Back Home Next
ASC Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference
University of Cincinnati - Cincinnati, Ohio
April 6 - 9, 2005         
 
Measuring construction industry / higher education engagement in the United Kingdom
 
Stephen Allen BSc (Hons) PhD and Aled Williams BSc MSc PGCE MCIOB MIMBM ILTM
University of Salford
United Kingdom
 
Exposure to industry practice and work experience is beneficial in the education of students in their preparation for entering the construction industry.  Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) who successfully engage with industry potentially offer students the opportunity to be both more knowledgeable and better prepared when they enter the workplace and in the process deliver productivity benefits to their employers.  Government education policy in the UK encourages engagement, particularly in vocational disciplines such as construction.  This paper outlines the process of developing a model to measure the performance of industry – higher education engagement.  Accelerating Change in Built Environment Education (ACBEE) phase 1 case studies are evaluated and a conceptual framework of indicators for evaluation of industry – HEI engagement is presented.  The paper also outlines the rationale adopted in the project for measuring the performance of industry - education engagement through the identification and evaluation of measurement models which guided the development of the ACBEE measurement model.
 
Key Words: Construction education, industry engagement, classification framework, measurement
 
 
Introduction
 
This paper outlines the process of developing a model and validating a methodology for measuring the performance of industry – higher education engagement.  Accelerating Change in Built Environment Education (ACBEE) was initiated as a follow up to the Construction Industry Training Board’s (CITB) Making Connections program to improve communication and dialogue between the construction industry and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).  In this paper ACBEE phase 1 case studies are evaluated and a conceptual framework of indicators for evaluation of industry – HEI engagement is presented.  The paper also outlines the rationale adopted in the project for measuring the performance of industry - education engagement through the identification and evaluation of measurement models which guided the development of the ACBEE measurement model.  The paper will also evaluate other measurement models and synthesize the parts that can be used to inform model development and finally will present a model by which engagement can begin to be measured. 
 
Background and Context
 
ACBEE aims to improve communication and dialogue between the construction industry and academia in order better to align education with industry’s needs, promote interdisciplinary team-working and show how this can deliver improved industry performance.  Specifically ACBBE aims to develop a model and validate a methodology for measuring the performance and added value from industry – higher education engagement.  Outputs should be a valuable input to the work of the Sector Skills Council in the UK (ConstructionSkills), and it will benefit from the involvement of Constructing Excellence with its innovative approach to management of the construction supply chain. 
 
The Latham Report in 1994 (Constructing the Team) and the Egan Report in 1998 (Rethinking Construction) defined a new direction for the construction industry in the UK in their advocacy of a more integrated way of working, embodied within a partnership approach.  In addition to this major shift in production philosophy, students also want the opportunity to develop transferable skills, to enhance their employability and to gain knowledge and experience that will give them an edge in the competition for jobs (Cooper et al, 2004).  This is a dual challenge that industry and higher education institutes must work together to overcome in the future and provides a key rationale in evaluating engagement; the very purpose of this research.
 
The stated aim of the UK government is to increase higher education participation rates to 50% by 2010.  The figure of 50% is based upon analysis of the type of skills which the economy is expected to require and the level of demand anticipated within the economy in 2010 (Newby, 2004).  The Dearing Report (1997) reinforced the promotion of an enterprise culture in English Universities and encouraged the teaching function in higher education to be focused upon the promotion of ‘student learning’, rather than focusing on ‘teaching’.  The financing of an evolving higher education system with increasing under-graduate numbers is an area of concern, and how greater ‘partnership’ with industry in its delivery will impact upon academic integrity, freedom and autonomy.  Hence, evaluation of current engagement activity is an important activity within the ACBEE program and is the key problem we consider in this paper.
 
Statement of the Problem
 
The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration (2003) and the White Paper on The Future of Higher Education (DfES, 2003) stress the need for progress through partnership. Universities and industry work together on a wide variety of activities for the benefit of the student body (Williams, 2004) but there is no clear consensus as to the value or success of these activities.  There is limited evaluation of current engagement activities and this paper seeks to establish a framework for commencing this evaluation activity.
 
