Industry Perceptions and Expectations: Implications for Construction Management Internships

Introduction

Internships are a three-way partnership among university personnel, student interns, and industry sponsors to provide practical experience for students in their chosen profession. As academia is limited in providing real world experience, internships are a way of integrating this experience into students’ academic programs. Internships provide students with both meaningful experiences to connect theory to practice and the encouragement to be active in their own learning (ASHE-ERIC, 2002, pp. 66-67; Tovey, 2001, p. 225).

The definition of an internship may depend upon the user’s point of reference which can include cooperative learning, work experience, experiential learning, and practicum, but it most often includes someone “who is in training, who may be paid, but who is a temporary employee” (Tovey, 2001, p. 226). Eggleston (2004) states that there are various categories which work experience can fit into, but the main goal is to “offer the opportunity for the young to acquire more fully the skills, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions along with as much as possible, the experience needed to constitute a vocational identity” (p. 78). Senior (1997) suggests that internships provide means to immerse students in actual supervised professional experiences (p. 97).

Adcox (2000) states the internship experience assists construction management students to “develop competence in their professional practice, learn to apply knowledge, develop a set of professional understanding, learn to examine their practice, and learn from their experience while seeking to meet the needs of the construction profession” (p. 105). The internship is a demonstration of knowledge acquired in the classroom applied to a real industry setting. It is an experience for students of “cross[ing] the bridge from passive learning to actively testing their mettle against the hard-edged world of work” (Ryan & Cassidy, 1996, p. 16).

Such expectations can be daunting for an intern who is introduced to a construction project for the first time. Taylor (1992) states, “High levels of reality shock occur when individuals find that many of the work standards and procedures learned in school directly conflict with those required on the job” (p. 53). The expectation to perform not only falls on the shoulders of the intern, but also on the industry sponsor and the university internship coordinator. Successful internships are those that provide an intern with a well-planned and progressively more responsible experience, as well as an industry sponsor who will act as a genuine mentor. Likewise, the university must provide the personnel and resources necessary to meet the needs of both industry and student intern (Tener, 1996, p. 158).

Studies have been performed related to construction management internships in the areas of university responsibilities (Adcox, 2000, p. 105; Chapin, Rodenbush, & Krone, 2003, p. 56; Hager, Pryor, & Bryant, 2003, p. 159) and student perceptions (Hauck, Allen, & Rondinelli, 2000, p. 276). Some have identified the benefits of internships for student interns, specifically those of future permanent placement with sponsoring companies, clarification of career choices, and an increase in self-esteem (Flesher, Leach, & Westphal, 1996). Very few empirical studies, however, have focused on what industry sponsors of interns want and expect for their participation in an internship program in construction management. An empirical study by Knemeyer and Murphy (2001) related to industry perspectives of logistics internships was the nearest the authors could locate. The study provides research related to employer perceptions of interns and academia with respect to the hiring, payment, training, and employer participation in a logistics internship program (p. 20).  

The more knowledge an internship coordinator has about what the industry sponsor hopes to gain from, and expects of, an internship program the better they can both prepare student interns for their internships and structure the internship program and requirements to meet the needs and wishes of sponsoring companies. Research shows construction internship programs vary greatly from one university to the next (Chapin et al., 2003, p. 65; Hager et al., 2003, p. 171). Some have suggested that a general set of guidelines be developed for internship program design and implementation (Ferguson, 1998, p. 22; Hager et al., 2003, p. 159).

Purpose of the Study

This article adds to the body of knowledge on construction management internship programs from the industry sponsor’s perspective by investigating industry perceptions and expectations of construction management interns and internship programs. The purpose of this study is to guide the design and implementation of these programs by university personnel. Specifically, it addresses the lack of information available to those developing and sustaining construction management internship programs from the perspective of industry sponsors. 

Data on industry sponsors’ perceptions and expectations were collected in two general content areas. First, this study addresses industry sponsors’ perceptions regarding the benefits of participation to both the industry sponsor and the student intern. Second, this study seeks to establish a benchmark of industry sponsors’ expectations for both interns and internship programs. These two measurements together provide an understanding of why industry members sponsor student interns (i.e., what benefits they perceive to come of their participation) and what characteristics of an internship program they prefer.

