The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.

com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

A method for performance brieng at the project inception stage

Jim Smith
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

Performance brieng

319
Received November 2004 Accepted February 2005

Peter E.D. Love

School of Management Information Systems, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Perth, Australia, and

Chris Heywood
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this article is to create a strategically positioned client performance brief with a clear and workable statement of the project requirements specied by a representative group of stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach The application describes the relocation of a library with community facilities with a local council. This action research study of the project inception stages used the process of strategic needs analysis (SNA). This approach uses a workshop setting involving stakeholders in identifying a range of strategic options for the project problem. The development of a range of realistic options was aided by the use of a problem- structuring computer program, Situation Structuring. Individual workshop participants then expressed their preferences for the nal options using a second software package (Strategizer) and after a short period for analysis the results were presented to a second workshop for discussion. The performance brief was then prepared to reect stakeholders and the workshops preferences. Findings The process involved is described with the development and selection of organizational strategic options with the council stakeholders. The creation and identication of user performance indicators to guide the design development process is illustrated and a sample from the nal performance brief is provided. The project is nearing completion and the local Council considers the process has been a success. Research limitations/implications The process described has been developed over six studies in varying client environments in Australia. Further studies are needed in client organisations with a rolling program of capital works to test the robustness of the approach described. Practical implications This work can assist the facilities manager to play an important role in the development of the initial performance-based brief during the project inception stage that can assist clients and guide the design team. Originality/value Establishing client needs during the formative stages of a project (before design commences) is becoming an increasingly important role for the facilities manager. This work presents a description of a process that provides the means for clients and facilities managers to ensure that their strategic needs are met within the dened project. Keywords Performance management, Strategic planning, Computer software, Libraries, Australia Paper type Research paper

Facilities Vol. 23 No. 7/8, 2005 pp. 319-329 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-2772 DOI 10.1108/02632770510600272

FAC 23,7/8

320

Introduction This study describes an approach to managing stakeholder needs and preparing a performance brief during the project inception process using a method referred to as Strategic Needs Analysis (SNA) (Smith et al., 1998, 2003; Wyatt et al., 2004) in a real-life project involving a new library facility. The authors designed and organised the process for the development of the performance brief. The evolution of the performance brief is explained, summarised and illustrated through the various stages. The authors decided to gain the assistance of two software packages, Situation Structuring and Strategizer. The former was used to create and develop participant-based strategic themes or elements, and to then coalesce them into the nal distinct options. Situation Structuring was created by Dickey (1995) and the software is described in Wyatt (1999). In essence, the software program and activities aim to combine diverse elements of a problem (people, places, objects) into coherent groups. This enables these simpler and more manageable groups to be considered one at a time. That is, the total problem is broken down into its major and distinctive elements and by carrying out such an analysis the author recognizes that there is a trade-off between simplicity and homogeneity (Dickey, 1995). The Situation Structuring process involves four distinct stages: (1) identication of major elements, or in our case strategic themes or directions (people, physical objects, emotions and the like) in the problem or situation; (2) using a repertory grid-like, trio-based method to generate important dimensions inherent within the situation, such as good-bad, new-old, healthy-sick and personal-impersonal; (3) rating (by the individual or group) of each element on each dimension; and (4) cluster analysis to group elements on the dimensions and so nd the most favourable balance between simplicity (few groups) and homogeneity (similarity of elements within groups). The repertory grid technique (derived from personal construct theory see Bannister and Fransella, 1986; Dalton and Dunnet, 1992, for an introduction) was developed by George A. Kelly (1955) as an instrument in clinical psychology for the elicitation of personal constructs. Dickey uses this simple knowledge elicitation approach to identify as small set of elements, the user (or users) is then asked to dene some constructs (or attributes) which characterise these elements and then allocate values for each element on a limited scale between two extremes (poles). The strength of the software lies in the last part, the clustering of related elements. The authors believed that such the process imposed by the Situation Structuring software could assist in grouping (or clustering) the whole range of participant identied themes derived from the workshop brainstorming session. These groupings would then form the basis of an agreed range of options for scoring using the second software package, Strategizer, at the end of the rst workshop. This software attempts to aid decision-making by making the options and the criteria for selection transparent. Individuals score each option independently and privately using the software installed on a laptop or a desktop computer. (For further information about Strategizer see Wyatt, 1999; Wyatt and Smith, 2000.) Situation Structuring software could thereby provide the important link and technical structure to the critical process of options development and agreement. In

