1

SPICE: A Business Process Diagnostics Tool for ConstructionProjects

M.Sarshar, R.Haigh, M.Finnemore, G.Aouad, P. Barrett, D. Baldry, M. SextonSchool of Construction and Property Management, University of Salford, Salford, UK

Contact Details:

Dr. Marjan SarsharSchool of Construction and Property ManagementUniversity of SalfordSalfordM7 9NU

Telephone - 0161 295 5317Fax - 0161 295 5011E-mail - M.Sarshar@surveying.salford.ac.uk

2

ABSTRACT

The construction sector is under growing pressure to increase productivity and improve quality, most

notably in reports by Latham (1994) and Egan (1998). A major problem for construction companies is

the lack of project predictability. One method of increasing predictability and delivering increased

customer value is through the systematic management of construction processes. However, the industry

has no methodological mechanism to assess process capability and prioritise process improvements.

Standardised Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises (SPICE) is a research project that

is attempting to develop a step-wise process improvement framework for the construction industry,

utilising experience from the software industry, and in particular the Capability Maturity Model

(CMM), which has resulted in significant productivity improvements in the software industry.

This paper introduces SPICE concepts and presents the results from two case studies conducted on

design and build projects. These studies have provided further insight into the relevance and accuracy

of the framework, as well as its value for the construction sector.

Keywords

Capability Maturity Model (CMM), process assessment, process capability, process enablers, process

improvement, SPICE.

BACKGROUND

For many years, businesses within the construction sector have been applying new methods of working

and technologies to improve productivity and attain quality gains. However, the targets set by Sir

Michael Latham in 'Constructing the Team' (Latham 1994) have yet to be achieved. In his report of

July 1998, Sir John Egan (Egan 1998) emphasised the call for productivity improvements and urged the

industry to focus in particular on construction processes. However, until now, the industry has had few

3

recognised methodologies or frameworks on which to base a process improvement initiative. The

absence of clear guidelines has meant that improvements are isolated and benefits cannot be co-

ordinated or repeated. The industry is unable to systematically assess construction process, prioritise

process improvements, and direct resources appropriately. Moreover, it is not possible for companies to

benchmark and measure their performance relative to other organisations. SPICE research is attempting

to address these issues.

Standardised Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises (SPICE) is a current research

project that is developing a process improvement framework for the construction industry. This is

based on an existing successful model (Paulk 1993, Saidian 1995), which was developed by the US

Department of Defence and is widely used in the software industry, namely the Capability Maturity

Model (CMM). Increasing evidence from other sectors (Imai 1986, Paulk 1993) shows that continuous

process improvement is based on many small, evolutionary steps, rather than revolutionary measures.

Successful implementers of CMM have reported significant business benefits. For example, Hughes

Aircraft (USA) reported a 5:1 ROI, and Raytheon (USA) achieved a 7.7:1 ROI and 2:1 productivity

gains (Saidian 1995). Industry analysis by J. Herbsleb (Herbsleb 1994) showed that companies

implementing CMM achieved an average of 35% productivity improvements and an average of 39%

post delivery defect reduction. Latham’s call for a 30% cost reduction and zero defects would become

more feasible if the construction industry could realise similar figures.

Tailoring of CMM to construction is not a linear mapping exercise. Studies by Lillrank (1995)

show that transfer of innovation across countries (and industries) cannot take place in their original

packaging. The core idea of an innovation must be abstracted and then recreated in a form, which fits

local conditions. Lillrank argues that a significant amount of work is required at the receiving end of

innovation, especially in adopting the appropriate organisational forms. This is certainly true in the case

of the SPICE project. SPICE is continuously investigating how CMM’s basic concepts can be benefited

4

from to develop a construction specific framework. The CMM concepts are described in Sarshar

(1998, 1999a). This paper introduces the SPICE concepts and framework, which are similar but not

identical to CMM.

In the following sections the paper differentiates between mature and immature organisations, in

terms of a systematic approach to business processes. It then describes the SPICE maturity model,

which is an incremental model. SPICE helps immature organisations reach process maturity. The paper

also differentiates between process and process capability. It introduces the concept of "process

enablers" and discusses SPICE's assessment mechanism. Level 2 of the model is applied to two design

and build projects. The case study results are discussed and analysed.