The findings of this research are significant in guiding how university internship coordinators and program directors organize and market their internship programs to industry internship sponsors. Structured internships are becoming an integral part of construction management programs (Chapin et al., 2003, p. 57; Hauck et al., 2000, p. 272). As such, quality placement sites are critical to meeting the learning objectives of these internships. Universities must balance the needs of academia with those of industry to build lasting partnerships, providing for on-going internship placements.

Methodology

The data included within this study were derived from industry members who participated in the internship program at University A by either interviewing or hiring at least one construction management intern in the 2004 calendar year. This sample was determined by the listing of industry contacts maintained within the Internship Office in the Department of Construction Management at University A. The listing identified a contact person within 107 U.S. construction organizations. Not all industry sponsors could be contacted as they had moved or were no longer in business. The individuals contacted were those directly responsible for interviewing and/or hiring of a student intern. Sometimes this included a human resources professional, but often this individual was an upper-level manager within the hiring organization.

Surveys were mailed with cover letter to industry contacts at their place of employment with self-addressed, postage-paid reply envelope. Combination reminder and thank you notices were sent twice: the first seven days after the initial mailing by mail and the second 10 days after the initial mailing by e-mail. A total of 62 surveys were received for a 58% response rate.

The survey instrument used as part of this research was a 54 question, self-administered, paper-based survey. The instrument was divided into three equal parts: evaluation of benefits related to college internship programs, ranking of performance expectations of interns, and identification of expectations of internship program components. A demographics section concluded the instrument asking for descriptive data of the industry member respondent and hiring company.

Section one of this instrument was originally developed by Kane (1981) and revised by Metzger (2002) as part of their doctoral dissertations measuring employer perceptions of college internship programs. Kane’s original instrument was comprised of 33 Likert-scale statements; Metzger’s revised instrument contained 22 Likert-scale statements, five demographic questions, and two open-ended comment questions (Metzger, 2002). Both instruments assessed employers’ perceptions towards college internship programs. As part of this study, these instruments were revised to include 20 Likert-scale statements. Upon request, Kane granted permission to use and revise his original instrument.

Section two of this instrument was originally developed as part of an Intern Performance Appraisal document utilized by Kinetics Systems Inc. (2004). Each of the categories for performance evaluation, except one, was included in section two of this instrument. These categories included: job knowledge, planning and organizational skills, human relations skills, problem solving, communication, creativity, quality of work and productivity, team approach, attendance, customer satisfaction, cost control, safety, and adaptability and flexibility. Each of these categories was defined and respondents were asked to rank at what level they expect interns working in their company to consistently perform. Kinetics Systems Inc. was granted permission to use and revise their performance appraisal document.

Section three of this instrument included 15 questions related to the expectations industry sponsors have of an internship program. These questions included the amount of hours, duration, and type of work which should be required of a construction management internship. Required is defined as a minimum expectation, but that which is necessary as part of graduation requirements, of bachelors-level construction management students. Questions assessing the expected role of the university, student intern, and industry sponsor were also included.

The fourth, and final, section of the instrument collected demographic data of position and experience of industry respondent and type of work and annual volume of hiring company. No other personal information was collected so that the surveys could remain anonymous. 

A pilot test of the survey instrument was done with six individuals who among themselves have well over 100 years experience in the construction industry. Each has hired many interns in their career. One is the owner of a multi-million-dollar company and one is the Director of Human Resources of a billion-dollar firm. Four of these individuals have or are completing their Ph.D. and are formally educated in survey design. Responses and recommendations of these individuals were integrated into the survey for the final version.

Demographic characteristics of the responding industry members, as presented in Appendix A, indicate that those completing this survey fill a wide-range of job positions, most notably upper-management positions of Area or Division Manager, Vice President, President, and/or CEO (37%), Project Manager (32%), and Human Resources (19%). Participants have an extensive background in the construction industry, with over a third having more than 20 years experience working in industry. Similarly, over 30% have supervised and/or hired more than 10 interns in their career. Respondents work for construction firms in the spectrum of the construction industry, with annual corporate volumes ranging from less than $49 million to well over $1 billion (25% and 31%, respectively). As the study originated out of University A, 26% of respondents hire for the Rocky Mountain region; however, 39% hire for multiple regions around the United States. A limitation of the study was the collection of data from a horizontal sample during a robust economic period.