This lack of evaluation makes it difficult to promote the development of new programs, courses or projects that adapt a more integrated and engaging approach between industry and higher education.  This would assist with the development of the ‘key skills’ that Dearing identified to sit alongside subject specific skills and what he termed cognitive skills (communication, numeracy, use of IT, and learning how to learn).  Such skills are typically identified in such studies.  In an American study of engineering education (Back and Sanders, 1998) three core skill sets were identified – personal, management and technical.  In other studies generic skills such as communication, problem solving and teamwork are also highlighted (Dunne and Rawlins, 2000).
 
Developing this, there is a need to improve the preparedness of construction graduates when they enter industry and this must be assessed in relation to the curriculum and how they go about gaining their skills and knowledge.  The skills and knowledge required to enter the industry are changing due to new business processes, new ways of organizing and managing production and, product innovation encapsulated within the Latham and Egan philosophies.  This also impacts upon how best the appropriate skills and knowledge can be developed in students.  A recent Construction Industry Council study (CIC, 2004) explored general problems with skills and competence in the industry, recruitment and retention, and training and development.  In this study it was identified that 80% of firms experience some skills problems within their existing workforce although generally these problems were not severe.
 
The education the student receives whilst in higher education can follow a number of curriculum models (Chisholm, 2003), although generally there tends to be a mix of the methods identified below.  Chisholm also hints at the possible benefits of experiential learning, specifically by learning in the workplace as a strategy for achieving the goals of both industry and individual students.  Courses currently offered provide a combination of the following:
 
bulletTraditional module based program
bulletEngaging with industry through a work based learning program
bulletInter-disciplinary teaching and projects
bulletWork experience through industry placements (‘thick’ 12 months / ‘thin’ six months)
 
Multi- or even interdisciplinary learning experiences are encouraged in the Dearing Report (Barnett, 1998) so that students gain their higher learning through the perspectives of more than one discipline.  It would appear that the UK government policy writers believe that the fragmented nature of the construction and engineering sector would stand to benefit from successful initiatives in this area. 
 
 
Method
 
The aim of this the project is to develop a model and validate a methodology for measuring the performance of industry – higher education engagement. In order to satisfy this aim, certain activities have been undertaken which this paper reports upon:
 
  1. ACBEE Phase 1 Case Studies completed (Williams, 2004).
  2. ACBEE Phase 1 Case Studies evaluated (Williams, 2005).
  3. Evaluation models identified and new classification framework created.
  4. Proposed model developed (to be tested and validated in next phase).
 
In addition to reviewing briefly these activities the paper presents the intended future activities of the research project and implementation in the UK construction education sector and other sectors.  Activities 1 and 2 above have been completed and are reported below.  In addition, work on activities 3 and 4 to date are also presented below.
 
 
Results
 
Phase 1 of the ACBEE project, in which 21 case studies of engagement were undertaken, (Williams 2005) identified a variety of teaching and learning practices in the built environment.  The key findings from this research were that these case studies demonstrate that they all share elements of linking theory with practice which are situational depending upon curriculum requirements.
 
It is difficult to separate the context of the knowledge and understanding from its application due to the vocational nature of the built environment.  Most of the case studies relate to the multi-disciplinary workplace and seek to take place in, or to recreate the real work environment.  In addition, even within a single-disciplinary context many of the case studies are experiential.
 
In the ACBEE interviews conducted by Williams (2004), a key question posed to both university and industry partners sought to identify the five most important issues that need to be tackled to provide innovative engagement.  This elicited different reasons for engagement and collaboration from the key stakeholders, in particular:
 
bullet
HEIs can achieve things on limited resources
bullet
Potential for mentoring schemes and sharing experiences
bullet
Industry informing the content of the syllabus
bullet
Increased dialogue between industry, HEIs and professional bodies
bullet
Increased relevance of research activity
 
Interpreting the above we can infer that there is a need for a ‘common language’ to enable industry to engage more deeply with providers of higher education.  In addition, there is a need to encourage industry and HEIs to work together to improve dialogue and develop shared understanding. 
 
In addition to this, to help develop this understanding there is a need to classify and categorize the nature of the engagement which occurs in each case study.  To do this there is a need to develop a classification model which permits an evaluation to be made and a categorization of each case study to be made based upon pre-determined criteria.  The first step in this process was to consider whether any existing model specifically addresses this problem.  The literature review sought to identify and consider such models and ultimately led to the creation of the new framework presented at the end of this paper.
 