IMMATURE VERSUS MATURE CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATIONS

Setting sensible goals for process improvement requires an understanding of the difference between

immature and mature organisations (Paulk 1995, Zahran 1998).

In an immature organisation, construction processes are generally improvised by practitioners and

project managers during the course of the project. Even if a construction process has been specified, it

is not rigorously followed or enforced. The immature organisation is reactionary, and managers are

usually focused on fire fighting. In an immature organisation, there is no objective basis for judging

product quality or for solving product or process problems. The product quality assurance is often

curtailed or eliminated when projects fall behind schedule.

In an immature organisation, product quality is difficult to predict. Activities intended to enhance

quality such as reviews are often curtailed. Many of the quality assurance activities are left until the

"snagging" stage at the end of the project. At this point the problems can be too costly to rectify and

lead to conflict of interest among the project team.

5

Even in undisciplined and immature organisations, individual projects sometimes produce

excellent results (Humphrey 1989). When such projects succeed, it is generally through the heroic

efforts of a dedicated team, rather than through repeating the systematic and proven methods of a

mature organisation.

Conversely, a mature construction organisation possesses an organisation wide ability for

managing design, construction and maintenance activities. The processes are accurately communicated

to both existing staff and new employees, and activities are carried out according to the planned

processes. The processes mandated are fit for use and consistent with the way the work gets done.

Roles and responsibilities within the defined processes are clear throughout the project and across the

organisation. In mature organisations, managers monitor the quality of the products and client

satisfaction. There is an objective, quantitative basis for judging product quality and analysing

problems with the product and process, and a reflective element to the organisational culture. In

general, a disciplined process is consistently followed because all of the participants understand the

value of doing so, and the necessary infrastructure exists to support the process.

THE SPICE FRAMEWORK

Continuous process improvement is based on many small, evolutionary steps (Imai 86). The SPICE

framework organises these evolutionary steps into maturity levels that lay successive foundations for

continuous process improvement. These maturity levels define a scale for measuring the maturity of a

construction organisation's processes, and evaluating its process capability. They provide guidelines for

prioritising process improvement efforts.

A maturity level is a well-defined evolutionary plateau towards achieving mature processes. Each

maturity level provides a layer in the foundation for continuous process improvement. Each level

comprises a set of process goals that, when satisfied, stabilise an important component in the

6

"construction" process. Achieving each level of the maturity framework establishes a different

component in the "construction" process, resulting in an increase in the process capability of the

organisation (Paulk 1993).

The SPICE maturity framework is depicted in figure 1. An assessment tool accompanies this

framework. An organisation can only be at one level of maturity at any stage. Organisations conduct an

assessment to establish which level of maturity they are at. Judging by the experience in the software

industry, most companies are initially at level 1. They then need to focus on and implement all the key

processes at the next level, i.e. level 2.

It is important to note that this framework is still under research. The initial concepts have been

borrowed from CMM (Humphrey 1989, Paulk 1995, Zahran 1998). The characteristics of levels 1 and

2 have been investigated within construction. However, the characteristics of levels 3, 4 and 5 are

based on CMM thinking. These may change, as more empirical evidence gathers. The characteristics of

each level of the framework follow:

Level 1- Initial

At this level, project visibility and predictability are poor. Good project practices are local and cannot

be repeated across the company in an institutionalised fashion. Ineffective planning and co-ordination

undermine good engineering practices. Organisations make commitments that staff or the supply chain

cannot meet. This results in a series of crisis.

During crisis, projects typically abandon planned procedures. Time and costs are often under tight

control in construction. Hence the crisis often leads to compromises on quality. Success depends

entirely on having an exceptional manager and a competent team. When these managers leave, their

stabilising influences leave with them.

7

The construction process capability of level 1 organisations is unpredictable because the process is

not specified and is constantly changed or modified as the work progresses. Performance depends on

the capabilities of the individuals, rather than that of the organisation.