Results

Industry Perceived Benefits of Participation

Using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), respondents were asked to evaluate 20 internship-related benefit statements. Eleven of these statements addressed perceptions regarding the benefits of participation to the industry sponsor; the remaining nine addressed perceived benefits to the student intern. Table 1 summarizes the respondents’ perceived benefits to the industry sponsor, while Table 2 summarizes the perceived benefits to the student intern. As respondents tended to agree with most of the statements, the results in both tables reflect the “agree” and “strongly agree” categories.

Table 1

Perceived benefits of internships to industry sponsors

Table 2

Perceived benefits of internships to student interns

From the responses it is clear that while industry sees a greater benefit to student interns overall (90% of all responses in agreement) than to themselves as industry sponsors (80% of all responses in agreement), there is a perception of great benefit to both parties. Industry sponsors most strongly agreed the perceived benefits of internship experiences assisted students in career development (82%), post-graduation employment (73%), gaining marketable skills (71%), and reinforcing knowledge gained in the classroom (69%). Interestingly, recruiting (whether in the form of a recruitment devise or marketable skills) was noted as the primary benefit for both industry sponsors and student interns.

Industry Expectations of Student Interns

Again, using a 5-point Likert scale (lowest to highest), respondents were asked to identify the level at which they expect student interns to perform consistently on a series of 13 job performance categories. Appendix B summarizes the level of expectation for each of these performance categories in the three most prominent levels: “medium”, “somewhat high”, and “high”. All respondents agreed that attendance and attention to safety were of utmost importance with 100% of respondents at some level of agreement. Job expectations of striving for customer satisfaction and the ability to be adaptable and flexible were characteristics identified of highest importance (50% and 48%, respectively) by a large number of industry sponsors. Of less importance to these industry sponsors were actual job knowledge and creativity.

Industry Expectations of an Internship Program

Results in the final section of the survey were grouped into three primary areas of preference: the structure of an internship program, the role of the university, and the role of the industry sponsor. Table 3 provides a detailed summary of the preferred components of an internship program. Quite resoundingly, 97% of respondents expressed the preference for students to have construction-related work experience prior to graduation. Most (79%) preferred this experience to be in the form of a required internship with academic credit (vs. elective work experience without academic credit). Over 75% of respondents stated that students should have at least four months of work experience prior to graduation, with 80% preferring this work experience at an hourly commitment of at least 40 hours per week. For 70% of respondents, three months was the most preferred length of an internship, but over half (55%) stated the expectation for students to have at least two internships prior to graduation. Getting in these two internships may be a challenge for university internship coordinators, though, as the preferred grade level of an intern was identified by 60% of respondents as the junior year of a four-year academic program.

Table 3

Preferences of the structure of an internship program

The role of the university for 90% of respondents was seen to be as a placement office (i.e., coordination of job notices, interviews, and recruiting events) and career development (i.e., address resume and interview preparation, career planning, and industry awareness with interns). While less than 2% of respondents thought the university should have no part in the placement and hiring process of student interns, only about half preferred the university to take on supervisory responsibilities (i.e., oversight of internships with written and oral communication and/or site visits with sponsors and interns) or oversight of academic requirements (i.e., evaluation of internship through grading of students’ academic assignments). Table 4 summarizes this information along with that of preferences for role of the university in the placement and hiring process of student interns and the maximum amount the respondents felt willing to pay to the university to support the administration of an internship program. A point of reference on the sponsorship fee is that this appears most applicable to the three month internship.

Table 4

Preferences of the role of the university

Finally, Table 5 summarizes the respondents’ perceptions of their role as an industry internship sponsor. The majority of respondents (73%) viewed the primary purpose of hiring an intern to be a recruiting activity for the company (i.e., the possibility of hiring on a full-time basis following graduation). Still, 56% of the respondents saw the primary role of the student intern to be that of learning (i.e., substantive work outcomes secondary); the other 44% regarded the student intern primarily as an employee (i.e., responsible for job duties as any other paid employee). When asked to define their primary role as an industry sponsor, over two-thirds of respondents said it was to provide training and experiences in construction methods and knowledge for students while the remaining 32% saw their role as that of mentorship and professional development of student interns.