addition to the adoption of Situation Structuring, the latest version of the Strategizer software was used to provide a means of scoring the options for the participants. Laptop computers allowed each participant to score and review their selections. Results from their choices are displayed to the participants on the laptop screen by the software after the individuals scoring is complete to provide immediate feedback and a comparison of their scoring and preferences. The performance brief study The rst discussions for the local council study began in late January 2000, when the authors made contact with the manager of Corporate Assets Division of the local council, who are responsible for library provision within a particular district. The area covered by this council was in the eastern part of Melbourne, lying around ten kilometres from the CBD, making it a middle suburb of Melbourne. The Corporate Assets Manager felt that SNA workshops would be useful in identifying the nature of the proposed complex with its potential uses involving a range of stakeholders who may be able to identify new opportunities for the new Centre at this critical stage in the planning and development stage of the project. The new facility would replace a leased shopfront in a neighbourhood-shopping strip (now termed urban village) that was experiencing a downturn in trade due to the location (3 kms distant) of a regional shopping centre, which dominated the area. The new facility provided the opportunity to regenerate the locality and the attractiveness of the shopping area and to consolidate and improve council services in the neighbourhood. The Council had appointed an architect to prepare preliminary plans of the proposed development prior to the completion of the Library Facilities Review in 1999, in the municipality. Two diagrammatic plans of the library had been prepared; a site location plan, adjoining properties and proposed facilities, and a oor plan indicating sizes and location of the various proposed spaces on the site. Aim The Manager of Corporate Assets was keen to use SNA as a means of clarifying the potential uses and users of the Library and Community Facilities. He recognized that this was an opportunity to encourage stakeholder involvement and generate ideas and commitment to the project. Recognition of library and community facilities within a neighbourhood shopping area (Urban Village) as a key attractor and generator of customer activity played an important part in opening the planning process to stakeholders in this type of workshop setting. The aim was to develop a strategy that would take into account the needs and opportunities available from developing a site in the Urban Village. The wide ranging review required by SNA would involve a number of stakeholders from which the Corporate Assets Division (in conjunction with the author) could eventually prepare a performance brief for the agreed strategy. Stakeholders The Corporate Assets Manager organized the number and type of participants invited to attend the workshops. Four divisions within the Council were represented; Corporate Assets, City Development, Business Development and Human Services. There were 15 participants in workshop one and 13 in workshop two. The authors organised the

Performance brieng

321

FAC 23,7/8

workshops, acted as facilitators, organised the use of the software and analysed the stakeholder views for presenting during the workshops.

322

Workshop One The process in workshop one consisted of the following steps: (1) identify all stakeholder concerns (elements); (2) rene list of concerns; (3) identify extreme dimensions of each concern; (4) rate each concern on the agreed dimension; (5) group related concerns using Situation Structuring software; (6) identify options arising out of grouped concerns; (7) describe and agree content of stakeholder concerns under each option heading; and (8) score options using Strategizer software. The participants were encouraged to identify their concerns about the project. No attempt was made at this stage to limit the concerns. Some 15 rened stakeholder concerns were developed, measured and analysed by the group within the Situation Structuring software (Dickey, 1995; Wyatt, 1999). This analysis produced three groups of linked or related concerns. The titles agreed by the participants for these related groups were: (1) Workable; (2) Council perspectives; and (3) Community satisfaction. The groups were summarised under these working titles with the related concerns or characteristics listed. In addition, the group decided to add additional descriptive keywords that attempted to capture the essence of that grouping of concerns and to provide a focus for understanding the difference between the options. The three major groupings taken with their common concerns are summarised in Table I.

