visit that they might want to elaborate on in their paper. For example, the temporary structures used to support the building frame until the exterior load-bearing masonry walls could be finished are shown in figures 3 and 4.
 |
 |
| Figure 3. Temporary beam (blue) at Baker St. Project – Skanska London | Figure 4. Floor beam (white) connected to load bearing masonry wall at Baker St. Project |
Structured Interviews
Each student created a set of interview questions that they would ask during every visit. An example of these questions, for the research topic concerning Project Delivery Systems, is shown in figure 5.
|
European Construction Firm Visit: Bovis Lend Lease
European Construction Project: Paternoster Square Project, London Treasury Project, and Underground War Cabinet Rooms Extension Project
Interview with: Bovis Lend Lease - London, United Kingdom. Thursday May 9, 2002, 9:30 a.m.
General Questions About Construction / Project Delivery / Company
It has been my understanding that there are two components of every Project Delivery system: Team Structure and Pricing Option. With regards to the Project Team, what is the most effective project delivery system? With regards to the Pricing Option?
The most effective project
delivery system is the one, which clearly defines the responsibilities and
deliverables of each party to an agreement. Once clearly defined, the
parties can concentrate on the relationship issues, i.e. working
harmoniously together as a team. As regards Pricing Option, this should give each party fair reward for risk taken on board and there should be some measures within the agreement to resolve any financial issues that arise.
Have you had any interaction with a Quantity Surveying firm? If so, what is your opinion of the quantity surveying firm? In your mind, what is the importance of a quantity surveyor?
Yes. Quantity Surveyors tend to be reactive and not proactive. The good ones involve themselves in the overall management of a project, keep the budget on track and are able to offer good financial advice as to the methods and materials to be used in construction. The not so good ones tell you where the costs have been overspent after the event. |
| Figure 5. Structured interview questions (with company answers in blue italics). |
The interview questions then became more focused on project delivery systems as shown in figures 6 and 7.
Design-Bid-Build
It seems that the traditional convention of Project Delivery has been Design-Bid-Build contracts. What problems do you see or do owners/architects/contractors encounter with Design-Bid-Build?
If the requirements of the Client and scope of the project is clearly defined then there should be few problems. However, the scope is often ill defined and this means the Client does not get what he thinks he has purchased. Contractors have problems in getting paid for potential variations to the scheme as the Client believes it should have been included in the original price.
It has been said that with Hard Bid/Lump Sum Projects owners get the best price available. Do owners truly get the best price?
Owners probably get the most competitive price from hard bid lump sum projects, but they only get the best price if the scope is fully detailed and the contractor has the right resources to build the project. At the end of the day Owners only get what they pay for. If the Owner chooses the lowest price, this will often mean that the Contractor is going to spend a lot of effort in trying to get his money back through claims or by cutting corners. |
|
Figure 6. Structured interview questions specific to Project Delivery Systems. |
|
Design-Build
Does Design-Build manage to bring the project team (architects, engineers, contractors, and owners) together more effectively and successfully than that of Design-Bid-Build?
Usually good Teamwork is a
derivative of having the right people, with the right skills and the right
culture to work together. Price is also an important factor as to whether
people can work effectively together, i.e. if the risk is shared
disproportionately then people will realize this is unfair. Whether or not
there is an in house or external Design Team does not matter. It’s all
about the people and their skills. All in all, is the construction industry reverting back to the concept of the Master builder with the re-emerging presence of the Design Build project delivery method?
No, I do not believe so. Construction companies have shareholders to appease and they operate purely as businesses to make profit. If Design & Build enables construction companies to get work, then it will become a popular means of project delivery.
What is the future of Project Delivery Systems?
