The creation and management of buildings over their lifecycle involves the cooperation of many organizations, which broadly fall into a client domain and AEC (architecture, engineering, construction) domain. While this mix of expertise is essential, the ineffective management of the boundaries between these organizations can undermine building lifecycle performance. This paper explores client–AEC interactions at the project development and handover stages, with a view to discovering insights into client–AEC interface management for effective building lifecycle integration (BLI). The concept of boundary objects provided the theoretical framework to discuss findings from two case studies on the project development phase of a private finance initiative project, and the asset development process in a repeat client organization. The findings suggest that there are different emphases in boundary crossing activities at different stages, with boundary roles that relate to decision-making and authority to commit resources being more relevant at the project development stage, whereas the need to explain meanings appear to be more relevant at the handover stage. AEC professionals in client organizations play a crucial role in bridging knowledge boundaries about buildings, but this professional/functional strand to BLI needs to be effectively managed alongside the organizational boundaries, since the authority to resource BLI efforts resides within？organizations.
References
[1]
Kamara, J.M. Integration in the project development process of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2012, 8, 228–245.
[2]
Kamara, J.M.; Anumba, C.J.; Evbuomwan, N.F.O. Capturing Client Requirements in Construction; Thomas Telford: London, UK, 2002.
[3]
Croteau, A.-M.; Léger, P.-M.; Cassivi, L. The role of life cycle concepts in the assessment of interorganizational alignment. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2008, 108, 145–161, doi:10.1108/02635570810847545.
[4]
Baldwin, E. The private finance initiative—What opportunities for facilities management? J. Facil. Manag. 2003, 2, 54–67, doi:10.1108/14725960410808113.
[5]
Anumba, C.J.; Baron, G.; Evbuomwan, N.F.O. Communications issues in concurrent life-cycle design and construction. BT Technol. J. 1997, 15, 209–216.
[6]
Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors; John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
[7]
Best, R.; de Valence, G. Getting It Right at the Start. In Building in Value: Pre-Design Issues; Arnold: London, UK, 1999; pp. 1–9.
Office of Government Commerce (OGC). Project Procurement Lifecycle: The Integrated Process. Achieving Excellence Procurement Guide 03; OGC: London, UK, 2003.
[10]
Pemsel, S.; Widén, K.; Hansson, B. Managing the needs of end-users in the design and delivery of construction projects. Facilities 2010, 28, 17–30, doi:10.1108/02632771011011378.
[11]
Eastman, C.M. Building Product Models: Computer Environments Supporting Design and Construction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999.
[12]
Song, Y.; Clayton, M.J.; Johnson, R.E. Anticipating reuse: Documenting buildings for operations using web technology. Autom. Constr. 2002, 11, 185–197, doi:10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00097-2.
[13]
Bonandrini, S.; Cruz, C.; Nicolle, C. Building Lifecycle Management. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management, Lyon, France, 11–13 July 2005.
[14]
Vanlande, R.; Nicolle, C.; Cruz, C. IFC and building lifecycle management. Autom. Constr. 2008, 18, 70–78, doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2008.05.001.
[15]
Kiviniemi, A. Requirements Management Interface to Building Product Models. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 2005.
[16]
Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA). Soft Landings. Available online: http://www.bsria.co.uk/services/design/soft-landings/ (accessed on 10 March 2013).
[17]
CIB White Paper on Integrated Design and Delivery Solutions (IDDS), 2009. Available online: http://www.cibworld.nl/site/databases/publications.html (accessed on 18 July 2013).
[18]
Kohler, N.; Yang, W. Long-term management of building stocks. Build. Res. Inf. 2007, 35, 352–362.
[19]
Newcombe, R. From client to project stakeholders: A stakeholder mapping approach. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2003, 21, 841–848, doi:10.1080/0144619032000072137.
[20]
Barlow, J.; K？berle-Gaiser, M. Delivering innovation in hospital construction: Contracts and collaboration in the UK’s private finance initiative hospitals program. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2009, 51, 126–143, doi:10.2307/41166483.
[21]
Brandon, P. Collaboration: A Technology or Human Interface Problem? In Collaborative Construction Information Management; Shen, G., Brandon, P., Baldwin, A., Eds.; Spon Press: London, UK, 2009; pp. 18–35.
[22]
Worthington, J. Effective project management results from establishing the optimum brief. Prop. Rev. 1999, 20, 182–185.