Option 1 Workable Efcient, effective, pragmatic Service delivery Flexibility Sustainability Security Interrelationship between uses Effectiveness of individual service

Option 2 Council perspectives Building statement, civic presence, best practice Prole Extent of commercial uses Council viability Environmental efciency Commercial viability

Option 3 Community satisfaction Integration, belonging Sensitivity Community ownership Accessibility Diversity Interrelationship between uses

Table I. The strategic options

Scoring the options An integral part of Strategizer is the use of ten strategic-level universal criteria in the assessment of the alternatives. Each criterion is designed to encapsulate a characteristic of the alternative being scored. The lack of detail (or abstraction) of the named criteria may be criticised as being too imprecise. The criteria represent a universal means of analysing any option or alternative particularly at the strategic level (Wyatt, 1999). The criteria also attempt to represent a balance. Too much detail is inappropriate for this stage. On the other hand, if a criterion is too vague then the participants cannot measure it realistically. However, prior studies and workshops have shown a high level of acceptance and understanding of the criteria exists among participants. The workshop also discussed the inclusion of a number of wildcard options to test the demand for non-conventional approaches. Two were eventually included in the nal options and the nal list of options scored by all workshop participants in the Strategizer software at the end of the workshop were: (1) workable; (2) council perspectives; (3) community satisfaction; (4) high rise; and (5) transportation hub. Participants then scored each of the ve options privately and individually on the Strategizer software. The scoring process brought workshop one to an end. Between workshops the facilitators analysed the participants scoring and identied any trends in common groups (male, female, age groups, for instance) or preferences for the criteria used in scoring the options. A summary of the process and activities in Workshop One leading up to workshop two is shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 also indicates that the late entrant options, High Rise and Transport hub did not fare well in the scoring. They have high negative scores and compared to the other three options (with positive scores) cannot be considered as serious options in any nal analysis. The results also did not show conclusive evidence of any one of the rst three options of Workable, Council and Community being clearly favoured. In Workshop Two the group discussed and reviewed the analysis in Figure 2 and agreed that it fairly represented the groups order of priorities in their stakeholder concerns. The group then agreed that the stakeholder concerns developed at the start of Workshop One (see Table I) provided a sound basis for developing the specic Performance Criteria for the proposed project. Stakeholder concerns were then scored through a process of pair-wise comparison using the whole group to make decisions using a projected computer screen with the facilitators acting as moderators. So, the facilitators worked methodically through each stakeholder concern matching it with every other stakeholder concern and gaining the groups approval as to which was superior, or equivalent, to its paired alternative. The scoring is shown in Table II and is based on a ten-point scale (0-9) as noted in the Table. Rather than give each of the performance criteria a single priority it was decided to group the concerns (now termed performance criteria) into three levels of priority; high (key), moderate (essential) and low (signicant). These are shown in Table III.

Performance brieng

323

FAC 23,7/8

324

Figure 1. Activities in Workshop One

Figure 2. Options scores: all participants

The performance brief The performance brief was prepared based on these criteria. The draft brief was prepared within one week of the completion of the workshops and sent to the client for additional council and service department detail to be provided by the participants.