Level 2- Repeatable

At this level there is a degree of project predictability. Policies and procedures for managing the major

project based processes are established. A major objective of level 2 is to focus on effective

management processes within each construction project. This allows organisations to repeat the

successful practices of earlier projects. An effective process can be characterised as practised,

documented, enforced, trained, evaluated and able to improve.

At level 2, organisations make realistic commitments based on project requirements. Managers

track quality and functionality as well as time and costs. Problems in meeting the commitments are

identified as they arise. The integrity of the project requirements are maintained throughout the project.

Standards are defined and organisations ensure that they are faithfully followed. Projects work with

sub-contractors to establish strong relationships.

To date the emphasis of the research has been the characteristics of this level.

Level 3- Defined

At level three both management and engineering activities are documented, standardised and integrated

into the organisation. These standard processes are referenced throughout the organisation. All projects

use approved, tailored versions of organisation's standard processes, which accounts for their unique

characteristics.

Level 3 is where an organisation develops the capability to capture and share best practices, across

the organisation rather than on a localised basis. This is a topical issue for the construction industry.

8

One implication of the SPICE model is that an organisation does not have the capability to capture

best practices, until it reaches level 3. Attempts to do so will be risky and are likely to prove

unsuccessful.

A well-defined process includes standard descriptions and models for performing the work,

verification mechanisms (such as peer reviews) and completion criteria. Because the process is well

defined, management has good insight into progress. Quality and functionality of all projects are well

tracked.

Level 4- Managed

At this level organisations have the capability to set quality goals for (i) the product, (ii) the process,

and (iii) the supply chain relationships. Productivity and quality are measured for important

construction process activities across all projects as part of an organisational measurement program.

This forms an objective basis for measuring the product, the process, and the degree of customer

satisfaction.

Projects gain control by narrowing the variations in their process performance, to fall within

acceptable quantitative boundaries. Meaningful variations can be distinguished from random variations.

The risks involved in moving up the learning curve either due to undertaking new categories of

projects, or engaging in new procurement and supplier chain arrangements can be managed.

Level 5- Optimised

At this stage the entire supply chain is focused on continuous process improvement. The organisations

have the means to identify weaknesses and strengthen the processes pro-actively, in a collaborative

manner. Data on the effectiveness of the processes is used to perform cost benefit analysis of new

9

technologies and proposed changes to the organisation's processes. Innovations that exploit the best

business management practices are identified and transferred throughout the organisations.

Project teams across the supply chain analyse defects to determine their causes. Construction

processes are evaluated to prevent known types of defects from recurring, and lessons learned are

communicated to other projects.

SCOPE OF SPICE

The CMM model has not specifically addressed the supply chain. In construction, it is difficult to scope

improvement efforts without directly addressing supply chain issues. Another characteristic of the

construction industry is that the process maturity may change, during the different stages of a project

life cycle.

SPICE attempts to address these construction characteristics. The current research has primarily

focused on a single project phase in one organisation. The research will progressively expand to

investigate the other life cycle and supply chain issues.

10

KEY PROCESSES; LEVEL 2

There are a number of "key processes" associated with each level of the SPICE model, in figure 1. To

achieve each level of maturity an organisation must perform all these key processes adequately. Since

the focus of SPICE has been level 2 of the framework, this section provides a short description of level

2 key processes. These key processes are based on CMM’s key processes (Sarshar 1999 b), but

changed to reflect construction terminology and characteristics. For example the SPICE key process

“Brief & Scope of Work Management”, maps onto CMM key process “Requirements Management”.

These can be listed as:

§ Brief & Scope of Work Management - Establishes a common understanding of the project

requirements between the client and the project team.

§ Project Planning - Establishes realistic plans and programmes of work for all activities during

the project.

§ Project Tracking & Monitoring - Ensures that there is an awareness of actual progress so that

management can take corrective actions when the project's performance deviates significantly from

the plans.

§ Sub-contract Management - Involves selecting a suitable sub-contractor, establishing

commitments, and tracking and reviewing their performance and results.