Evaluating related models
 
ACBEE Phase 1 clearly identified that engagement currently takes place throughout the UK in many guises.  In developing a model to categorize engagement, a number of other models were identified, reviewed and evaluated.  Three specific models that were referred to and assisted in creating the ACBEE engagement model are briefly reviewed below.  The models the team considered were the Hewlett-Packard model for university relations, the capability maturity model and the University Partnership to Benchmark Enterprise Activities and Technologies (UPBEAT).
 
University relations: the HP Model
 
This model identifies the stages in the development of strategic relationships for knowledge transfer presented by an Executive Director of the Hewlett-Packard Company, and had been developed based upon the company’s initial early relationship with Stanford University.  In addition to this, changes in the nature of global business pressures, in universities and in the company itself, required HP to develop a strategically focused, worldwide university relations program involving key stakeholders so that university capabilities and course offerings could be strategically aligned to HP business needs (Johnson, 2003).
 
A critical idea developed in this program was the concept of the “Knowledge Supply Chain” and how university partners needed to be involved in the “seamless, end-to-end process of knowledge creation and transfer”.  Critically, HP accepts that the knowledge creation process straddles academia and industry as both sectors generate, use and transfer knowledge: but barriers do exist.  To overcome these barriers the building of long-term relations is seen as important, moving from sponsorship to real partnership which involves commitment to understand each others’ environment and trusting the other party to leverage scarce resources.
 
To illustrate the partnership continuum, a five stage model is presented that could be implemented over a period of 5 years.  The 5 stages are as follows:
bullet
Awareness
bullet
Involvement
bullet
Support
bullet
Sponsorship
bullet
Strategic Partner
 
This model presented an outline framework for the ACBEE engagement model but the 5 year progression presented a difficulty in taking a snap-shot of current activity.  A different approach was required, and the concept of capability maturity in the SPICE model was considered next. 
 
Capability maturity: the SPICE model
 
A capability maturity model makes the distinction between organizations that have mature, well-established business processes, and those where the processes are immature.  There tend to be levels of maturity and migration paths from a lower level to a higher level.  The original Capability Maturity Model was developed for the United States Department of Defence by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University in 1991 as a tool to evaluate software suppliers.
 
An example of a capability maturity model in the construction field is SPICE (Structured Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises) developed at the University of Salford and is a method that organizations can use to continuously improve their business process (Construct IT, 2000).  The SPICE model had two important attributes which define its essence and which the ACBEE engagement model would seek to embody:
 
bullet A method of measuring the maturity of a process or activity; and
bullet A five level framework for achieving step-by-step improvements and the original 5 stage model for SPICE included the following levels:
bullet Level 1: Initial
bullet Level 2: Planned and Tracked
bullet Level 3: Well Defined
bullet Level 4: Quantitatively Controlled
bullet Level 5: Continuously Improving
 
This idea has inherent flexibility and has been adopted for other activities such as SPICE FM (Construct IT, 2001) and could be implemented without a specific “year one to year five” timescale as presented in the HP model.  This model provided an opportunity to identify where an organization or an activity is today; and, what would be required to move to another level.
 
UPBEAT
 
Further to the relatively simple models considered above we sought to utilize the ideas and concepts embodied within the UPBEAT (University Partnership to Benchmark Enterprise Activities and Technologies) program (Powell, 2004).  Powell’s model specifically sought to measure university reach out activity using metrics that measured third stream actions that were socially inclusive, performance related and community based.  The primary focus was also upon successful enterprise ventures rather than focused upon student teaching and learning activities, but UPBEAT did provide some useful parallels and lessons, a reference point at least.
 
The development of this model identified four human capital drivers which are important in making a success of an enterprise venture.  These are:
 
bullet Business Development
bullet Individual Performance
bullet Purposeful Social Networking
bullet Academic Enrichment
 
In addition to these there was the measurement of what was termed “engagement quality” which was measured on a six point scale. This scale is listed below:
 
bullet Awareness & Recognition
bullet Capability Building – Learning to be Competent
bullet Developed Professional Capability
bullet Mastery – Learning to Learn
bullet Innovative Flair and Integrative Skills
bullet Sustainable Global Excellence
 
Combining the four human capital drivers with the six levels of quality engagement, a matrix can be created against which activity can be plotted.  Characteristics of each human capital in relation to each stage of engagement quality were identified which permits an enterprise activity or venture to be plotted accordingly.  Using the principles of capability maturity a “migration” plan could be established, implemented and subsequently evaluated which would demonstrate performance improvement.
 