Element 0 4 5 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 0 5 0 4 5 4 2 2 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 1 4 5 0 5 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 5 3 3 1 5 4 4 0 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 5 5 5 5 0 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 1 7 7 6 8 5 0 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 1 0 6 7 6 5 5 5 0 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 2 7 5 6 5 5 5 4 0 3 4 5 4 4 5 2 6 5 6 5 5 6 4 6 0 4 5 4 4 4 1 6 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 0 4 4 4 4 4 6 5 7 5 6 5 5 4 4 5 0 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 0 5 4 3 7 7 6 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 0 4 3 5 7 6 6 7 8 6 4 5 5 5 5 5 0 2

O 9 8 8 7 8 9 7 7 8 5 5 5 6 7 0

P 84 81 78 77 75 67 62 61 61 58 58 55 52 48 26

Services Accessibility Security Council viability Effectiveness Relationships Flexibility Urb. design Community Sustain Diversity Env. Efciency Commercial viability Prole Comm. uses

Notes: 9 = overwhelmingly more; 8 = signicantly more; 7 = a lot more; 6 = more; 5 = slightly more; 4 = slightly less; 3 = less; 2 = a lot less; 1 = signicantly less; 0 = overwhelmingly less. A = Services; B = Accessibility; C = Security; D = Council viability; E = Effectiveness; F = Relationships; G = Flexibility; H = Urban design; I = Community; J = Sustainability; K = Diversity; L = Env. efciency; M = Commercial viability; N = Prole; O = Community uses; P = Total scores

Performance brieng

325

Table II. Summary of group scoring of stakeholder concerns

FAC 23,7/8

Priority 1. Key performance criteria:

Criteria Service delivery Accessibility Security Council viability Effectiveness of individual service Interrelationship between uses Flexibility Community ownership Sensitivity of urban design Diversity Sustainability Environmental efciency Commercial viability Prole of building Extent of commercial uses

326
2. Essential performance criteria:

3. Signicant performance criteria: Table III. Priority levels and performance criteria

The detail on each criterion provided by participants in the workshop provided the basis for the detail included in this performance brief. The performance brief was used to keep all service departments and the councillors informed of the type and extent of the various facilities in the new project. Once the project architects were appointed the performance brief was used as the basis of development of the more detailed project brief as part of the design approach and was a key reference document for stakeholders to assess the nature and extent of the facilities provision for their activities. The brief also provided for the possibility of community and commercial facilities to be included in the built facility. A sample from the nal brief is provided as an Appendix (Figure A1). The highest scoring of the key criteria, service delivery, provides a good example of the style and content of the performance brief. The library project with a range of community services were integrated into the design and construction will commence in mid-2004 and is expected to be completed in mid-2005. The council ofcers in the property assets division consider this project to be the most successful major capital works project to be delivered by the Council. In their view, the major contributing factor to this success has been the development of the performance brief by the stakeholders who have been able to closely follow the development of the project through its planning, detail design and construction stages.
References Bannister, D. and Fransella, F. (1986), Inquiring Man: The Psychology of Personal Constructs, 3rd ed., Croom Helm, London. Dalton, P. and Dunnet, G. (1992), A Psychology for Living: Personal Construct Psychology for Professionals and Clients, Wiley, London. Dickey, J.W. (1995), Cyberquest: Conceptual Background and Experiences, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.

Kelly, G.A. (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. 2, Norton, New York, NY. Smith, J. and Wyatt, R. (1998), Criteria for strategic decision making at the pre-brieng stage, Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management, University of Reading, Reading, 9-11 September, Vol. 1, pp. 300-9. Smith, J., Wyatt, R. and Jackson, N. (2003), A method for strategic client brieng, Facilities, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 203-11. Wyatt, R. (1999), Computer-aided Policy Making: Lessons from Strategic Planning Software, E. & F.N. Spon, London. Wyatt, R. and Smith, J. (2000), Digital simulation of option-choice behaviour, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 331-54. Wyatt, R., Smith, J. and Love, P.E.D. (2004), Philosophical differences: the case of the architects reluctance to use strategic planning software, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 127-42. The appendix follows overleaf.

Performance brieng

327

FAC 23,7/8

Appendix. Workshop Two Figure A1 summarises the details of the scoring for each option from Workshop One.

328

Figure A1.

Performance brieng

329

Figure A1.