Project Delivery systems will follow what the market place wants. If Owners like Construction Management, then that is what will become the leading project delivery system. Design & Build, together with a two-stage procurement process for agreement of the project price will continue to be popular. Privately Financed or PFI/PPP will increasingly become popular. This is where the Contractor, together with Funding Institutions, finance, designs, build and maintain a building for a Client over a prescribed period in return for an annual payment. |
|
Figure 7. Structured interview questions specific to Design-Build. |
Photos and Video Documentation
The students took hundreds of photos during the class, both as documentation for their capstone projects and also for personal use. A very small sample of the European construction visit photos is shown in figures 8 through 11.
|
|
|
|
Figure 8. Students talking with Project Manager at Baker St. jobsite - Skanska |
Figure 9. Cranes at Paternoster Square project – Bovis Lend Lease |
|
|
|
|
Figure 10. Students with U.K. War Cabinet Secretary – Bovis Lend Lease |
Figure 11. Putzmeister PUMI, concrete ready mix truck & pump combined. |
Project Profiles
After the students returned home, they created another type of source document called the Project Profile. This allowed the students to synthesize the huge amount of information gathered during the study abroad class and then analyze specific aspects of the data. An example is shown in figure 12.
|
Project Profile For: London Underground Connect
Fluor Telecom - London, United Kingdom
General Project Information
Project Description: The London Underground Connect Project involves the installation and the refurbishment of the telecommunications system, which will include the installation of a metro radio system and a transmission network for every line of the London Underground. The new telecommunications project will provide a universal communication system as well as communication devices for all personnel involved with the maintenance and operations of the Underground. Ultimately this will provide more coordination among all members, which essentially creates a safer environment for the employees and a more efficient rail system. Fluor will be involved in not only the design, materials, equipment, and installation, but also a 20-year contract to maintain and operate the system.
The project consists of many challenges and unusual circumstances that have caused Fluor to be very cautious not only in the planning stages of the project, but also in the construction stages of the project. For example, the Fluor’s new-build contract has been divided into two teams within their company - the Enabling Works Team (EBW) and the Engineer-Procure-Construct Team (EPC). The EBW team is primarily responsible for the infrastructure work of the project such as hangers, concrete pads, and cabinets while the EPC team is responsible for the construction of the telecommunication devices that will be installed on the newly created or renovated infrastructure. This has led Fluor to develop coordination among the two teams to ensure that work proceeds as scheduled since the scheduled is fixed, and liquidated damages will be assessed for every day the project is late.
Another concern that Fluor dealt with in the planning stage was the safety of their employees in Underground environment during construction. The London Underground runs 364 days a year for 19 hours a day and will not be shut down while any of the work is taking place. Therefore, workers must be protected from the constant movement of the rail system. Also construction workers must be protected from the environmental hazards of the rail tunnels. Since many of the tunnels are very old, the air quality is very poor, and air analysis studies have shown that the air is made up of dried skin particles.
The project’s complexity forces Fluor to evaluate the quality of their subcontractors. Since Fluor does not self perform any of their work, their company is only as good as their subcontractors. Finally, strict and very specific specifications have been provided on the job for Fluor to follow. Therefore, Fluor has had to implement several quality control stops to ensure that their subcontractors are paying close attention to the work that they are doing. For example, the metal cabinets for which many of the telecommunications devices will be stored in must be protected for up to five (5) minutes of vandalism and theft.
Project Size: 244 miles Project Cost: (₤1,500,000,000)
Project Delivery Information
Pricing Option: Fixed Price
Project Delivery Method: Entire Project: Private Funded Initiative (PFI); Construction Portion: Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC)
Project Delivery Positives: Fluor maintains the philosophy to go where the work is, therefore, the entire team is centralized being located on three (3) different floors of one building. The design of the telecommunications system is able to be completed and provided by the contractor, which allows for the constructor and the designer to collaborate so that the project is more constructable. Fluor is able to relieve some of the financial burden of the job through the contract arrangements among the banks. The London Underground is liable for the project since the United Kingdom government backed the loan. If the project is a failure and the job goes bad, then Fluor would own a portion of the Underground and thus ensure that they would eventually be paid for the work done. The system being constructed is being built for the maintenance and operations’ partner. Therefore, the system’s construction is irrelevant to the client because it is based on performance.