This concept of the matrix is important and is utilized further in the ACBEE engagement model but in relation to stakeholder benefits from particular activities rather than the “capital drivers” used in the UPBEAT project.
 
Synthesis and Creation of a “New” Model
 
Components of the above models were incorporated into the new model although it is difficult to identify which model the component parts were derived from.  Table 1 identifies the main aspects drawn from the above models and used in the development of the ACBEE engagement model:
 
Table 1
 Key concepts drawn from other models in creation of “new” model
Model
Issue feeding into new model
HP Model
The idea that there are different levels of relationship which can be monitored over time and specific actions can help move from one level to the next
Capability Maturity
Activities currently underway can be evaluated and located within a structured framework and again specific actions can help move from one level to the next
UPBEAT
The idea that activity tends to be driven by some form of performance driver and the outcome of the activity can be measured qualitatively
 
The model presented below considers the nature of the engagement, in particular alignment to strategy and the extent of measurement of outcomes of the activity.  The length of time of the relationship is not a direct measure although this would impact upon the other factors and whether the activity was perceived to be a success.  An engagement activity which has stood the test of time is likely to be adding value at the level which is intended.
 
A five stage model of engagement was created which categorized activity from something operating at an “awareness” level through to an activity which could truly be described as a “strategic alliance”.  This spectrum was considered wide enough to embrace all forms of engagement encountered to date but will be tested and validated by the identification of new examples.  The issue of engagement quality will also be addressed in future phases of this project.
 
A summary of the proposed ACBEE engagement model is presented in Table 2 below.  This model could be considered from the perspective of either the higher education institution or from that of industry and the model identifies the following characteristics of the engagement - drivers for each type of engagement, the form that the relationship would be evidenced by, the specific purpose of the engagement and performance outcomes which would subsequently determine what is to be measured:
 
Table 2
A framework to evaluate industry / HEI engagement
 
DRIVER
FORM
PURPOSE
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Strategic Alliance
Business Strategy
Memorandum of Understanding
Strategic Objectives
Embedded evaluation involving action-measurement-evaluation-reflection-planning-action and so on
Partnership
Business Performance improvement
Need
Partnership Agreement
Shared Objectives
Formal evaluation with input from all partners
Formal
Operational Need
Formal Agreement
Explicit Objectives
Formal evaluation
Ad-hoc
Curriculum Relevance
Informal Agreement
Enrichment
Informal evaluation
Awareness
Awareness / public relations
No agreement
Information (push / pull)
Events log – no form of evaluation
 
 
The above model identifies criteria by which cases can be categorized and specific measurement would be case specific depending upon what the specific objectives are.  The model would be utilized by considering an activity at a micro-level such as each of the ACBEE Phase 1 case studies (ACBEE, 2004).  Collecting and examining the evidence for each of these cases in respect of driver, form, purpose and measured outcomes would permit categorization to take place.  The detailed process of evaluation is described below.
 
 
Discussion and Analysis
 
It is proposed that any activity which could be considered a form of engagement between industry and higher education could be located within the above model.  The process of identifying the category for a particular case would be based on meeting all criteria at the lowest level (awareness) before progressing to the next (ad-hoc), and so on.  When the particular case fails to satisfy all criteria at a particular level, the level reached is how it is categorized. 
 
A generic description of each type of engagement is provided below:
 
Grade 1 - An awareness activity is concerned with providing information (push / pull) with no agreement and no form of evaluation beyond the recording of the activity taking place.
 
Grade 2 - Ad-hoc Engagement will focus on a specific operational need. There may be an informal agreement and any evaluation would also be informal.
 
Grade 3 - Formal Engagement is driven by operational requirements and explicit objectives are agreed and set down in a formal agreement.  There will be an explicit evaluation process.
 
Grade 4 - Partnership is driven by business needs. Shared objectives are agreed and set down in a partnership agreement.  There will be a formal evaluation procedure detailing how, when and by whom the evaluation will be conducted.
 
Grade 5 - Strategic Alliance is driven by business strategy and is designed to satisfy the specific strategic business needs of the partners. The strategic objectives will be agreed and set down in an over-arching alliance agreement (memorandum of understanding).  There will be a clear and documented measurement process that includes targets, success criteria, measurement, feedback and forward planning.
 