§ Project Change Management - Tracks revisions to the project brief by assessing and

controlling the impact of any changes and informing all relevant members of the project team.

§ Risk Management - Identifies, assesses, monitors and mitigates risks.

§ Project Team Co-ordination - Draws on the experience of other organisations within the

project team in order to effectively meet project requirements.

For an organisation to achieve level 2 of maturity, all projects must perform all these key processes

adequately. This forms the basis for progression to level 3.

11

PROCESS ENABLERS

Anecdotal evidence during SPICE research highlights that if you ask project managers: "Do you

implement level 2 key processes?", they are likely to give a positive response. On the other hand our

current case studies indicate the contrary. How can project managers ensure that they are performing

the key processes adequately?

Zahran (1998) differentiates between “incomplete processes” and “disciplined processes”. He lists

a number of characteristics for each category. Paulk (1995) also lists a number of “key management

features” for a complete and coherent process. Based on these philosophies, SPICE has developed a

number of “process enablers”.

Process enablers focus on results, which can be expected to be achieved from a key process. This is

a forward-looking approach, which indicates process capability before a process takes place. They

provide detail of features, which a key process must posses in order to yield successful results.

Ensuring that all the process enablers are in place, improves the performance and predictability of key

processes.

Process enablers are common across all the key processes. SPICE process enablers are listed

below:

§ Commitment - This criterion ensures that the organisation takes action to ensure that the process

is established and will endure. It typically involves establishing organisation policies. Some

processes require organisational sponsors or leaders. Commitment to perform ensures that

leadership positions are created and filled and the relevant organisational policy statements exist.

§ Ability - This describes the preconditions that must exist to implement the process competently. It

normally involves adequate resourcing, appropriate organisational structure, and training.

12

§ Verification - This verifies that the activities are performed in compliance with the process that

has been established. It emphasises the need for independent, external verification by management

and quality assurance.

§ Evaluation - This describes the basic internal process evaluation and reviews that are necessary.

These internal evaluations are used to control and improve the processes. During the early stages of

maturity, this translates into efforts by the team to improve their existing processes.

§ Activities - This describes the activities, roles and procedures necessary to implement processes. It

typically involves establishing plans and procedures, performing the work, tracking it, and taking

corrective action as necessary.

THE ASSESSMENT MECHANISM

The SPICE assessment mechanism ensures that each key process has reached capability by testing it

against the above “process enablers”. The assessment would generally comprise of three elements: a

questionnaire; interviews of key personnel; a document review.

The assessment team, review the results to establish whether each key process is 'capable'. This

process allows the assessment team to "hold a mirror in front of the project team". The findings are

shared with the project team, who use these results to plan improvement activities.

The combination of these key processes viewed as a whole, will place the organisation at a level of

process maturity in the model. An organisation can only be considered to be at a particular level in the

model if all the key processes are deemed capable at that level.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research is carried out in close collaboration with industry. A core steering group of 8 practitioners

and academics lead the research and findings are verified by continuous dissemination and exchange of

13

ideas with industry representatives. The research is presented to a bi-annual 'panel of experts'

workshops, where between 20-30 senior academics and industrialists provide discussion, feedback and

future directions.

The research approach can be classified as a ‘testing-out research’ due to the nature of theme. In

this type of research, the aim is trying to find the limits of previously proposed generalisations (in the

software sector) and, subsequently, specifying, modifying or clarifying their content (Starke 1995). As

a 'testing-out' research, it has to be carried out in ‘real world’ conditions where the kind of control

present in a laboratory is not feasible and not even ethically justifiable. Thus, it was decided to adopt a

case study research strategy, with multiple case study design.

Since the basic philosophies of SPICE were borrowed from the software industry, it is important to

ensure that construction is not "shoehorned" into software concepts. The research team developed a set

of success criteria for the SPICE concepts. The criteria was that the SPICE concepts and results would

be meaningful and of value to the construction teams, as well as to construction academics and senior

managers. At the end of each case study the SPICE results were shared with the project teams, to seek

if the results added value and are were for initiating improvements. Once the teams had understood and

agreed with the results, they are put to the panel of experts, to establish their validity with the

academics and senior industrialists.