Project Delivery Negatives: The project lacks client structure for many reasons. First of all, the client is very unresponsive to importance of the schedule and the cost of the project because they are a business that is backed by the government, and the job is merely something that needs to be completed. Secondly, the client is unaware of their role in the construction process. The contractor should have hired the services of Fluor or of a consultant to help them understand their involvement in the project and the importance of fast track construction and to maximize the contract. The client does not care because they are backed by the government. The contract has been awarded for three (3) years and the OJEC Notice was issued six (6) years ago, and there has been no construction thus far because of the client’s inability to manage the project. Because of the project’s inefficiency on the client’s side, Fluor has grown from a staff of 60 to a staff of 300 in order to execute the project properly. Since the technology was designed in 1996, Fluor is concerned about how advanced the telecom equipment will be by the time it is installed.
Reference Information:
Jim Rummings, New Construction Coordinator Steve Perria, Infrastructure Coordinator Friday May 10, 2002; 3:00 P.M. Fluor Conference Room, London
|
|
Figure 12. Example of Project Profile used to synthesize and analyze qualitative data collected during the study abroad class. |
Course Outcomes
Students were required to write an original research paper, using the ASC Journal style guidelines (ASC, 2003), in the range of 40 – 60 pages excluding copies of original source documents, appendices, and references. In addition, the students were required to create a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation that would be presented and defended to a jury of Building Science faculty. The student’s grade was based 75% on the written paper and 25% on the PowerPoint presentation. All five students completed their senior capstone projects by the end of the summer semester 2002. Student capstone project titles were:
 | The Past, the Present and the Future: An In-depth Analysis of the Progression of Construction Project Delivery |
| Project Delivery Methods: A Detailed Analysis of the Public-Private Partnerships, BOT and PFI |
| Concrete: History, Placing Equipment and Methods |
| Concrete Placement in the United States vs. Europe |
| Immigrant and Foreign Construction Workers: A look at the United States vs. Europe |
During the 5-week traveling portion of the class, students visited five of the top ten international contractors as reported by Engineering News Record (ENR, 2002). While visiting these firms, the students experienced unique construction-related situations they would never have been exposed to in the United States. Some examples of these unique experiences were: quarries in Carrara, Italy which supplies statuary grade white marble worldwide, restoration of a villa that serves as the U.S. Embassy in Rome, visiting the inside of the Underground War Cabinets Room in London, the design and manufacture of concrete pumps at Putzmeister and Schwing, and being introduced to the profession of quantity surveying by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in London. All the students responded positively to the study abroad experience and thought that the class met their expectations, both academically and personally.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The overall goal of the class was to expose students to construction-specific companies, projects, practices, and professionals that they would never be exposed to otherwise. The typical undergraduate student (Auburn, 2002) in the Building Science program is:
| White, male and from the southeast region of the United States |
| 10% of students are female |
| less than 3 % are minorities or international students |
| Protestant |
| public school educated and from small, rural towns in Georgia and Alabama |
| 67% of the university’s students are from the state of Alabama |
Therefore, another major goal of the course was to expand the students’ academic, professional, and personal views from regional to global. Additional course learning objectives included:
· exposure to different construction methods, materials and equipment
· professional project management practices in international construction
· the unique aspects of historic preservation and restoration projects
· understanding project delivery methods used in global projects
· view world-class performing arts and fine arts
· issues relating to construction craft labor and immigrant labor
· view monumental and historical architecture
· experience different cultures, currencies, transportation systems and languages
The Building Science faculty is firmly convinced that the study abroad capstone course added tremendous value to the educational experience of not only the students who participated, but to our construction program as well. The department of Building Science intends to continue the study abroad course on a bi-annual basis. The next class is scheduled for summer semester 2004.