In evaluating the cases the appropriate “evidence” would need to be collected by an evaluation team to provide a form of qualitative assessment.  In addition to this classification, a quantitative “weighted” assessment could be produced by considering aspects of “scale” which would need to be measured for each of the cases, for example, how many students, what credit rating, how much money is it worth, number of industrialists involved and so on.  Combining the two would produce the overall measure.
 
Once an evaluation of each case-study of engagement has been completed and “scaled” to produce a “score”, it would be possible to combine all case-studies from a particular school in order to develop a “macro” score for that school, and further on throughout the HEI.  A similar process could be undertaken from an industry perspective to identify those organizations that take engagement seriously and engage in a meaningful manner with HEIs.
 
 
Conclusions
 
The purpose of this paper was to present the rationale for increasing industry / HEI engagement, review a sample of activity which is currently underway in the UK and develop a model to classify these case studies and other activities to be identified in the future. The model that has been developed and presented will be tested and validated across three dimensions covering the three strategic objectives of CITB – Construction Skills initiative: which are activities relating to improving business performance; activities seeking to improve image and recruitment; and, activities seeking to improve quality of graduates.
 
It is proposed that the model is tested with ACBEE Phase 1 case study participants and subsequently more broadly with further case studies from the UK construction education sector.  Key performance indicators for both industry and academic participants to assist the evaluation process will also be identified, tested and validated with case study participants and other interested parties.  When the model is finalized it is anticipated that it could possibly have application in other disciplines, but the model must be validated in the construction sector first.
 
 
References
 
Accelerating Change in Built Environment Education, First Annual Report. (2004)  Available online at http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/acbee/media.php
 
Back, W. E and Sanders, S. R. (1998) Industry expectations for engineering graduates, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp137-143.
 
Barnett, R. (1998) ‘In’ or ‘For’ the Learning Society?, Higher Education Quarterly, Volume 52, Number 1, January 1998, pp 7-21.
 
Chisholm, C. U. (2003) Critical factors relating to the future sustainability of engineering education, Global Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 7, Number 1, 2003, pp 29-38.
 
Cooper, S., Bottomley, C. and Gordon, J. (2004) Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder of learning: An experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education, Industry and Higher Education, February 2004, pp11-22.
 
Construction Best Practice Programme (2003) Construction Industry Key Performance Indicators, CBPP, Watford, UK
 
Construct IT (2000) Introduction to SPICE, Construct IT Centre of Excellence, University of Salford, UK
 
Construct IT (2001) SPICE FM, Construct IT Centre of Excellence, University of Salford, UK
 
Construction Industry Council (2004) Built environment professional service skills survey 2003-2004, CIC, London
 
Dearing, R. (1997) Report of the National Committee Higher Education in a Learning Society, The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, London, NCIHE.
 
DfES (2003) White Paper The Future of Higher Education. Available online at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway/strategy/hestrategy/
 
Dunne, E. and Rawlins, M. (2000) Bridging the gap between industry and higher education: Training academics to promote student teamwork, Innovations in Education and Training International, IETI 37, 4, pp361-371.
 
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking construction : the report of the Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, London : Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

 

Johnson, W.C. (2003) University relations: the HP model, Industry and Higher Education, December 2003, pp391-395.

 

Lambert, R. (2003) Lambert Review of Business – University Collaboration, HM Treasury, London, available on line at www.lambertreview.org.uk.
 
Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the team : final report : joint review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the United Kingdom construction industry, London : H.M.S.O.
 
Newby, H. (2004) Doing Widening Participation: Social inequality and access to higher education, Colin Bell Memorial Lecture, 30 March 2004, University of Bradford.
 
Powell, J.A. and Money, A. (2004) Developing an Assessment process for Diverse University Reach out – Discussion of a Four Fold Approach, Consultation paper, University Of Salford for the UPBEAT Consortium
 
Williams, A. (2004) Industry engagement in UK built environment higher education courses, ARCOM Conference, Vol1, p.541-549, September 1st-3rd 2004, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
 
Williams, A. (2005) Progress through partnership: how do industry and UK higher education built environment courses work collaboratively?, Publication pending, International Journal of Engineering Education, 2005.