Several case studies were conducted in two companies: (i) a large contracting firm, and (ii) a small

professional architectural practice. These case studies provide the facility to test the research proposals

in a live project environment. Figure 2 shows the project's iterative approach and output.

It is generally acknowledged that there are large gaps between industrial perspectives and

requirements, as opposed to the academic outlook (Brandon 1999). SPICE has been reasonably

successful in bridging some of the gaps. Some lessons learned from this collaborative approach are

discussed in Sarshar (1999b). In summary the construction professionals are comfortable with "hard"

14

management, as opposed to "soft" research management. Any changes to original research project

plans and re-thinking of concepts can be viewed by these professionals as poor project management,

which disrupts their business. The industrialists are thirsty for quick business returns and are impatient

with "thinking" phases of the project. It is important to manage the expectation of the industrialists, so

that the researchers have room to explore, and at the same time the industrialists can expect some

business benefits. Consequently, the research team developed an incremental hand over plan, from

research concepts to commercial packages, which is shown in figure 4. During the early stages of this

plan (i.e. "academic concepts" in figure 4), the industrialists should expect re-thinking and re-

examination of concepts. As these concepts take shape, the industrialists become more involved in the

development of commercial packaging of concepts. The project management is "soft" in the early

stages, and becomes increasingly "hard" as the concepts are handed over to industrialists.

The large contracting firm agreed in collaborating with the researchers, based on the plan in figure

4. This plan was shared with the relevant practitioners and project managers, to set expectations.

CASE STUDIES

Level 1 is the entry level to SPICE. Level 1 has no key processes and organisations at this level have

little process focus. Level 1 organisations must focus on implementing level 2 key processes. Hence the

process capability of an organisation is assessed against the key processes of levels 2 and above. The

researchers assessed two design and build projects against level 2 of the SPICE framework. Both

projects were in their construction phase.

The objectives of the case study were to: -

1) identify any process issues not addressed by the framework;

2) determine if the recommendations derived are meaningful;

3) to capture the experience of the project team; and

15

4) to test the effectiveness of the assessment mechanism.

The Assessment Process

The researchers introduced the model to senior project and contracts managers, in order to obtain their

commitment. They then briefed the project teams and conducted an assessment of the projects. The

project teams consisted of senior and middle managers, as well as practitioners representing all work

functions within the project. The assessment included questionnaires, interviews and a limited

document review. This approach is based on the CMM assessment approach (Zahran 1998).

The researchers analysed the data from the questionnaires, interviews and document reviews. A

traceability matrix was used to assist the research team in the collation of data for each of the

assessment tools employed, each finding being supported by multiple sources of data. For example, a

single finding may be supported by responses given in interviews with various members of staff and

from reviewing project documentation. By not relying on a single source of data, the likelihood of

errors was reduced. To ensure confidentiality, a matrix format, similar to figures 4, was used to present

an overview of the assessment results, therefore ensuring the findings cannot be attributed to a single

employee. The x-axis lists the key processes at level 2, the y-axis lists the process enablers. A clear cell

indicates a mature process capability, whilst a shaded cell highlights process weaknesses, hence

opportunities for improvement.

The question marks on figure 4, show areas where inconclusive evidence was found during the

assessment. In both case studies, the findings for ‘Brief and Scope of Work Management’ were

inconclusive, as this process focuses on the capture and management of client requirements, a process

that was performed in the pre-construction phase. The two case studies were undertaken too late in the

project life cycle to investigate this process. This led to the research finding that, during the assessment

of the construction phase of a project, the key process "Brief and Scope of Work Management" is

16

irrelevant and should be omitted. This key process must be analysed during the briefing and design

phases of a project.

The scope of the assessment did however include the management of changes to the brief, which is

addressed by the key process area "Project Change Management".

The researchers shared each matrix results with the relevant project team to confirm that it was a

true representation of the project. Based on this, the team could agree improvement priorities.

Case Study 1

This was a £6m project. The project was running behind schedule and profit expectation was poor.