References
ASC (2003), Associated Schools of Construction, Retrieved November 1, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascweb.org
Auburn University (2002), Enrollment/Student Characteristics, Retrieved November 1, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.auburn.edu
ENR (2002), Engineering News Record: 2001 ENR Top 225 International Contractors, Retrieved May 1, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.enr.com
NASFA (2003), Association of International Educators: Study Abroad, Retrieved November 1, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nafsa.org
Study Abroad (2003), The StudyAbroad.com Handbook, Retrieved November 1, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.studyabroad.com
Appendix A
Summer 2002 – BSCI 4980 - Special Capstone: European Study Abroad
The College of Architecture, Design and Construction, through its strategic planning, is committed to providing international learning opportunities for its students through study abroad programs, exchange programs, and special field trips. Because of the semester conversion at Auburn University, a special educational situation has arisen for Building Science students currently (fall 2001) enrolled in Project Controls II. This one-time occurrence in the curriculum flowchart will allow a group of Building Science students the opportunity to study European construction practices, participate in a special thesis class, and graduate summer session 2002.
Building Science students currently enrolled in Project Controls II (fall 2001) AND have only BSCI courses remaining on their plan of study will be allowed to participate in a special thesis class summer session 2002. The special thesis option will involve scholarly work equal to or in excess of the traditional Building Science thesis class. The individual student theses will involve analyzing, synthesizing, and reporting on data/information collected during a 5-week European study abroad class sponsored by the Building Science department and taught by Professor Scott Kramer. In addition to the special thesis class, BSCI 4980, students will concurrently enroll in an accelerated 5-week class of BSCI 4800 – Contracting Business taught by Professor Scott Kramer. In order to graduate at the end of Summer session 2002, students participating in the special thesis class will be allowed to change their Spring 2002 course schedule.
The 2002 European Study Abroad class will be similar to the summer 2000 class. The overall goal is to expose Building Science students to construction-specific companies, projects, practices, and professionals in a culture that they would never be exposed to otherwise. There will be three construction-related visits per city (e.g. construction projects, material suppliers, construction firms, equipment manufacturers, etc.). Also, there will be one cultural event per city (e.g. ballet, opera, concert, musical, etc.).
The tentative 2002 European Study Abroad class itinerary and possible visits:
LONDON – Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), Quantity Surveying firms, Museum of London Archeological Services (MOLAS), London theatre, etc.
PARIS – Bouygues Construction Group (ranked #4, international construction), Architecture & Design firms, Concrete material suppliers, Opera Garnier, etc.
STUTTGART – Putzmeister Concrete Pumps, Liebherr Tower Cranes, Construction projects, Trout fishing in the Black Forest, etc.
BERLIN – Largest concentration of construction projects in the world (over 2000 tower cranes in 2000)
COPENHAGEN – Orestad City (planned community southeast of Copenhagen), Oresund Bridge, Skanska Construction , Theatre, etc.
The program fee for the 2002 European Study Abroad class will be $6,000 and does not include Auburn University tuition. The class will be limited to 12 students. The fee includes: roundtrip airfare from Atlanta, lodging, daily continental breakfast, rail pass, and cultural event admissions. Other costs are the responsibility of the student.
Interested students must pay a $2,000 non-refundable deposit, to the Building Science department, by January 7, 2002 in order to secure a seat in the Summer 2002 special capstone class and be allowed to change their Spring 2002 class schedule. SEATS WILL BE SECURED ON A FIRST-COME FIRST-SERVED BASIS OF PAYING THE NON-REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT. An overflow list will be collected, but no assurance will be given for admittance to the special capstone class. The second payment of $2,000 will be due February 15, 2002 and the remaining $2,000 will be due April 1, 2002.
If you are interested in the summer 2002 European Study Abroad class or have any questions, please feel free to contact Professor Scott Kramer at kramesw@auburn.edu.