[23]
Gibson, G.E., Jr.; Kaczmarowski, J.H.; Lore, H.E., Jr. Pre-project planning process for capital facilities. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1995, 121, 312–318.
[24]
Barrett, P.; Stanley, C. Better Construction Briefing; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 1999.
[25]
Blyth, A.; Worthington, J. Managing the Brief for Better Design, 2nd ed. ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2010.
[26]
De Saulles, T. Computer-Based Operating and Maintenance Manuals, A BSRIA Guide. Available online: http://www.bsria.co.uk (accessed on 17 July 2013).
[27]
Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, Available online: http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm/legal.htm (accessed on 5 February 2010).
[28]
Bresnen, M. Keeping it real? Constituting partnering through boundary objects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010, 28, 615–628, doi:10.1080/01446191003587711.
[29]
Santos, F.M.; Eisenhardt, K.M. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organ. Sci. 2005, 16, 491–508, doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0152.
[30]
Schilling, M.A.; Steensma, H.K. Disentangling the theories of firm boundaries: A path model and empirical test. Organ. Sci. 2002, 13, 387–401, doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.387.2950.
[31]
Carlile, P.R. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15, 555–568, doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0094.
[32]
Pemsel, S.; Widén, K. Bridging boundaries between organizations in construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2011, 29, 495–506, doi:10.1080/01446193.2011.563786.
[33]
Carlile, P.R. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 2002, 13, 442–455, doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953.
Wren, D.A. Interface and interorganizational coordination. Acad. Manag. J. 1967, 10, 69–81, doi:10.2307/255245.
[36]
Pavitt, T.C.; Gibb, A.G.F. Interface management within construction: In particular, building fa？ade. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2003, 129, 8–15, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:1(8).
[37]
Chua, D.K.H.; Godinot, M. Use of a WBS matrix to improve interface management in projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 67–79, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:1(67).
[38]
Chen, Q.; Reichard, G.; Beliveau, Y. Multiperspective approach to exploring comprehensive cause factors for interface issues. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 432–441, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:6(432).
[39]
Mitchell, A.; Frame, I.; Coday, A.; Hoxley, M. A conceptual framework of the interface between the design and construction processes. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2011, 18, 297–311, doi:10.1108/09699981111126197.
[40]
Chen, Q.; Reichard, G.; Beliveau, Y. Object model framework for interface modelling and IT-oriented interface management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 187–198, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000120.
[41]
Hsu, S.-H.; Wang, Y.-C.; Tzeng, S.-F. The source of innovation: Boundary spanner. Total Qual. Manag. 2007, 18, 1133–1145, doi:10.1080/14783360701596274.
[42]
Forgues, D. Using Boundary Objects to Generate Better Value in the Construction Industry. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Salford, Salford, UK, 2008.
[43]
Fitzgerald, B.; Howcroft, D. Competing Dichotomies in IS Research and Possible Strategies for Resolution. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland, 13–16 December 1998.
[44]
Taylor, J.E.; Dossick, C.S.; Garvin, M. Meeting the burden of proof with case-study research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 303–311, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000283.
[45]
Details of the Design Quality Indicator (DQI) Tool and Process. Available online: http://www.dqi.org.uk (accessed on 17 July 2013).
[46]
Denoted here (and the rest of the paper) in italics to distinguish it from the broader concept of Facilities Management (FM) used in this paper.
[47]
Abowitz, D.A.; Toole, T.M. Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 108–116, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000026.
[48]
Grout, P.A. The economics of the private finance initiative. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 1997, 13, 53–66, doi:10.1093/oxrep/13.4.53.
[49]
Carrillo, P.M.; Robinson, H.S.; Anumba, C.J.; Bouchlaghem, N.M. A knowledge transfer framework: The PFI context. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 1045–1056, doi:10.1080/01446190600799224.
[50]
Office of Government Commerce (OGC). Competitive Dialogue Procedure: OGC Guidance on the Competitive Dialogue Procedure in the New Procurement Regulations; OGC: London, UK, 2006.
[51]
Local Partnership (LP) Homepage. Available online: http://www.localpartnerships.org.uk/ (accessed on 17 July 2013).
[52]
Kamara, J.M. Integrating AEC and FM activities within a client organization. In 6th International Conference in Innovation in Architecture, Engineering & Construction, State College, PA, USA, 9–11 June 2010.
[53]
Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). Outline Plan of Work; RIBA Publications: London, UK, 2007.
[54]
Aldrich, H.; Herker, D. Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 2, 217–230.