However, it was viewed as a typical design and build project for the company. 12 project team

members participated in the assessment process.

The researchers developed results using data from each stage of the assessment process

(questionnaires, interviews and document reviews). The researchers highlighted strengths and

weaknesses for each key process area. A summary of the results can be found in a matrix, as in figure

4. The complete results were presented in detail to the project team, so that individual issues could be

discussed and lead to improvement suggestions.

The assessment highlighted a number of strengths. A review of project documentation revealed

that clear organisational directives and supporting procedures that provided guidance for performing

many of the process areas defined within the SPICE model. In addition, the questionnaires and

interviews confirmed that the project team contained many experienced and well-trained practitioners.

The capability of the project to plan the work, track performance and manage subcontractors was

strong.

However, the assessment also found a number of important weaknesses. The interviews revealed

many different perceptions about the project goals and critical success factors. Primarily this was due

17

to poor communication between senior management and practitioners performing the work, an issue

clearly highlighted by interviewing staff independently. This was resulting in confused priorities

amongst staff.

Although procedures existed, awareness of them was poor. Many practitioners used their

experience to improvise. Although such examples were sometimes effective, many of the procedures

in use were not recorded, leading to problems when responsibilities were transferred to other members

of staff. In particular there was no defined method for managing design changes. A new member of

staff that was assigned responsibility for this role was inadequately equipped to carry out this function.

This was compounded by the absence of any training for this role.

Although quality assurance audits were performed, issues of non-compliance were not actioned or

followed up. The value of quality assurance was not understood by some members of staff. The audits

were ineffective at ensuring compliance with company procedures.

The interviews also revealed that many of the staff were aware of improvements that needed to be

made. Although a mechanism for initiating change was available within the company procedures, it

was not visible to the project team, or driven by senior management. The team therefore made no

attempt to address problems.

All 12 members of the project team that participated in the case study attended a workshop to

review the strengths and weaknesses identified in the assessment. Some of the findings were queried

by individual members of the project team. Further discussions amongst the attendees confirmed that

the results as they stood, were an accurate representation of the project's process capability. The results

of the assessment provided a common and agreed basis from which to identify and plan improvements.

Due to the case study being performed near to project completion, it was too late to implement

improvements on that particular project. However, the improvements have been taken on board at a

regional level within the organisation and are to be implemented on future projects.

18

Case Study 2

This was a £55m P.F.I. (Private Finance Initiative) project. The project was one of the early P.F.I.

projects. The industry as a whole knew little about this procurement mechanism. At the start of the

project, it was classified as a high-risk project and consequently, the contractor had utilised a highly

experienced team of senior managers and practitioners. The project was running ahead of schedule and

was perceived as a successful project. The SPICE assessment was conducted in a similar manner to

case study 1. 15 project team members participated in the assessment, representing a cross section of

staff including senior management and practitioners. The case study results were analysed and

arranged in a matrix, as in figure 4.

This project was an example of good process practice. The assessment found that the team worked

towards common goals. The goals were clearly established at project commencement and effectively

communicated from senior management to all members of the project team. The project had tailored

organisational procedures and standards to meet their specific requirements at the start of the project.

These documented processes were implemented and were the basis for all management processes.

A quality assurance audit schedule was used as a basis for verifying that procedures were

complied. The value of this exercise was clearly understood by the majority of the project team.

Significantly, points of non-compliance were actively pursued by senior management and tracked until

resolution.

The major shortcoming highlighted by the assessment was that the processes were not reviewed on

a periodic basis by the project team, to identify potential improvements. Some managers took the view

that a live project does not have the time and resources for improvement efforts. Senior management

dismissed this view.

19

A project team workshop reviewed the results from the SPICE assessment. The project team

agreed with the findings and suggested a number of improvements to address the weaknesses

highlighted. The project team also saw value in the SPICE as a tool for capturing process strengths,

and transferring that knowledge to future projects.

Organisation wide process improvement and good practice transfer is the focus of level 3 of the

SPICE. This level has not been fully developed at this stage of the research.

As a consequence of this assessment, the company is investigating mechanisms for creating an

infrastructure to capture and share good practice throughout the organisation.