Table 5

Preferences of the role of industry sponsor

Conclusions and Further Research

As a greater number of construction management programs begin to include, and oftentimes require, internships of their students, Cannon and Arnold (1998) remind us that it is important for industry sponsors and academia to fully understand the role perceptions and expectations have on the experiences of student interns and the success of internship programs (p. 202). This study has addressed this need by investigating employers’ perceptions regarding the benefits of sponsoring a student intern and their expectations of intern performance and internship program structure.  

Areas of further research could include a more detailed investigation into the roles internships play within industry sponsor companies. Additionally, as more internship programs in construction management are developed throughout the country, it would be beneficial to compare the structures of various internship programs and their outcomes with students and industry. Other areas of future research might be to retest employers as to their perceptions and expectations as part of a longitudinal study. Likewise, a retest during a slower economic period could provide useful comparisons.

These findings can be used as a guide for university internship coordinators or program directors as they identify and develop the components of an internship program. Furthermore, this research could help in creating guidelines for construction management internship programs, a guide for allocation of funds for these internship programs, and assistance in the structuring of academic curricula within the larger degree program. It also serves as a baseline for evaluation of construction management internship programs and student intern performance. Most importantly, this research should, by defining the key components of an effective construction management internship program, assist in preparation of students for their internships and provide for more satisfied industry sponsors. Therefore, what we can conclude from this research and the work of others (e.g., Adcox, 2000, p. 104; Cannon and Arnold, 1998, p. 202; Eggleston, 2004; Hauck et al., 2000, p. 272; Kane, 1981; Knemeyer & Murphy, 2001, p. 16; Metzger, 2002; and Senior, 1997, p. 92) is that careful attention must be given to balancing the needs of academia with those of industry to build lasting partnerships and provide for on-going internship placements.

References

Adcox, J. W., Jr. (2000). Measuring complex achievement: The construction management internship. Journal of Construction Education, 5 (2), 104-115.

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. (2002). Implementing and assessing internships, 29 (3), 65-75.

Cannon, J. A., & Arnold, M. J. (1998). Student expectations of collegiate internship programs in business. Journal of Education for Business, 73 (4), 202-205.

Chapin, L. T., Roudebush, W. H., & Krone, S. J. (2003). Cooperative education in the Associated Schools of Construction. Journal of Construction Education, 8 (1), 56-68.

Eggleston, J. (2004). A vision for today: John Eggleston’s writings on education. Sterling, VA: Trentham Books Limited.

Ferguson, L. H. (1998). Guidelines for a safety internship program in industry. Professional Safety, 43 (4), 22-25.

Flesher, J., Leach, S., & Westphal, L. (1996). Creating effective internships. Performance Improvement, 35 (10), 22-25.

Hager, C. J., Pryor, C. R., & Bryant, J. A. (2003). A comparison of four domain area standards for internships and implications for utilization in undergraduate construction education internship programs. Journal of Construction Education, 8 (3), 157-179.

Hauck, A. J., Allen, S. Y., & Rondinelli, D. F. (2000). Impact of structured internship programs on student performance in construction management curricula. Journal of Construction Education, 5 (3), 272-287.

Kane, S. M. (1981). Employer attitudes relative to the hiring of cooperative education students: Development of an attitudinal scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.

Kinetics Systems Inc. (2004). Intern performance appraisal. Union City, CA.

Knemeyer, A. M., & Murphy, P. R. (2001). Logistics internships: Employer perspectives. Transportation Journal, 41 (1), 16-26.

Metzger, S. V. (2002) Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of college internship programs. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Idaho, 2002). Digital Dissertations. (UMI No. 3043264)

Ryan, M., & Cassidy, J. R. (1996). Internships and excellence. Liberal Education, 82 (3), 16-23.

Senior, B. A. (1997, April). Infusing practical components into construction education. ASC Proceedings of the 33^rd

Annual Conference, University of Washington – Seattle, WA, 45-52.

Taylor, M. S. (1992). Internships: Perspectives on experiential learning. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Tener, R. K. (1996). Industry-university partnerships for construction engineering education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 122 (4), 156-162.

Tovey, J. (2001). Building connections between industry and university: Implementing an internship program at a regional university. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10 (2), 225-239.

* Note. Groupings by Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) Regions