Panel of Experts Opinion

The case study findings were put to an industry panel of experts. Around 20 senior industrialists and

academics were represented on this panel. The panel found great potential value in the findings. The

major recommendation of the panel was that SPICE should not be purely a diagnostic tool. The

diagnostic matrix should be used to determine improvement priorities.

The senior project managers involved in SPICE recommend that SPICE should be used early, on

all large contracts. The industrial (panel and project teams') verdict to date, is that SPICE is more useful

to large projects, than to the small projects.

ANALYSIS OF FRAMEWORK

Benefits from using SPICE

The observed benefits of SPICE can be listed as:

§ SPICE creates a strong process focus within project teams.

§ The framework identifies process strengths as well as weaknesses.

20

§ The assessment time is relatively short. It takes around 3 days on site, whilst only requiring the

participation of the whole team for a briefing at the start of the assessment, and for a workshop to

discuss the findings and determine improvement priorities.

§ Though not part of the framework, the assessment process highlights cultural issues, as well as

evaluating process management.

§ SPICE creates a strong platform for discussing improvements and capturing implementation plans.

Improvements Required in SPICE

The improvements needed to the model are: -

§ The industrialists could not relate to some of the terminology. For example some sub-contractors

did not understand the key process “Brief Management”. The sub-contractors believed that they do

not manage a brief, but instead receive a scope of work. Hence this key process was changed to

"Brief and Scope of Work Management". The sub-contractors could understand and relate to this

key process.

§ SPICE is still a research tool, rather than an industrial product, hence some documentation is still

missing.

§ SPICE will be more beneficial if it is applied to all stages of the life cycle, as many of project

problems are typically locked in at pre-construction phases.

§ The key process “Risk Management” is sometimes confused with Health & Safety “Risk

Assessment”. The definition for this process requires more clarity. Therefore:

§ “Health & Safety Management” is identified as a new key process. This will be added to level 2.

This key process is not part of CMM’s original model, as it has no value in the software industry. In

construction, health & safety is of major importance and requires significant focus.

21

§ During the construction phase, the key process “Brief & Scope of Work Management” has no

specific meaning, as the brief has already been defined by this phase. The key process “Project

Change Management” becomes important, during the construction phase. Hence in the future

“Brief & Scope of Work Management” will be omitted from the SPICE questionnaire, during the

construction phase.

Observations Relating to the Assessment Process

The case study assessments were conducted by both assessors independent to the company and by

personnel from the company QA department. The case studies revealed that project staff were more

comfortable discussing process management and cultural issues when only the independent assessors

were present, hence more information was forthcoming. Interviews conducted with internal QA staff

present yielded less productive interviews.

As mentioned previously, to date, the project managers see SPICE as more suitable for use with

larger projects. SPICE concepts are applicable to small projects as well as large projects. This suggests

that the current assessment process is too resource consuming for smaller projects.

Future case studies will examine how to reduce the cost and time of SPICE assessment, while

maintaining its accuracy.

SUMMARY

This paper describes the concepts behind the SPICE project and explains its research methodology.

SPICE intends to develop a stepwise process improvement methodology for the construction industry.

This will be based on tailoring an existing successful model in the software industry, namely the

Capability Maturity Model (CMM). Due to complex supply chain arrangements in the construction

22

industry, the usability, value and meaning of SPICE needs to be tested against various supply chain

arrangements and procurement scenarios. This is shown in figure 2.

The research has conducted case studies on two design and build projects, in a single organisation,

during one phase of the life cycle (i.e. construction). The projects were tested against level 2 of the

framework.

The case studies have shown that SPICE: (i) creates process focus; (ii) is meaningful to project

teams; (iii) is a good process diagnostics tool; (iv) has a short assessment process; and (v) highlights

some cultural issues as well as process issues.

The recommendation for improvements to the framework are that: (i) the scope of SPICE needs to

be extended so that it is a comprehensive improvement tool; (ii) terminology of the framework needs

improvement; (iii) a key process “Health & Safety Management” must be added to level 2. (iv) the

definition of some key processes need clarity.

The research will continue to examine the applicability of SPICE to other phases of the life cycle

and also to supply chain issues.

23

REFERENCES

Brandon, P.S. et. al (1999) Engagement Leading to Enchantment, in Linking Construction IndustryNeeds and Construction Research Outputs. CRISP Consultancy Commission 98/1, London.

Egan, Sir J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. HMSO, London.Herbsleb, J. et al (1994) Software Process Improvement: State of the Payoff. American Programmer

September.Imai, M. (1998) Kaizen: The Key to Japan's Competitive Success. Mc-Graw-Hill, New York.Humphrey, W. "Managing the Software Process", Addison-Wesley, 1989.Latham, Sir M (1994) Constructing the Team. HMSO, London.Lillrank, P. (1995) The Transfer of Management Innovations From Japan. Organisation Studies,

Organization studies, Vol.16/6, pp. 971-989.Paulk, M. C. et al (1993) Capability Maturity Model for Software v 1.0. Software Engineering Institute,

Carnegie Mellon University.Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B. (1995) The Capability Maturity Model:

Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Massachusett.Saiedian, H., Kuzara, N. (1995) SEI Capability Maturity Model’s Impact on Contractors. IEEE

Computer, January.Sarshar, M., et. al. (1998) Standardised Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises (SPICE).

Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on Product and Process Modelling, Watford, UK.Sarshar (a), M., Finnemore, M., Haigh, R. (1999) SPICE: Is the Capability Maturity Model Applicable

in The Construction Industry, 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materialsand Components (CIB W78), May 30 - June 3, Vancouver, Canada

Sarshar (b), M., Haigh, R., Finnemore, M., Aouad, G., Barrett, P. (1999) Standardised ProcessImprovement For Construction Enterprises (SPICE): Research Methodology & Approach.Challenge of Change: Building & Construction in the New Millennium, Royal Institute ofChartered Surveyors (RICS) COBRA Annual Conference, Salford, UK, 1-2 Sept. 1999.

Starke, R.E., "The Art of Case Study Research", Thousand Oaks, Cali; London, Sage, 1995.Zahran, S. “Software Process Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business Success”, Addison-

Wesley 1998.

24

Figure 1 SPICE framework

Continuous process improvement,across the organisation

Quantitative process controlacross the organisation

Standard consistent processesacross the organisation

Disciplined processes foreach individual project

Level 5Optimising

Level 4Managed

Level 3Defined

Level 2Repeatable

Level 1Initial

25

Output

Frameworkhandbook &assessment tool

Industrialguidelinesbooklet

Seminars & clubmeetings onprocessimprovement

Literature Search &Reference to original

CMM

Steering Committee& Industrial 'Panel ofExperts' workshops

Evaluate viaquestionnaires &

case studies

Figure 2 Research Methodology

26

research concepts

research case studies

industrial case studies

industrial pilots

industrial uptake

academic led- investigation anddiscussion of open concepts, formulationof requirements.

academic led- 1-3 case studies; softproject management; by the end of thisstage the deliverables are 80%complete.

industry / academic led- 3-4 case studies;more rigid project management; investigationof roles and responsibilities and reportingstructures; by the end of this stage thedeliverables are 90%-95% complete.

industry led- completedocumentation & training programs;hard project management;framework ready for use.

Figure 3- An incremental approach to researchproject management and research uptake.

27

Key

?

Strength

Weakness

Not determined

Figure 4 Case Study Results Matrix

Brief & Scope Mgt.

Project PlanningProject Tracking

Subcontract Mgt.

Team Co-ordination

Risk Mgt.

Project Change Mgt.Process Enablers

Key Process Areas (Level 2)

CommitmentAbility

ActivitiesEvaluation

Verification

Case Study 2

?

?

?

?

?

Brief & Scope Mgt.

Project PlanningProject TrackingSubcontract M

gt.

Team Co-ordination

Risk Mgt.

Project Change Mgt.Process Enablers

Key Process Areas (Level 2)

CommitmentAbility

ActivitiesEvaluation

Verification

Case Study 1

?

?

?

?

?